Amy Welborn pointed last week to a concept, reported on in the Guardian, that I had never encountered before. Apparently, though, it's been around for three decades. This is the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic religiosity.
Here's what Amy excerpted:
A Harvard psychologist named Gordon Allport did some key research in the 1950s on various kinds of human prejudice and came up with a definition of religiosity that is still in use today. He suggested that there were two types of religious commitment - extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic religiosity he defined as religious self-centredness. Such a person goes to church or synagogue as a means to an end - for what they can get out of it. They might go to church to be seen, because it is the social norm in their society, conferring respectability or social advancement. Going to church (or synagogue) becomes a social convention.
Allport thought that intrinsic religiosity was different. He identified a group of people who were intrinsically religious, seeing their religion as an end in itself. They tended to be more deeply committed; religion became the organising principle of their lives, a central and personal experience. In support of his research, Allport found that prejudice was more common in those individuals who scored highly for extrinsic religion.
The evidence generally is that intrinsic religiosity seems to be associated with lower levels of anxiety and stress, freedom from guilt, better adjustment in society and less depression. On the other hand, extrinsic religious feelings - where religion is used as a way to belong to and prosper within a group - seem to be associated with increased tendencies to guilt, worry and anxiety.
So it seems that researchers who attempt to correlate other measures to religiosity properly should distinguish between its extrinsic and intrinsic forms.
Apparently, this distinction is not a spectrum:
Consistent with Allport's view of mature religiosity, extrinsic but not intrinsic religiosity typically correlates with more dysfunctional psychological constructs. Many psychometric critiques and modifications of the scales have been published. The only consensus is that extrinsic and intrinsic must be treated as independent scales, not as a continuum as initially conceived.
I couldn't find an example of the scale online (not surprising --- it's probably copyrighted), but apparently it is contained in this volume: Hill PC & Hood RW (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, Ala. : Religious Education Press.
The list of instruments in the book is very enticing! I'd like to see it. The "Scriptural Literalism" scale... the "What I Believe" scale... the "Rejection of Christianity" scale... doesn't it sound fun? Too bad there's no Quizilla form.
It makes me wonder whether other philosophies, community-joining, and behaviors may be called "extrinsic" or "intrinsic" depending on the reasons to adopt them. Attachment parenting, for example? Do you do it because everyone else in your circle does, because it makes you feel superior, or... because you believe in its ability to help you form a strong bond with your children, and that's a good thing?
UPDATE. Ooo! The book is in the reference section of the local university library! And tonight's my free night...
Comments