Advertisement

Journal of Religion and Health

, Volume 47, Issue 1, pp 17–31 | Cite as

Feeling Good, but Lacking Autonomy: Closed-Mindedness on Social and Moral Issues in New Religious Movements

  • Coralie Buxant
  • Vassilis Saroglou
Original Paper

Abstract

According to previous research, New Religious Movements (NRMs) seem to have a positive effect on the mental health of members who join NRMs with some previous affective, cognitive or other vulnerabilities. The present study investigates the other, less positive, side of the psychology of NRMs, i.e. elements that may be an obstacle to optimal development, such as rigidity and low autonomy. In comparison to non-NRM members, members of various NRMs in Belgium (N = 120) were found to be low in quest religious orientation (Altemeyer and Hunsberger, Int J Psychol Religion 2:113–133, 1992), to privilege conservation values to the detriment of openness to change values (Schwartz, Advances in experimental social psychology (vol 25, pp. 1–65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1992), to show submissiveness to authority in hypothetical situations (projective measure), and to highly moralize judgments of transgression relative to conventional domains (Turiel, The development of social knowledge: Morality and social convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). Discussion points out the idea that rigidity and restriction of autonomy may be the price to be paid for the structuring role NRMs play with regard to previous vulnerabilities.

Keywords

New Religious Movements Optimal development Submissiveness Moral judgment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study is part of a project financed by the Belgian Science Policy (Grant SO/10/71). We would like to thank Stefania Casalfiore for her help with data collection.

References

  1. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aronoff, J., Lynn, S. J., & Malinoski, P. (2000). Are cultic environments psychologically harmful? Clinical Psychology Review, 20, 91–111.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1207–1220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batson, C. D., & Raynor-Prince, L. (1983). Religious orientation and complexity of thought about existential concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 38–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991). Measuring religion as quest: I. Validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 416–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P. A., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Batson, C. D., & Stocks, E. L. (2004). Religion: Its core psychological functions. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 141–155). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  8. Buxant, C., & Saroglou, V. (in press). Joining and leaving a New Religious Movement: A study of ex-members’ mental health. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture.Google Scholar
  9. Buxant, C., Saroglou, V., Casalfiore, S., & Christians, L.-L. (2007). Cognitive and emotional characteristics of New Religious Movement members: New questions and data on the mental health issue. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 10, 219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., &. Barbaranelli C. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dawson, L. L. (2006). Comprehending cults: The sociology of New Religious Movements. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Deconchy, J.-P. (1980). Orthodoxie religieuse et sciences humaines [Religious orthodoxy and human sciences]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.Google Scholar
  13. Freud, S. (1927/1961). The future of an illusion (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  14. Fulton, A. S. (1997). Identity status, religious orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galanter, M. (1999). Cults: Faith, healing, and coercion (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gartner, J., Larson, D. B., & Allen, G. D. (1991). Religious commitment and mental health: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 6–25.Google Scholar
  17. Gorsuch, R. L., & McFarland, S. G. (1972). Single vs. multiple-item scales for measuring religious values. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunsberger, B., & Jackson, L. M. (2005). Religion, meaning, and prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 807–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klaassen, D. W., & McDonald, M. J. (2002). Quest and identity development: Re-examining pathways for existential search. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 12, 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2002). When similarity breeds content: Need for closure and the allure of homogeneous and self-resembling groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 648–662.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lilliston, L., & Shephered, G. (1999). New Religious Movements and mental health. In B. Wilson & J. Cresswell (Eds.), New Religious Movements: Challenge and response (pp. 121–139). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Marty, M. E., & Appleby R. S. (Eds.). (1995). Fundamentalisms comprehended. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Murken, S., & Namini, S. (2003). Becoming a member of a religious group: Psychological perspectives. Paper presented at the International Association for the Psychology of Religion conference, Glasgow, Great Britain.Google Scholar
  24. Nucci, L., & Turiel, E. (1993). God’s word, religious rules, and their relation to Christian and Jewish children’s concepts of morality. Child Development, 64, 1475–1491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., De Grada, E., Livi, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2003). Autocracy bias in informal groups under need for closure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 405–417.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Richardson, J. T. (1995). Clinical and personality assessment of participants in new religions. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 5, 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenzweig, S. (1948). The Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Study: Revised form for adults. St. Louis, MO: Author.Google Scholar
  29. Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for out-group social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Saliba, J. A. (2004). Psychology and the New Religious Movements. In J. R. Lewis (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of New Religious Movements (pp. 317–332). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Saroglou, V. (2002). Beyond dogmatism: The need for closure as related to religion. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 5, 183–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Saroglou, V. (2003). Spiritualité moderne: Un regard de psychologie de la religion [Modern spirituality: A psychology of religion perspective]. Revue Théologique de Louvain, 34, 473–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 721–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saroglou, V., & Galand, P. (2004). Identities, values, and religion: A study among Muslim, other immigrant, and native Belgian young adults after the 9/11 attacks. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 4, 97–132.Google Scholar
  35. Saroglou, V., & Mathijsen, F. (2007). Religion, multiple identities, and acculturation: A study of Muslim immigrants in Belgium. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 29, 177–198.Google Scholar
  36. Saroglou, V., Pichon, I., Trompette, L., Verschueren, M., & Dernelle, R. (2005). Prosocial behavior and religion: New evidence based on projective measures and peer-ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44, 323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances, empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwartz, S. H., & Huismans, S. (1995). Value priorities and religiosity in four western religions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 88–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smetana, J. G., & Asquith, P. (1994). Adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority and personal autonomy. Child Development, 65, 1147–1162.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spilka, B., Hood, R. W. Jr., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. (2003). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (3d ed). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  42. Tournois, J., Mesnil, F., & Kop, J.-L. (2000). Self-deception and other-deception: A social desirability questionnaire. European Review of Applied Psychology, 50, 219–233.Google Scholar
  43. Troeltsch, E. (1931). The social teaching of the Christian churches (O. Wyon, Trans.). London: Allen and Unwin (Original work published 1912).Google Scholar
  44. Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and social convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1998). Cognitive and social consequences of the need for cognitive closure. European Review of Social Psychology, 8, 133–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson, B. (1970). Religious sects: A sociological study. London: Weidenfeld.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Blanton-Peale Institute 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Center for Psychology of ReligionUniversité Catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium

Personalised recommendations