Abstract
Methodological questions seem endemic to psychology, as they are to the social sciences in general. The great philosopher of science Henri Poincaré observed: “The natural sciences talk about their results. The social scientists talk about their methods” (in Berelson and Steiner 1964, p. 14). Although methodology deals with the methods and techniques of empirical research, its issues do not derive from these methods and techniques as such, but from much more fundamental questions regarding the nature of psychology (and of scientific knowledge in general): what is the object of psychology? How can it be properly conceived? Which methods can be called upon or should be developed to explore the object of psychology? Can a single method serve all of the various subfields of psychology? Is psychology a singular science or rather a pluriformity of scientific approaches that presently share little more than the name by which they go? Is psychology a science at all or is it, like history, literary theory, and philosophy, a branch of scholarship different from, but just as academic as, the natural sciences? After more than a century of theory and research psychologists still debate the approaches and paradigms proper to their fields of research. A common complaint has been that in so doing they have frequently defined the latter in terms of the former, that is they adapt their definition of psychology and its subject to what they can investigate with those methods at hand instead of following the old Aristotelian adage that methods should be designed according to the nature of the object to be investigated and – I would add – according to the questions one wants to answer. Until the present day this has resulted in publications on the “crisis in psychology” (one of the earliest being by Hans Driesch 1925) and in pleas to “rethink psychology” (Smith et al. 1995), including its methods (Smith et al. 1995/2003).
Historical studies pursued by active practitioners of a discipline often suffer from a tendency to look for precursors of present day viewpoints or anticipations of current theoretical positions. That is quite understandable if one’s primary engagement is with today’s issues, but it does not make for very good history. Whether Wundt is cast aside because he offends current orthodoxy or whether he is admired because some of his ideas are seen as sympathetic to modern projects, the aim of the exercise remains justificationist, his name is used to justify situations that developed long after his death. This kind of historiography may have some ornamental or rhetorical value, but it remains trapped within the parameters of the present and therefore cannot supply what only good history can deliver, namely, an illumination of the present through its confrontation with the otherness of the past. In relation to the psychologies of today Wundt’s psychology has a quality of otherness that is potentially its most valuable feature. Paying attention to this otherness just might enhance awareness of current biases and preconceptions.
(Danziger 2001a, p. 92)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This quotation from Danziger refers to Wundt but, as I hope to show, applies equally to James.
- 2.
Völkerpsychologie should not be translated as “folk psychology,” as it usually is, but perhaps rather as cultural psychology (see Danziger 2001a), although – as shall be pointed out later – Wundt’s conception differed strikingly from what is nowadays understood by that name. Throughout this chapter, I shall use the original German term to refer to this part of Wundt’s psychology.
- 3.
A number of handbooks testify to the ongoing quarrels about empirical-analytical versus hermeneutical approaches, as well as about quantitative versus qualitative research methods (see Paloutzian and Park 2005). A recent German “introduction” to the psychology of religion (Henning et al. 2003) was unable to present matters pertaining to research methods in an integrated way and contains two different chapters on methods, one on quantitative methods (Wolfradt and Müller-Plath 2003), and one on qualitative methods (Popp-Baier 2003).
- 4.
This should be understood correctly: Vorbrodt does not attempt to protect James against Wobbermin and others’ false interpretation. Vorbrodt meant that James failed to view a number of the case histories he selected as pathological. Wobbermin and others incorrectly interpret them as meaning that James was concerned with the analysis of abnormal phenomena, which accounts for Wobbermin’s addition of the word “pathology” in the subtitle of his translation. That which Wobbermin recognized as pathological, James took as healthy, according to Vorbrodt.
- 5.
By which he meant something approximating contemporary pastoral psychology; this however is only one of the areas to which the insights and results of the psychology of religion can be applied. Indeed, applications are not only possible within pastoral settings, but also in all sorts of applied psychology in general (e.g., health psychology, psychotherapy).
- 6.
James’ method is more often characterized as “phenomenological” (see, e.g., Edie 1987), which is, however, somewhat problematic. The Varieties is certainly not phenomenological in the sense of phenomenological psychology as was developed in the twentieth century by, for example, Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Bühler, Van den Berg, Rogers and many others (see Misiak and Sexton 1973). At best, the Varieties is phenomenological in the sense of being descriptive and “open-minded,” something that might be called “proto-phenomenological” (see Wilshire 1968). Wulff (1997, p. 486) called the Varieties “a vicarious phenomenology.” See also Spiegelberg (1972, 1982). In general, a great many contributions that offer nothing more than description are incorrectly labeled “phenomenological” nowadays.
