Deity Representation: A Prototype Approach
In: Archive for the Psychology of ReligionSearch for other papers by Ross W. May in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Frank D. Fincham in
Current site
Google Scholar
Summary
This research systematically evaluates via prototype analysis how conceptualizations of Western adult’s monotheistic God are structured. Over 4 studies, using U.S. student and community samples of predominantly Christians, features of God are identified, feature centrality is documented, and centrality influence on cognition is evaluated. Studies 1 and 2 produced considerable overlap in feature frequency and centrality ratings across the samples, with “God is love” being the most frequently listed central feature. In Studies 3 (choice latency) and 4 (recall and recognition memory), the centrality of features influenced cognitive processes: central features were more quickly identified as features of God than peripheral features; were correctly recognized more often; and central features were correctly recalled more often than peripheral features. Results indicated that participants meaningfully judged centrality and that centrality affected cognition. Thus, the two criteria necessary for demonstrating deity representations adhere to a prototype structure were met. Implications and future directions are discussed.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112(3), 461-484.
-
Barrett, J. L. (1998). Cognitive constraints on Hindu concepts of the divine. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 608-619.
-
Barrett, J. L. (1999). Theological correctness: Cognitive constrain and the study of religion. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, 11, 325-339.
-
Barrett, J. L. (2007). Cognitive science of religion: What is it and why is it? Religion Compass, 1, 768-786. doi:10.1111/j.1749–8171.2007.00042.x.
-
Barrett, J. L. (2011). Cognitive science, religion, and theology: From human minds to divine minds. Philadelphia: Templeton Press.
-
Barrett, J. L., & Keil, F. C. (1996). Conceptualizing a nonnatural entity: Anthropomorphism in God concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 219-247. doi:10.1006/cogp.1996.0017.
-
Barrett, J. L., & Van Orman, B. (1996). The effects of image use in worship on God concepts. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 15(1), 38-45.
-
Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness of religious ideas. Los Angeles/Berkeley: University of California Press.
-
Cantor, N., & Mischel, W. (1979). Prototypicality and personality: Effects on free recall and personality impressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 13(2), 187-205.
-
Cohen, A. B., Shariff, A. F., & Hill, P. C. (2008). The accessibility of religious beliefs. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1408-1417.
-
Cowan, N. (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information processing system. Psychological Bulletin, 104, 163-191.
-
Cowan, N. (1995). Memory theories from A to Z. Contemporary Psychology, 40, 552-555.
-
Cowan, N. (2010). The magical mystery four: How is working memory capacity limited and why? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 51-57.
-
Davies, M., & Gardner, D. (2010). A frequency dictionary of American English: Word sketches, collocates, and thematic lists. Routledge.
-
Davis, E. B., Mauch, J. C., & Moriarty, G. L. (2013). God images and God concepts: Definitions, development, and dynamics. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(1), 51-60.
-
Dijksterhuis, A., Preston, J., Wegner, D. M., & Aarts, H. (2008). Effects of subliminal priming of self and God on self-attribution of authorship for events. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44, 2-9.
-
Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557-579.
-
Fehr, B., & Russell, J. A. (1984). Concept of emotion viewed from a prototype perspective. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 464-486.
-
Fincham, F. D., May, R. W., & Kamble, S. V. (2018). Are Hindu representations of the divine prototypically structured? Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000166.
-
Fiske, S. T., & Linville, P. W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Symposium on Social Knowing, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 543-557.
-
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition (2nd ed). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
-
Fougnie, D. (2008). The relationship between attention and working memory. In N. B. Johansen (Ed.), New research on short-term memory (pp. 1-45). New York: Nova Science Publishers.
-
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London, GB: Edward Arnold.
-
Gervais, W. M. (2014). Good for God? Religious motivation reduces perceived responsibility for and morality of good deeds. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1616-1626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036678.
-
Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
-
Heiphetz, L., Lane, J. D., Waytz, A., & Young, L. (2016). How children and adults represent God’s mind. Cognitive Science, 40, 121-144. doi:10.1111/cogs.12232.
-
Heller, D. I. (1986). The children’s god. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
-
Johnson, K. A., Li, Y. J., Cohen, A. B., & Okun, M. A. (2013). Friends in high places: The influence of authoritarian and benevolent God-concepts on social attitudes and behaviors. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5, 15-22. doi:10.1037/a0030138.
-
Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & LaBouff, J. (2010). Priming Christian religious concepts increases racial prejudice. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 119-126.
