Among other things, the Ideological Surround Model (ISM) argues that greater objectivity can be achieved through an empiricism that brings emic religious and etic social scientific perspectives into formal dialog. In this project, 421 undergraduates responded to a Christian Religious Reflection Scale along with an etic Religious Fundamentalism and an emic Biblical Foundationalism scale. Christian Religious Reflection proved to be polarized with Faith and Intellect Oriented factors correlating negatively. Faith Oriented Reflection, Religious Fundamentalism, and Biblical Foundationalism displayed negative linkages with Quest and Openness to Experience. Intellect Oriented Reflection was incompatible with Christian commitments and predicted higher Quest and Openness to Experiences. Statistical controls for the etic language of Religious Fundamentalism demonstrated that the emic language of Biblical Foundationalism could support both Faith and Intellect Oriented epistemologies and was not incompatible with Quest or Openness to Experience. Participants displayed higher scores on Biblical Foundationalism than on Religious Fundamentalism. These data illustrated how a dialogical empiricism can promote objectivity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltemeyerB., & HunsbergerB. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113–133.
2.
BaronR. M., & KennyD. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
3.
BatsonC. D., & SchoenradeP. (1991a). Measuring religion as quest: 1) Validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 416–429.
4.
BatsonC. D., & SchoenradeP. (1991b). Measuring religion as quest: 2) Reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430–447.
5.
BatsonC. D., SchoenradeP., & VentisW. L. (1993). Religion and the individual. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
BergerP. L., & LuckmannT. (1966). The social construction of reality.Garden City, NJ: Anchor Books.
7.
BurrV. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism.London: Routledge.
8.
DoverH., MinerM., & DowsonM. (2007). The nature and structure of Muslim religious reflection. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 2, 189–210.
9.
EricksonM. J. (2001). Truth or consequences.Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
10.
GhorbaniN., WatsonP. J., & KhanZ. (2007). Theoretical, empirical, and potential ideological dimensions of using Western conceptualizations to measure Muslim religious commitments. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 2, 113–131.
11.
GhorbaniN., WatsonP. J., RezazadehZ., & CunninghamC. J. L. (in press). Dialogical validity of religious measures in Iran: Relationships with integrative self-knowledge and self-control of the “perfect man” (ensān-e kāmel). Archives for the Psychology of Religion.
12.
GhorbaniN., WatsonP. J., ShamohammadiK., & CunninghamC. J. L. (2009). Post-critical beliefs in Iran: Predicting religious and psychological functioning. In LeachM. M. (Guest Editor, Special issue: Islam and Mental Health). Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 20, 151–194.
13.
GoldbergL. R., JohnsonJ. A., EberH. W., HoganR., AshtonM. C., CloningerC. R., & GoughH. C. (2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84–96.
14.
GorsuchR. L., & McPhersonS. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348–354.
15.
HeadlandT. N., PikeK. L., & HarrisM. (Eds.). (1990). Emics and etics.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
16.
HoodR. W.Jr., HillP. C., & WilliamsonW. P. (2005). The psychology of religious fundamentalism.New York: Guilford Press.
17.
HuL.-T., & BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
18.
HunsbergerB. (1996). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and hostility toward homosexuals in non-Christian religious groups. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6, 39–49.
19.
HunsbergerB., PrattM., & PancerS. M. (1994). Religious fundamentalism and integrative complexity of thought: A relationship for existential content only?Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 335–346.
20.
KhanZ. H., & WatsonP. J. (2010). Ramadan experience and behavior: Relationships with religious orientation among Pakistani Muslims. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 32, 147–167.
21.
MacIntyreA. (1978). Against the self-images of the age.Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
22.
MacIntyreA. (1990). Three rival versions of moral enquiry.Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
23.
NietzscheF. (2000). On the genealogy of morals. In KaufmannW. (Ed.) Basic Writings of Nietzsche (pp. 451–599). New York: Random House. (Original work published in 1887)
24.
WatsonP. J. (1993). Apologetics and ethnocentrism: Psychology and religion within an ideological surround. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 1–20.
25.
WatsonP. J. (2004). After postmodernism: Perspectivism, a Christian epistemology of love, and the ideological surround. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32, 248–261.
26.
WatsonP. J. (2006). Friends of the Truth, violence, and the ideological surround: Social science as meetings for clearness. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 28, 123–132.
27.
WatsonP. J., (2008a). Faithful translation, ideological perspectives, and dimensions of Christian psychology beyond postmodernism. Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology, 2(1), 51–62.
28.
WatsonP. J., (2008b). Faithful translation and postmodernism: Norms and linguistic relativity within a Christian ideological surround. Edification: Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology, 2(1), 5–18.
29.
WatsonP. J. (in press). Whose psychology? Which rationality? Christian Psychology within an ideological surround after postmodernism. Journal of Psychology and Christianity.
30.
WatsonP. J., SawyersP., MorrisR. J., CarpenterM., JimenezR. S., JonasK. A., & RobinsonD. L. (2003). Reanalysis within a Christian ideological surround: Relationships of intrinsic religious orientation with fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31, 315–328.
31.
WestmanA. S., WillinkJ., & McHoskeyJ. W. (2000). On perceived conflicts between religion and science: The role of fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism. Psychological Reports, 86, 379–385.
32.
WestphalM. (1998). Suspicion and faith.New York: Fordham University Press.
33.
WestphalM. (2009). Whose community? Which interpretation?Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