- 7.
A term about which Vorbrodt was somewhat disparaging, writing that it had “an uncomfortable ring of spiritualism” (Vorbrodt 1911, p. xv).
- 8.
Wobbermin omitted the relevant passage in the translation. He defended himself by pointing out that the Varieties was not dependent upon James’ pluralistic metaphysics and that the omitted final chapter was more suggestive than explanatory. Additionally, James had “just approved” of Wobbermin’s procedure (Wobbermin 1910, p. 535).
- 9.
Historically, it may also be that Vorbrodt’s personal encounter with Flournoy at the International Conference of Psychology in Geneva (1909) so impressed him that he immersed himself in the latter’s work and eventually decided to translate several of his works into German. These questions cannot be answered since the relevant sources are missing (neither Vorbrodt’s personal papers nor correspondence with colleagues could be traced).
- 10.
Stählin named three: a most weak talent for introspection (according to “experimental” psychologists of the day – a group which Stählin trained to join – this talent must be trained); an imperfect memory; and the suggestive effect of questionnaires.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
This is the reason that Karl Girgensohn (1875–1925), who became the best known and most influential representative of the experimental approach in the psychology of religion, also considered the Freudian psychoanalytic situation as “experimental”: everything the patient said during their “free association” was taken with equal seriousness. He found the experiments as performed in the Würzburg School more precise, however (Girgensohn 1921/1930, pp. 23–25).
- 14.
- 15.
Wundt opposed this inner observation to self-observation, failing, however, to make the difference clear and to explain how the results of “inner observation” could be reported.
- 16.
The otherwise excellent overview of the psychology of religion by Wulff (1997) deals with Wundt only in passing. Schneider (1990) deals only very descriptively, not always correctly, with Wundt’s psychology of religion, comparing it more with the sociology of religion than with the psychology of religion.
- 17.
This is not to say that there have not been methodical followers of Wundt and James, or more precisely, psychologists who were heavily influenced by them. However, the psychological school closest to Wundt flourished in the former Soviet Union, isolated from the West, where their ideas were received only slowly (see Vygotsky 1930/1971; 1934/1987; 1978; Luria 1971, 1976, 1979, 1981; Leontiev 1978, 1981). Incidentally, there have been US psychologists (especially in the early days, when many went for training to Germany) with sympathies for Völkerpsychologie. Cole (1996, p. 35) notes the example of Charles Judd (1926), an educational psychologist who wrote a book on social psychology (his rather erroneous translation of Völkerpsychologie). He explicitly followed Wundt when he argued that language, tools, number systems, the alphabet, etc. are forms of accumulated social capital developed historically. Newborns must adapt to social institutions and practices; individual minds are actually formed by the process of socialization. Consequently, social psychology cannot be based on properties of the individual mind, but must be an independent science, employing methods from anthropology, sociology and linguistics. James, influencing other pragmatic thinkers like Mead (1934) and Dewey (1938/1963), typically had more followers from sociological social psychology (using qualitative methods such as symbolic interactionism and ethnomethodology) than psychological social psychology (using quantitative experimental methods). On the distinction between these two social psychologies, see Strycker (1977).
- 18.
The psychology of religion should be distinguished from religious psychology, which is a psychology inherent to religious traditions (e.g. Buddhism), from pastoral psychology, religious psychotherapy, and from other forms of psychology serving religious aims or purposes. In principle, the psychology of religion is a scholarly-analytical perspective on religion, neutral towards its object of investigation (see Belzen 1995–1996).
- 19.
In this article the Danish scholar of religion Troels Nørager refers to reactions by students of religion at the University of Aarhus (Denmark) after taking a course on the psychology of religion.
- 20.
Psychologists of religion may be well advised not to be too concerned about their (non-) centrality to mainstream psychology: virtually none of the founding fathers of both psychology in general and of the psychology of religion (like Hall, James, Freud or Wundt) specifically, and even further, almost no other later significant contributor to the field (such as Allport, Fromm, Jaspers or Maslow) would be considered mainstream by contemporary psychology.
- 21.
One should note that no psychological theory has ever been formulated on the basis of research on religion. As is logical and correct, the psychology of religion has always used extant psychological theories, methods and techniques.
