Religious attribution

Last updated

Religious attribution in social psychology refers to how individuals use religious explanations in order to explain or understand a particular experience or event that otherwise could not be understood by natural causes.  

Contents

The term religious Attribution is derived from the more general attribution theory of social psychology, which seeks to explain human interpretations and understandings of events and circumstances. The Attribution process is motivated by a desire to perceive events in the world as meaningful, and the desire to predict or control events. [1]

There are several examples of religious interpretation being used to explain events. These include: The mercy and justice of God, the devil, religious rituals, and effective or ineffective prayers. [2] A miracle is an example of an event that is often attributed to supernatural causality due to the lack of natural or scientific explanation.

Types of religious attributions

Naturalistic attributions

Also known as natural kinds or naturalism, naturalistic attributions are an individual's explanation and understanding of events that match their intuition of how the world works. These events are explained by natural causes. [3] The simplest way to explain something as being religiously attributed (or supernatural) is because it violates the expectations of naturalist attribution that cannot be explained.

Religious attributions

Events and circumstances are more likely to be given a religious attribution when the said events and circumstances cannot be explained by naturalistic attributions.  Scholars in the field of cognitive science of religion study religious thought and behavior, like religious attribution, from the perspective of cognitive science.

The likelihood of choosing a religious attribution rather than a naturalistic attribution for a particular experience or event is determined by an individual's need for meaning, a sense of control over events, and the individual's self-esteem. [1]   The Religious Attribution process gives individuals a greater sense of control over events than naturalistic attributions when there are threats to life and security- the simple idea of having faith gives people a greater sense of control over outcomes. Religious attribution also gives individuals self-esteem in the form of personal security, often including a general side toward self-enhancement. [1]

Different event characteristics will influence whether or not an individual chooses between religious and naturalistic attributions. These characteristics include the degree to which an event can be explained with an individual's current belief system, the degree to which religious and naturalistic attributions seem to be effective, and the degree to which religious and naturalistic explanations represent sources of self-esteem in an individual. [1] Another effect on the religious attribution process is group pressure and the extent to which other people in such a setting directly or indirectly encourage or discourage the use of religious attributions. [1]

Use

Use of religious attribution stems from basic motivational themes that underlie much religious thinking and behavior—the human need for meaning, control and esteem. [4] The nature of people makes us "need to know" things, and we need for control and mastery of our lives. Research suggests people assign causality to maintain and enhance their self-esteem. Attributions are triggered when meanings and control are unclear, and self-esteem is challenged. [4]

Influences

Situational factors that combine and intertwine play a significant role in the prevalence and use of religious attribution. These situational influences fall into the broad categories of contextual factors and event-character factors. Contextual factors are concerned with the degree to which situations are religiously structured i.e. was the person at church? In deep prayer? Event character factors are concerned with the nature of the event. Research on contextual factors found the salience of religion in general seems to be the largest influence. This suggests the availability heuristic is important and that religious influence in situations increases the probability of making religious attributions. [5]

Importance of event

People attribute things that are beyond their control, such as the death of a loved one and natural disasters, to God. All of these things can be explained with religious attribution by saying it is God's will. Science cannot answer questions like "why me", which people seem to ask whenever something momentous happens in their lives. [4]

Positivity vs. negativity of event

Positivity and negativity of an event are important to consider because people often attribute events to God but do not often blame God for negative occurrences. [6] Attributions to God are overwhelmingly positive. [7]

Event domain

Event domains are important when explaining attribution. Some domains are "ready made" for the application of secular understanding while others seem more appropriate for invoking religious possibilities; for example medical situations elicit more religious attributions than other social or economic circumstances. [4]

Personal relevance

Events occur to the person are much more personally important than when they happen to others. A person may be upset or deeply concerned when something bad happens to a friend but may ask "why me" when he or she is the centre of the event. If something good happens for someone else, like a lottery win, we may say "well that is lucky" and be happy for the person. A positive event that happens to a person may be interpreted as "God looking out for me"; personal relevance elicits more religious attribution. [7]

