AUTHORS' RESPONSE: "The Many Frontiers of Spiritual Modeling"
We respond to and expand on comments by Bandura and by Silberman that have enlarged the discussion of spiritual modeling. Support is offered for the notion that God can be scientifically regarded as a spiritual model, but it is suggested there are no advantages to appending the term role to the term...
| VerfasserInnen: | ; |
|---|---|
| Medienart: | Elektronisch Aufsatz |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Verfügbarkeit prüfen: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Lade...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Veröffentlicht: |
Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group
2003
|
| In: |
The international journal for the psychology of religion
Jahr: 2003, Band: 13, Heft: 3, Seiten: 197-213 |
| Online Zugang: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Zusammenfassung: | We respond to and expand on comments by Bandura and by Silberman that have enlarged the discussion of spiritual modeling. Support is offered for the notion that God can be scientifically regarded as a spiritual model, but it is suggested there are no advantages to appending the term role to the term spiritual model. Negative spiritual models are important and can cause harm, but sharp prespecified definitions of model valence are unlikely to succeed and unnecessary for psychological practice. Examples from Hinduism and Islam are offered for developing multifaith training resources on spiritual models and modeling processes. Self-efficacy, both individual and collective, is suggested as a fertile direction for applied spiritual modeling research, and it is suggested that everyday and famous or divine models may provide complementary forms of efficacy information. An encouraging pilot test of the Spiritual Modeling Inventory of Life Environments (SMILE) is briefly discussed. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1532-7582 |
| Enthält: | Enthalten in: The international journal for the psychology of religion
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1207/S15327582IJPR1303_04 |