Response to Reich's 'Do We Need a Theory for the Religious Development of Women?'
This article responds to Reich's argument that the recent modifications to the faith development scoring criteria do not imply a modification of the theory of faith development. I argue that the new criteria do reflect a refinement in the theory. The theory now ranks defensiveness, emotional de...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
1997
|
| In: |
The international journal for the psychology of religion
Year: 1997, Volume: 7, Issue: 2, Pages: 93-97 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This article responds to Reich's argument that the recent modifications to the faith development scoring criteria do not imply a modification of the theory of faith development. I argue that the new criteria do reflect a refinement in the theory. The theory now ranks defensiveness, emotional detachment, and theory-driven reasoning as attributes of the transition between Stages 3 and 4, whereas earlier criteria identified those attributes with Stage 4 individuative-reflective thinking. The new definition of Stage 4 as a stage in which persons can coordinate theory and evidence, allowing neither to dominate, is intended to eliminate what was perhaps a Western White male bias in the theory. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1532-7582 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: The international journal for the psychology of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr0702_3 |