Historical Examples

Emperor Constantine

Emperor Constantine was instituted as the Emperor of Rome in 306 AD. [8] He became Emperor during a time of conflict and civil war in the Roman Empire. Due to this fact, he was engaged in several civil wars across Rome. He was fighting his brother in law Maxentius who had taken possession of Rome According to a biography written by Eusebius, Constantine was unsure of which god to pray to for guidance. He chose to pray to his father's god who he said had helped him when other gods had failed. That same day, Constantine and his army witnessed a cross shaped glowing symbol over the sun with the words written next to it: "By This Conquer." [9] Constantine was unsure how to interpret this sight at the time. According to Eusebius, Constantine had a vision that night. In the vision, Jesus Christ appeared and told him to use the cross as a symbol of protection against his enemies. [9] Constantine obeyed this vision and ordered all of his soldiers to use the symbol of the cross. His army was then victories at the Battle of Milvian Bridge where he defeated Maxentius. Constantine then attributed this victory to the divine intervention of the Christian God and proceeded to make Christianity the national religion of Rome. [8]

Christopher Columbus

Christopher Columbus was a European explorer who set out on a voyage in 1492-1493 to discover new land beyond the European seas. He found success in his voyages and colonized various parts of the Americas and the Caribbean. Christopher Columbus was a Catholic and attributed his success not based solely on his own skills as a sailor, but to God for blessing his voyage. [10] Columbus was quoted to have said: "I have seen and truly I have studied all books–cosmographies, histories, chronicles, and philosophies, and other arts, for which our Lord unlocked my mind, sent me upon the sea, and gave me fire for the deed. Those who heard of my emprise called it foolish, mocked me, and laughed. But who can doubt but that the Holy Ghost inspired me?" [11]

Users

People who attend church frequently, have knowledge in their faith, and hold importance of faith highly are more likely to rely more heavily on religious attribution than would people who are less religious. The more conservatively religious or orthodox the home and family in which a person is reared, the greater the person's likelihood of using religious attributions later in life. [12] Some research claims Protestants will turn to internal or religious attribution more often than more-orthodox Catholics on average. [13]

Self-esteem and locus of control

Religion has a relationship with self-esteem and locus of control. In general, people with high self-esteem relate more positive and loving images to God whereas people with low self-esteem may not do this because they feel God has been unloving and cold to them. [7] Locus of control is explained with two modes. The deferring mode, where people believe all power resides with God, would be a low locus of control. In the self-directive mode, the person is active and God plays a passive role in which they share power. People who use the latter mode tend to draw stronger associations to God then do people with low locus of control. [4]

Related Research Articles

Personality psychology is a branch of psychology that examines personality and its variation among individuals. It aims to show how people are individually different due to psychological forces. Its areas of focus include:

In social psychology, fundamental attribution error, also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect, is a cognitive attribution bias where observers underemphasize situational and environmental factors for the behavior of an actor while overemphasizing dispositional or personality factors. In other words, observers tend to overattribute the behaviors of others to their personality and underattribute them to the situation or context. Although personality traits and predispositions are considered to be observable facts in psychology, the fundamental attribution error is an error because it misinterprets their effects.

Learned helplessness is the behavior exhibited by a subject after enduring repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. It was initially thought to be caused by the subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, by way of their discontinuing attempts to escape or avoid the aversive stimulus, even when such alternatives are unambiguously presented. Upon exhibiting such behavior, the subject was said to have acquired learned helplessness.

Psychology of religion consists of the application of psychological methods and interpretive frameworks to the diverse contents of religious traditions as well as to both religious and irreligious individuals. The various methods and frameworks can be summarized according to the classic distinction between the natural-scientific and human-scientific approaches. The first cluster amounts to objective, quantitative, and preferably experimental procedures for testing hypotheses about causal connections among the objects of one's study. In contrast, the human-scientific approach accesses the human world of experience using qualitative, phenomenological, and interpretive methods. This approach aims to discern meaningful, rather than causal, connections among the phenomena one seeks to understand.

Actor–observer asymmetry is a bias one makes when forming attributions about the behavior of others or themselves. When people judge their own behavior, they are more likely to attribute their actions to the particular situation than to their personality. However, when an observer is explaining the behavior of another person, they are more likely to attribute this behavior to the actors' personality rather than to situational factors.

In psychology, an attribution bias or attributional errors is a cognitive bias that refers to the systematic errors made when people evaluate or try to find reasons for their own and others' behaviors. It refers to the systematic patterns of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment, often leading to perceptual distortions, inaccurate assessments, or illogical interpretations of events and behaviors.