References
Argyle, M. (2000). Psychology and religion: An introduction. London/New York: Routledge.
Belzen, J. A. (1995–1996). Sketches for a family portrait of psychology of religion at the end of modernity. Journal of Psychology of Religion, 4/5, 89–122.
Belzen, J. A. (1996c). Die blühende deutsche Religionspsychologie in der Zeit vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg und eine niederländische Quelle zur Geschichte der deutschen Psychologie. [The prosporing German psychology of religion before World War II and a Dutch source of the history of German psychology] In H. Gundlach (Ed.), Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Psychologie und der Psychotechnik [Investigations on the history of psychology and psychotechnology] (pp. 75–94). München/Wien: Profil.
Belzen, J. A. (2001b). Religion as an object of empirical research: Psychohistory as exemplary interdisciplinary approach. In J. A. Belzen (Ed.), Psychohistory in psychology of religion: Interdisciplinary studies (pp. 7–20). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
Belzen, J. A. (2001–2002). Der deutsche Herold der Religionspsychologie. [The German herald of the psychology of religion] Temenos, 37/38, 39–69.
Belzen, J. A. (2002a). Developing scientific infrastructure: The International Association for the Psychology of Religion after its reconstitution. Newsletter of Division 36 (Psychology of Religion) of the American Psychological Association, 27 (2), 1–12.
Belzen, J. A. (2004a). Religie, melancholie en zelf: Een historische en psychologische studie [Religion, melancholy and self: A historical and psychological study]. Kok: Kampen.
Belzen, J. A. (2004b). Spirituality, culture and mental health: Prospects and risks for contemporary psychology of religion. Journal of Religion and Health, 43, 291–316.
Belzen, J. A. (2006). The varieties of functions of religious experience: James’ Varieties reconsidered. Archives de Psychologie, 72, 49–65.
Berelson, B. R. & Steiner, G. A. (1964). Human behaviour: An inventory of scientific findings. New York: Harcourt.
Boesch, E. E. (1991). Symbolic action theory and cultural psychology. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.
Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic Books.
Bühler, K. (1908). Nachtrag: Antwort auf die von W. Wundt erhobenen Einwände gegen die Methode der Selbstbeobachtung an experimentell erzeugten Erlebnissen. [Afterword: Response to Wundt’s objections to the method of self-observation in experimentally produced experiences] Archiv für die Gesamte Psychologie, [Archive for all Psychologies] 12, 93–123.
Bühler, K. (1909). Zur Kritik der Denkexperimente. [Critics of thought experiments] Zeitschrift für Psychologie, [Journal of Psychology] 51, 108–118.
Cahan, E. D. & White, S. H. (1992). Proposals for a second psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 224–235.
Capps, D. (Ed.) (2001). Freud and Freudians on religion: A reader. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Carrette, J. (Ed.) (2005). William James and “The Varieties of Religious Experience”: A centenary celebration. London/New York: Routledge.
Carroll, M. P. (2002). The penitente brotherhood: Patriarchy and Hispano-Catholicism in New Mexico. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Cohen, E. (2007). The mind possessed: The cognition of spirit possession in an Afro-Brazilian religious tradition. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Cole, M. (1995). Culture and cognitive development: From cross-cultural research to creating systems of cultural mediation. Culture & Psychology, 1, 25–54.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard University Press.
Crawford, V. M & Valsiner, J. (1999). Varieties of discursive experience in psychology: Culture understood through the language used. Culture & Psychology, 5, 259–269.
Danziger, K. (2001a). Wundt and the temptations of psychology. In R. W. Rieber & D. K. Robinson (Eds.), Wilhelm Wundt in history: The making of a scientific psychology (pp. 69–94). New York: Kluwer/ Plenum.
Danziger, K. (2001b). The unknown Wundt: Drive, apperception and volition. In R. W. Rieber & D. K. Robinson (Eds.), Wilhelm Wundt in history: The making of a scientific psychology (pp. 95–120). New York: Kluwer/ Plenum.
Dewey, J. (1938/1963). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dilthey, W. (1910). Der Aufbau der geschichtlichen Welt in den Geisteswissenschaften. [The construction of the historical world in the humanities] In Gesammelte Schriften. [Complete works] Bd. 7 (pp. 79–188). Stuttgart: Teubner.
Diriwächter, R. (2004). Völkerpsychologie: The synthesis that never was. Culture & Psychology, 10, 85–109.
