Psychology of Religion Approaches to the Study of Religious Experience

Abstract

Religious experience played a prominent role in the psychological study of religion in the early decades of the twentieth-century, then waned as behaviorist and quantitative approaches became more prominent, and reemerged in the second half of the twentieth century alongside, and largely distinct from, mystical experience and, more recently, spirituality. Compared to the past, current research places less stress on sudden subjective experiences and more on ordinary (spiritual) experiences and gradual (spiritual) transformations that can take place in the context of practices or everyday life (struggle and coping). Ralph Hood, who is widely recognized as the leading expert in this area, makes a sharp distinction between religious and spiritual experiences, which must be defined by individuals and/or traditions, and mystical experience, which he views as a cross-culturally stable experiential core of religion and spirituality. Consideration of research on religious, mystical, anomalous, and pathological experiences, however, highlights considerable overlap between them and a lack of attention to the processes whereby they are differentiated within and across cultures. Researchers are developing new measures that separate experiences and appraisals, as well as new methods for ensuring that respondents understand queries in the way researchers intend. These innovations should allow us to better understand the effects of culture and tradition on the way unusual experiences are constituted in the context of everyday life.

Behaviorism Psychology Approach in Quranic Studies

“…Behaviorism approach to religion studies focuses on the religious experience of its adherents (Taves, 2020). Religious experiences are then linked with emotions, thoughts, behaviors, relationships, and the like that are explicitly related to religious experiences (Paloutzian & Park, 2005).…”

Dynamics of Digital Media Use in Religious Communities—A Theoretical Model

“…The first dyad includes digital religious media and the religious meaning system. With the communication of religious symbols, ideas, and attitudes (Hjarvard 2012;Fischer-Nielsen 2012), digital religious media can shape a religious meaning system (Taves 2018;Hoover 2006;Park 2005). However, an individual's attitudes and beliefs that make up the meaning system can impact media selection (Knobloch-Westerwick et al 2019;Novak et al 2022) and hence, define digital religious media use.…”

“…Lastly, the third dyad shows the connection between social relationships and the religious meaning system. On the one hand, relationships can inform and shape an individual's religious meaning system (Taves 2018;Park 2005;Zarzycka et al 2020); on the other hand, a religious meaning system and the underlying attitudes and beliefs can influence the relationship ties between individuals (Newcomb 1953;Oh 2020;Lazarsfeld and Merton 1954;Saroglou 2011).…”

“…It is important to note that the two functions are interdependent. On the one hand, relationships can make meaning and inform an individual's meaning system, thereby inducing religious meaning-making (Taves 2018;Wong and Fry 1998;Park 2005;Zarzycka et al 2020). On the other hand, similar religious meaning systems can support social connections, shared beliefs, and attitudes, resulting in the formation of relationships (Newcomb 1953;Oh 2020;Lazarsfeld and Merton 1954;Saroglou 2011;Knoblauch 1999).…”

A Feature-Based Approach to the Comparative Study of “Nonordinary” Experiences

“…See Supplement S1 for more details. Diagram adapted from Taves, 2020a. Although researchers and psychiatrists generally recognize that there is overlap in the experiences their subjects or patients recount, the role of culture-collectively held beliefs and practices 4 -in producing this variation has not been adequately explored. The lack of attention to the interaction between culture and experiences is due both to the lingering effects of focusing on experiences for their evidentiary value, and to theoretical difficulties that researchers interested in cross-cultural comparisons have been unable to overcome.…”