A self-serving bias is any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner. It is the belief that individuals tend to ascribe success to their own abilities and efforts, but ascribe failure to external factors. When individuals reject the validity of negative feedback, focus on their strengths and achievements but overlook their faults and failures, or take more credit for their group's work than they give to other members, they are protecting their self-esteem from threat and injury. These cognitive and perceptual tendencies perpetuate illusions and error, but they also serve the self's need for esteem. For example, a student who attributes earning a good grade on an exam to their own intelligence and preparation but attributes earning a poor grade to the teacher's poor teaching ability or unfair test questions might be exhibiting a self-serving bias. Studies have shown that similar attributions are made in various situations, such as the workplace, interpersonal relationships, sports, and consumer decisions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Locus of control</span> Concept in psychology

Locus of control is the degree to which people believe that they, as opposed to external forces, have control over the outcome of events in their lives. The concept was developed by Julian B. Rotter in 1954, and has since become an aspect of personality psychology. A person's "locus" is conceptualized as internal or external.

Explanatory style is a psychological attribute that indicates how people explain to themselves why they experience a particular event, either positive or negative.

Self-knowledge is a term used in psychology to describe the information that an individual draws upon when finding answers to the questions "What am I like?" and "Who am I?".

Attribution is a term used in psychology which deals with how individuals perceive the causes of everyday experience, as being either external or internal. Models to explain this process are called Attribution theory. Psychological research into attribution began with the work of Fritz Heider in the early 20th century, and the theory was further advanced by Harold Kelley and Bernard Weiner. Heider first introduced the concept of perceived 'locus of causality' to define the perception of one's environment. For instance, an experience may be perceived as being caused by factors outside the person's control (external) or it may be perceived as the person's own doing (internal). These initial perceptions are called attributions. Psychologists use these attributions to better understand an individual's motivation and competence. The theory is of particular interest to employers who use it to increase worker motivation, goal orientation, and productivity.

The evolutionary psychology of religion is the study of religious belief using evolutionary psychology principles. It is one approach to the psychology of religion. As with all other organs and organ functions, the brain's functional structure is argued to have a genetic basis, and is therefore subject to the effects of natural selection and evolution. Evolutionary psychologists seek to understand cognitive processes, religion in this case, by understanding the survival and reproductive functions they might serve.

The ultimate attribution error is a type of attribution error which describes how attributions of outgroup behavior are more negative than ingroup behavior. As a cognitive bias, the error results in negative outgroup behavior being more likely to be attributed to factors internal and specific to the actor, such as personality, and the attribution of negative ingroup behavior to external factors such as luck or circumstance. The bias reinforces negative stereotypes and prejudice about the outgroup and favouritism of the ingroup through positive stereotypes. The theory also extends to the bias that positive acts performed by ingroup members are more likely a result of their personality.

An individual's or community's religious orientation involves presumptions about the existence and nature of God or gods, religious prescriptions about morality and communal and personal spirituality. Such presumptions involve the study of psychology, ethics, sociology and anthropology.

Core self-evaluations (CSE) represent a stable personality trait which encompasses an individual's subconscious, fundamental evaluations about themselves, their own abilities and their own control. People who have high core self-evaluations will think positively of themselves and be confident in their own abilities. Conversely, people with low core self-evaluations will have a negative appraisal of themselves and will lack confidence. The concept of core self-evaluations was first examined by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) and involves four personality dimensions: locus of control, neuroticism, generalized self-efficacy, and self-esteem. The trait developed as a dispositional predictor of job satisfaction, but has expanded to predict a variety of other outcomes. Core self-evaluations are particularly important because they represent a personality trait which will remain consistent over time. Furthermore, the way in which people appraise themselves using core self-evaluations has the ability to predict positive work outcomes, specifically, job satisfaction and job performance. These relationships have inspired increasing amounts of research on core self-evaluations and suggest valuable implications about the importance this trait may have for organizations.