Dittes, J. E. (1973). Beyond William James. In C. Y. Glock & P. H. Hammond (Eds.), Beyond the classics? Essays in the scientific study of religion (pp. 291–354), New York: Harper and Row.
Driesch, H. (1925). The crisis in psychology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Eckardt, G. (Ed.) (1997). Völkerpsychologie: Versuch einer Neuentdeckung. Texte von Lazarus, Steinthal und Wundt. [Folk psychology: Attempt to a rediscovery. Texts by Lazarus, Steinthal and Wundt] Weinheim: Psychology VerlagsUnion.
Eckensberger, L. H. (1995). Activity of action: Two different roads towards an integration of culture into psychology? Culture & Psychology, 1, 67–80.
Edie, J. M. (1987). William James and phenomenology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Freud, S. (1907/1959). Obsessive actions and religious practices. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 9 (transl. & ed. J. Strachey; pp. 115–127). London: Hogarth.
Geels, A. (1991). Att möta Gud i kaos: Religiösa visioner i dagens Sverige. [Encounter with God in chaos: Religious visions in contemporary Sweden] Stockholm: Norstedts Förlag.
Girgensohn, K. (1921/1930). Der Seelische Aufbau des Religiösen Erlebens: Eine religionspsychologische Untersuchung auf Experimenteller Grundlage. [The psychological structure of religious experiences: A religious-psychological investigation based on experimental research] Gütersloh: Bertelsmann.
Guthrie, S. E. (1993). Faces in the clouds: A new theory of religion. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relations to physiology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education, (2 vols.) New York: Appleton.
Henning, C., Murken, S. & Nestler, E. (Eds.) (2003). Einführung in die Religionspsychologie. [Introduction to the psychology of religion] Paderborn etc.: Schöningh.
Hermans, H. J. M. & Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). The dialogical self: Meaning as movement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hijweege, N. H. (2004). Bekering in bevindelijk gereformeerde kring: Een psychologische studie. [Conversion among bevindelijken: A psychological study] Kampen: Kok.
Holzkamp, K. (1980). Zu Wundts Kritik an der experimentellen Erforschung des Denkens. [On Wundt’s criticism on the experimental study of thought] In W. Meischner & A. Metge (Eds.), Wilhelm Wundt: Progressives Erbe, Wissenschaftsentwicklung und Gegenwart [Wilhelm Wundt: Progressive legacy, scientific development and modernity] (pp. 141–153). Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität.
Hood, R. W. & Belzen, J. A. (2005). Methods in the psychology of religion. In R. Paloutzian & C. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality (pp. 62–79). Guilford, New York and London.
Hoorn, W. van & Verhage, T. (1980). Wilhelm Wundt’s conception of the multiple foundations of scientific psychology. In W. Meischner & A. Metge (Eds.), Wilhelm Wundt: Progressives Erbe, Wissenschaftsentwicklung und Gegenwart [Wilhelm Wundt: Progressive legacy, scientific development and modernity] (pp. 107–120). Leipzig: Karl-Marx-Universität.
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. London: MacMillan.
James, W. (1902/1907). Die religiöse Erfahrung in ihrer Mannigfaltigkeit: Materialien und Studien zu einer Psychologie und Pathologie des religiösen Lebens. [The varieties of religious experience] Leipzig: Hinrich.
James, W. (1902/1982). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. Hammondsworth: Penguin.
James, W. (1902/2002). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. London/New York: Routledge.
Jones, J. W. (1991). Contemporary psychoanalysis and religion: Transference and transcendence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Jones, J. W. (1996). Religion and psychology in transition: Psychoanalysis, feminism and theology. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Jonte-Pace, D. (2003). Teaching Freud. New York: Oxford University Press/American Academy of Religion.
Jonte-Pace, D. & Parsons, W. B. (Eds.) (2001). Religion and psychology: Mapping the terrain. Contemporary dialogues, future prospects. London/New York: Routledge.
Judd, C. (1926). The psychology of social institutions. New York: Macmillan.
Klünker, W. U. (1985). Psychologische Analyse und Theologische Wahrheit: Die Religionspsychologische Methode Georg Wobbermins. [Psychological analysis and theological truth: Georg Wobbermin’s psychological-religious method] Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Kripall, J. J. (1995). Kali’s child: The mystical and the erotic in the life and teaching of Ramakrishna. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kusch, M. (1999). Psychological knowledge: A social history and philosophy. London/New York: Routledge.