-
Johnson, K. A., Okun, M. A., Cohen, A. B., Sharp, C. A., & Hook, J. N. (2018). Development and validation of the five-factor LAMBI measure of God representations. Advance online publication. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/rel0000207.
-
Jong, J. (2013). Implicit measures in the experimental psychology of religion. In G. Dawes & J. Maclaurin (Ed.), A new science of religion (pp. 65-78). New York, NY: Routledge.
-
Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). A prototype analysis of forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 838-855.
-
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163-182.
-
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
-
Lambert, N. M., Fincham, F. D., & Graham, S. M. (2011). Understanding the layperson’s perception of prayer: A prototype analysis of prayer. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3, 55-65. doi:10.1037/a0021596.
-
Lambert, N. L., Graham, S., & Fincham, F. D. (2009). A prototype analysis of gratitude: Varieties of gratitude experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1193-1207.
-
Lindeman, M., Pysiainen, I., & Saariluoma, P. (2002). Representing God. Papers on Social Representations, 11, 1.1-1.13.
-
Mullatti, L. (1995). Families in India: Beliefs and realities. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 26, 11-25.
-
McIntosh, D. N. (1995). Religion-as-schema, with implications for the relation between religion and coping. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 5(1), 1-16.
-
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 192-233.
-
Rosenberg, S., & Jones, R. (1972). A method for investigating and representing a person’s implicit theory of personality: Theodore Drieser’s view of people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 372-386.
-
Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak, A. (1972). Structural representations of perceived personality trait relationships. In A. K. Romney, R. N. Shepard, & S. Nerlove (Eds.), Multidimensional scaling: Theory and application in the behavioral sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 133-162). New York: Seminar.
-
Shtulman, A., & Lindeman, M. (2016). Attributes of God: Conceptual foundations of a foundational belief. Cognitive Science, 40, 635-670. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12253.
-
Shariff, A. F., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). God is watching you: Priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychological Science, 18, 803-809. doi:10.1177/1088868314568811.
-
Shariff, A., & Norenzayan, A. (2011). Mean gods make good people: Different views of God predict cheating behavior. International Journal for Psychology of Religion, 21, 85-96. doi:10.1080/10508619.2011.556990.
-
Shariff, A. F., Willard, A. K., Andersen, T., & Norenzayan, A. (2016). Religious priming: A meta-analysis with a focus on prosociality. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 27-48. doi:10.1177/1088868314568811.
-
Sharpe, D. (2015). Your Chi-Square Test is statistically significant: Now what? Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 20(8), 1-10.
-
Solomon, S. (1999). Death and the evolution of human social motives. Psychological Inquiry, 10(3), 244-247.
-
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
-
Sweller, J. (1989). Cognitive technology: Some procedures for facilitating learning and problem solving in mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 457-466.
-
Sweller, J. (1993). Some cognitive processes and their consequences for the organization and presentation of information. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 1-8.
-
Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario Symposium (pp. 89-134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
-
Xygalatas, D. (2016). Cognitive science of religion. In D. A. Leeming (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion (pp. 1-5). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-27771-9_9261-4.
-
Zahl, B. P., & Gibson, N. J. S. (2012). God representations, attachment to God, and satisfaction with life: A comparison of doctrinal and experiential representations of God in Christian young adults. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22, 216-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2012.670027.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 503 | 100 | 25 |
| Full Text Views | 36 | 1 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 34 | 1 | 0 |
Deity Representation: A Prototype Approach
In: Archive for the Psychology of ReligionSearch for other papers by Ross W. May in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Frank D. Fincham in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Summary
This research systematically evaluates via prototype analysis how conceptualizations of Western adult’s monotheistic God are structured. Over 4 studies, using U.S. student and community samples of predominantly Christians, features of God are identified, feature centrality is documented, and centrality influence on cognition is evaluated. Studies 1 and 2 produced considerable overlap in feature frequency and centrality ratings across the samples, with “God is love” being the most frequently listed central feature. In Studies 3 (choice latency) and 4 (recall and recognition memory), the centrality of features influenced cognitive processes: central features were more quickly identified as features of God than peripheral features; were correctly recognized more often; and central features were correctly recalled more often than peripheral features. Results indicated that participants meaningfully judged centrality and that centrality affected cognition. Thus, the two criteria necessary for demonstrating deity representations adhere to a prototype structure were met. Implications and future directions are discussed.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 503 | 100 | 25 |
| Full Text Views | 36 | 1 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 34 | 1 | 0 |