Most scientists agree that religiosity is not an independent personality trait, despite there being some commonality between their characteristics. Religiosity and personality traits both relate to one's feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. However, unlike for personality, one's level of religiosity is often measured by the presence or lack of belief in and relationship with a higher power, certain lifestyles or behaviors adopted for a higher power, and a sense of belonging with other followers of one's religion. Additionally, personality traits tend to follow a normal distribution, such that the majority of individuals' scores for a personality trait will be concentrated towards the middle, rather than being extremely high or low. Distributions for religiosity, however, follow a non-normal distribution, such that there are more individuals who score particularly high or low on religiosity scales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Optimism</span> Positive mental attitude

Optimism is an attitude reflecting a belief or hope that the outcome of some specific endeavor, or outcomes in general, will be positive, favorable, and desirable. A common idiom used to illustrate optimism versus pessimism is a glass filled with water to the halfway point: an optimist is said to see the glass as half full, while a pessimist sees the glass as half empty.

Puritanical bias refers to the tendency to attribute cause of an undesirable outcome or wrongdoing by an individual to a moral deficiency or lack of self control rather than taking into account the impact of broader societal determinants. An example might be, "These people sit around all day in their apartments on welfare watching TV, but won't take the time to get out and find a job!" In this case, a selection of persons might have existed for some time under dire economic and/or socially oppressive circumstances, but individuals from that selection have been cognitively dis-empowered by these circumstances to decide or act on decisions to obtain a given goal.

Attributions for poverty is a theory concerned with what people believe about the causes of poverty. These beliefs are defined in terms of attribution theory, which is a social psychological perspective on how people make causal explanations about events in the world. In forming attributions, people rely on the information that is available to them in the moment, and their heuristics, or mental shortcuts. When considering the causes of poverty, people form attributions using the same tools: the information they have and mental shortcuts that are based on their experiences. Consistent with the literature on heuristics, people often rely on shortcuts to make sense of the causes of their own behavior and that of others, which often results in biased attributions. This information leads to perceptions about the causes of poverty, and in turn, ideas about how to eradicate poverty.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 Spilka, Bernard; Shaver, Phillip R.; Kirkpatrick, Lee A. (2019-05-20), "A General Attribution Theory for the Psychology of Religion", in Spilka, Bernard; McIntosh, Daniel N. (eds.), The Psychology of Religion (1 ed.), Routledge, pp. 153–170, doi:10.4324/9780429495915-12, ISBN   978-0-429-49591-5, S2CID   222281064
  2. ↑ Spilka, Bernard; Shaver, Phillip; Kirkpatrick, Lee A. (1985). "A General Attribution Theory for the Psychology of Religion". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 24 (1): 1–20. doi:10.2307/1386272. ISSN   0021-8294. JSTOR   1386272.
  3. ↑ "Definition of NATURALISM". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2021-11-23.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 Ralph W. Hood Jr.; Peter C. Hill; Bernard Spilka (2009). The psychology of religion: an empirical approach (4th ed.). New York: Guilford Press. ISBN   978-1-60623-303-0.
  5. ↑ Susan T. Fiske; Shelley E. Taylor (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN   0-07-021191-4.
  6. ↑ Bulman; Wortman (1977). "Attributions of blame and coping in the real world: Severe accident victims react to their lot". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35 (5): 351–363. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.5.351. PMID   874739.
  7. 1 2 3 Lupfer; Brock; DePaola (1992). "The use of secular and religious attributions to explain everyday behavior". Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 31 (4): 486–503. doi:10.2307/1386858. JSTOR   1386858.
  8. 1 2 "Constantine—facts and information". Culture. 2019-02-25. Archived from the original on March 3, 2021. Retrieved 2021-11-18.
  9. 1 2 Lardinois, André; van der Poel; Hunink, Vincent, eds. (2006-02-28). Land of Dreams. Brill. doi:10.1163/9789047409281. ISBN   978-90-04-15061-4.
  10. ↑ NA, NA (2016-09-23). Christopher Columbus and the Enterprise of the Indies: A Brief History with Documents. Springer. ISBN   978-1-137-08059-2.
  11. ↑ Wasserman, J., 1929. Columbus: Don Quixote of the Sea. 1st ed. Germany, pp.19-20,46.
  12. ↑ McGuire, Meredith B. (2002). Religion, the social context (5th ed.). Belmont (CA): Wadsworth Thomson Learning. ISBN   0-534-54126-7.
  13. ↑ Li, Yexin Jessica; Johnson, Kathryn A.; Cohen, Adam B.; Williams, Melissa J.; Knowles, Eric D.; Chen, Zhansheng (1 January 2012). "Fundamental(ist) attribution error: Protestants are dispositionally focused". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 102 (2): 281–290. doi:10.1037/a0026294. PMID   22082060.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.