Leezenberg, M. & Vries, G. de (2001). Wetenschapsfilosofie voor geesteswetenschappen. [Philosophy of science for the humanities] Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Leontiev, A. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Leontiev, A. (1981). Problems of the development of the mind. Moscow: Progress.
Leuba, J. (1896). Studies in psychology of religious phenomena: The religious motive, conversion, facts and doctrines. Worcester, MA: Orpha.
Luria, A. R. (1971). Towards the problem of the historical nature of psychological processes. International Journal of Psychology, 6, 259–272.
Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Luria, A. R. (1979). The making of a mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Luria, A. R. (1981). Language and cognition. Washington/New York: Winston/Wiley.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Meissner, W. W. (1992). Ignatius of Loyola: The psychology of a saint. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Meissner, W. W. (1997). Vincent’s religion: The search for meaning. New York: Lang.
Misiak, H. & Sexton, V. S. (1973). Phenomenological, existential and humanistic psychologies: A historical essay, New York/London: Grune & Stratton.
Murisier, E. (1892). Maine de Biran: Esquisse d’une psychologie religieuse. [Maine of Biran: Sketch of a psychology of religion] Paris: Jouve.
Murisier, E. (1901). Les maladies du sentiment religieux. [The diseases of the religious sentiment] Paris: Alcan.
Nørager, T. (1996). Metapsychology and discourse: A note on some neglected issues in the psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6, 139–149.
Oelze, B. (1991). Wilhelm Wundt: Die Konzeption der Völkerpsychologie. [Wilhelm Wundt: Conception of a folk psychology] Münster: Waxmann.
Paloutzian, R. F. & Park, C. L. (Eds.) (2005). The handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality. New York/London: Guilford.
Paul, H. (1910). Über Völkerpsychologie. [On folk psychology] Süddeutsche Monatshefte, [South-German Monthly] 7 (2), 363–373.
Pollmann, T. (1999). De letteren als wetenschappen. [Liberal arts as a science] Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Popp-Baier, U. (1998). Das Heilige im Profanen: Religiöse Orientierungen im Alltag. Eine qualitative Studie zu religiösen Orientierungen von Frauen aus der charismatisch-evangelischen Bewegung. [The sacred in the profane: Religious orientations in everyday life. A qualitative studie of religious orientations of women in the charismatic-evangelical movement] Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
Popp-Baier, U. (2003). Qualitative Methoden in der Religionspsychologie. [Qualitative methods in psychology of religion] In R.-Ch. Henning, S. Murken & E. Nestler (Eds.), Einführung in die Religionspsychologie [Introduction to the psychology of religion] (pp. 184–229). Paderborn etc.: Schöningh.
Ragan, C. P., Malony, H. N. & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1980). Psychologists and religion: Professional factors and personal belief. Review of Religious Research, 21, 208–217.
Ratner, C. (1996). Activity as a key concept for cultural psychology. Culture & Psychology, 2, 407–434.
Ratner, C. (2002). Cultural psychology: Theory and method. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Ribot, T. (1884/1894). The diseases of the will. Chicago: Open Court.
Schneider, C. M. (1990). Wilhelm Wundts Völkerpsychologie: Entstehung und Entwicklung eines in Vergessenheit geratenen, Wissenschaftshistorisch Relevanten Fachgebietes. [Wilhelm Wundt’s folk psychology: Foundation and development of a forgotten and in perspective of the history of science relevant field of study] Bonn: Bouvier.
Shafranske, E. P. (1996b). Religious beliefs, affiliations, and practices of clinical psychologists. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 149–161). Washington: American Psychological Association.
Shweder, R. A. (1991). Thinking through cultures: Expeditions in cultural psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, J. A., Harré, R. & Langenhove, L. van (Eds.) (1995). Rethinking psychology. London: Sage.
Spiegelberg, H. (1972). Phenomenology in psychology and psychiatry. Evanston: North-Western University Press.
Spiegelberg, H. (1982). The phenomenological movement: A historical introduction. (3rd ed.) Den Haag: Mouton.
Spilka, B., Hood, R. W., Hunsberger, B. & Gorsuch, R. L. (2003). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach. (3rd ed.) New York: Guilford.
