What, why and how? Meta-Reflections on Cultural Psychological Approaches to the Scientific Study of Phenomena Called Religious.

This deliberately essayistic paper deals with strengths of and limits to cultural psychology, especially in its application to research on religion. It is presented as only one possible approach, composite in itself and drawing on a variety of theories, insights, methods and techniques, but working on one of the fundamental aspects of human psychological functioning, and therefore as indispensable to efforts to explore and understand anything called religious as any other psychological approach may be. Furthermore, the paper makes an explicit plea for an interdisciplinary approach to psychology.

Religion and Self: Notions from a Cultural Psychological Perspective.

After a brief introduction of a cultural psychological perspective, this paper turns to the concept of self. The paper proposes to conceive of that reality to which the concepts of self refer as a narrative, employing especially autobiographies and other ego-documents in empirical exploration. After discussing some psychological theories about "self," the paper points out that they may well be applied in research on personal religiosity.

Ideology, politics, and personality: shaping forces in Dutch psychology of religion, 1907-1957.

Although the academic establishment of the psychology of religion in the Netherlands has been stronger than in any other Western country, the start of these developments has been remarkably late (in 1957), especially when taking into account that Dutch academic life: (1) before World War II modeled itself after Germany (where psychology of religion flourished); and (2) was to a considerable extent included in the system of pillarization, which characterized Dutch society at large. The general factors that can be distinguished as having played an important role in the shaping of the situation for psychology of religion in the Netherlands had different impacts in the several universities under consideration.

Historical intersections of psychology, religion, and politics in national contexts.

Various types of psychology have come into existence in and have been interacting with a plurality of contexts, contexts that have been radically varying in different states or nations. One important factor in the development of psychology has been the multiple relationships to the Christian religion, whether understood as an institution, a worldview, or a form of personal spirituality. The articles in this issue focus on the intertwinements between institutional religion and national political structures and on their influence on developing forms of psychology in four different national contexts: Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The development of early psychology of religion: a Dutch falsification of the received view.

This article takes issue with the received view of the history of the psychology of religion. Contrary to the presentation of "the" psychology of religion by Beit-Hallahmi in JHBS (1974) as declining after 1913, this article (1) states that the psychology of religion has never been a homogeneous enterprise, but rather a multiform one, with very different developments in different countries, and (2) presents the history of the Dutch Godsdienstpsychologische Studievereeniging [Study Association for the Psychology of Religion; GPSV] as one of the falsifications of the received view. The GPSV existed in the 1920s and as one of its most notable activities, it organized in 1926 the first international conference for the psychology of religion, an event described in some detail.

Methodological issues in the psychology of religion: toward another paradigm?

Recent evaluations have identified the psychology of religion as a field in crisis and have called for a new multilevel interdisciplinary paradigm. However, a critical meta-perspective on methods reveals a broad range of methodologies, each appropriate for particular levels of complexity in the psychology of religion. No single methodology is appropriate for every level, nor can higher levels of complexity be explained by data from lower levels.