Stählin, W. (1910). [Review of E. D. Starbuck (1909), Religionspsychologie]. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, [Archive for all Psychologies] 18, 1–9.
Stählin, W. (1911). Religionspsychologie. [Psychology of religion] Noris, Bayerisches Jahrbuch für Protestantische Kultur, [Noris, Bavarian Annual for Calvinist Culture] 11, 46–49.
Stählin, W. (1912). Die Verwendung von Fragebogen in der Religionspsychologie. [The use of questionnaires in the psychology of religion] Zeitschrift für Religionspsychologie, [Journal for the Psychology of Religion] 5, 394–508.
Stählin, W. (1914a). Zur Psychologie und Statistik der Metaphern: Eine methodologische Untersuchung. [On the psychology and the statistics of metaphors: A methodological investigation] Archiv für die Gesamte Psychologie, [Archive for all Psychologies] 31, 297–425.
Stählin, W. (1914b). Experimentelle Untersuchungen über Sprachpsychologie und Religionspsychologie. [Experimental investigations on the psychology of language and the psychology of religion] Archiv für Religionspsychologie [Archive of the Psychology of Religion], 1, 117–194.
Starbuck, E. D. (1899). The psychology of religion: An empirical study of the growth of religious consciousness. New York: Scribner.
Starbuck, E. D. (1899/1909). Religionspsychologie: Empirische Entwicklungsstudie Religiösen Bewußtseins. [The psychology of religion] (transl. Fr. Beta) Leipzig: Klinkhardt (Philosophisch-soziologische Bücherei, Bd. XIV, XV)
Stern, W. (1909). [Review of W. James (1909), Die religiöse Erfahrung in ihrer Mannigfaltigkeit]. Deutsche Literaturzeitung, [German Journal of Literature] 30 (8), 465–468.
Strycker, S. (1977). Development in “two social psychologies”: Toward an appreciation of mutual relevance. Sociometry, 40, 145–160.
Troeltsch, E. (1905). Psychologie und Erkenntnistheorie in der Religionswissenschaft: Eine Untersuchung über die Bedeutung der kantischen Religionslehre für die heutige Religionswissenschaft. [Psychology and epistemology in the science of religion: An investigation in the meaning of the Kantian theory on religion for the contemporary science of religion] (Lecture, presented at the International Congress of Arts and Sciences in St. Louis) Tübingen: Mohr.
VandeKemp, H. (1992). G. Stanley Hall and the Clark School of Religious Psychology. American Psychologist, 47 (2), 290–298.
Vorbrodt, G. (1904). Beiträge zur Religiösen Psychologie: Psychobiologie und Gefühl, [Contributions to religious psychology: Psychobiology and feelings] Leipzig: Deichert.
Vorbrodt, G. (1909). Übersetzungs-Vorwort. [Preface by the translator] In E. D. Starbuck, Religionspsychologie: Empirische Entwicklungsstudie Religiösen Bewusstseins [Psychology of religion] (pp. v–xxv), Leipzig: Klinkhardt.
Vorbrodt, G. (1911). Vorwort des Herausgebers. [Preface by the editor] In Th. Flournoy, Experimentaluntersuchungen zur Religions-, Unterbewußtseins- und Sprachpsychologie. [Experimental investigations to the psychology of religion, of the subconscious, and of language] Vol. 1: Beiträge zur Religionspsychologie [Contributions to the psychology of religion] (pp. i–lii). Leipzig: Eckardt.
Vorbrodt, G. (1918). [Review of T. K. Oesterreich (1917), Einführung in die Religionspsychologie als Grundlage für Religionsphilosophie und -geschichte]. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Psychologie und Psychologische Sammelforschung, [Journal for the Applied Psychology] 15, 439–443.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/1971). The development of higher psychological functions. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Soviet activity theory. Cambridge (MA): Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/1987). Thinking and speech. New York: Plenum.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (Ed. & trans. M. Cole) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, Q. & Brockmeier, J. (2002). Autobiographical memory as cultural practice: Understanding the interplay between memory, self and culture. Culture & Psychology, 8, 45–64.
Westerhof, G. J. (1994). Statements and stories: Towards a new methodology of attitude research. Amsterdam: Thesis.
Wilshire, B. (1968). William James and phenomenology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Wobbermin, G. (1901). Theologie und Metaphysik: Das Verhältnis der Theologie zur Modernen Erkenntnistheorie und Psychologie. [Theology and metaphysics: The relationship of modern theory of insight to psychology] Berlin: Duncker.
Wobbermin, G. (1907/1914). “Aus dem Vorwort zur ersten Auflage” and “Vorwort zur zweiten Auflage.” [“Preface to the first edition” and “Preface to the second edition”] In W. James, Die Religiöse Erfahrung in ihrer Mannigfaltigkeit: Materialien und Studien zu einer Psychologie und Pathologie des Religiösen Lebens [Varieties of religious experience] (pp. iii–xxxi). Leipzig: Hinrich.
Wobbermin, G. (1910). Der gegenwärtige Stand der Religionspsychologie (Aufgabe, Methode und Hauptprobleme). [The contemporary state of the art of the psychology of religion] Zeitschrift für Angewandte Psychologie und Psychologische Sammelforschung, [Journal for the Applied Psychology] 3, 488–540.
Wolfradt, U. & Müller-Plath, G. (2003). Quantitative Methoden in der Religionspsychologie. [Quantitative methods in the psychology of religion] In C. Henning, S. Murken & E. Nestler (Eds.), Einführung in die Religionspsychologie [Introduction to the psychology of religion] (pp. 164–183). Paderborn etc.: Schöningh.
Wulff, D. M. (1997). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary. (2nd ed.) New York: Wiley.
Wulff, D. (2003). A field in crisis. Is it time to start over? In H. M. P. Roelofsma, J. M. T. Corveleyn, & J. W. van Saane (Eds.), One hundred years of psychology of religion (pp. 11–32). Amsterdam: VU University Press.
Wundt, W. (1883). Logik: Eine Untersuchung der Principien der Erkenntnis und der Methoden wissenschaftlicher Forschung. Teil 2: Methodenlehre. [Logic: An investigation of the principles of knowledge and the methods of scientific research. Part 2: Methodology] Stuttgart: Enke.
Wundt, W. (1886). Ethik: Eine Untersuchung der Tatsachen und Gesetze des Sittlichen Lebens. [Ethics: An investigation of the facts and laws of moral life] Stuttgart: Enke.
Wundt, W. (1888). Über Ziele und Wege der Völkerpsychologie. [On targets and methods of folk psychology] Philosophische Studien, [Philosophical Studies] 4, 1–27.
Wundt, W. (1900/1921). Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythos und Sitte. Teil 1: Die Sprache. [Folk psychology: An investigation of the developmental laws of language, mythe and mores. Part 1: Language] (4th ed.) Stuttgart: Kröner.
Wundt, W. (1900/1997). Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythos und Sitte. Einleitung. [Folk psychology: An investigation of the laws of development of language, mythe and mores. Introduction] In G. Eckardt, (Ed.), Völkerpsychologie: Versuch einer Neuentdeckung. Texte von Lazarus, Steinthal und Wundt [[Folk psychology: Attempt to a rediscovery. Texts by Lazarus, Steinthal and Wundt] (pp. 239–270). Weinheim: Psychology VerlagsUnion.
Wundt, W. 1905/1920. Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythos und Sitte. Vierter Band: Mythos und Religion. [Folk psychology: An investigation of the laws of development of language, mythe and mores. Vol. 4: Myth and religion] (3rd ed.) Stuttgart: Kröner.
Wundt, W. (1907). Über Ausfrageexperimente und über die Methoden zur Psychologie des Denkens. [Experiments in cross-examination and the methods of the psychology of reason] Psychologische Studien, [Psychological Studies] 3, 301–360.
Wundt, W. (1908). Kritische Nachlese zur Ausfragemethode. [Critical check of the method of cross-examination] Archiv für die Gesamte Psychologie, [Archive for all Psychologies] 11, 445–459.
Wundt, W. (1911). Probleme der Völkerpsychologie. [Problems of folk psychology] Leipzig: Wiegand.
Wundt, W. (1915). Völkerpsychologie. Vol. 6: Mythos und Religion [Myth and religion] (3rd part). Leipzig: Kröner.
Wundt, W. (1918). Völkerpsychologie. Vol. 9: Das Recht. [The law] Leipzig: Kröner.
Wundt, W. (1920). Erlebtes und Erkanntes. [Autobiography] Stuttgart: Kröner.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Belzen, J.A. (2010). The Question of the Specificity of Religion. In: Towards Cultural Psychology of Religion. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3491-5_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3491-5_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-3490-8
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-3491-5
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)