Constructs of Meaning and Religious Transformation: Cognitive Complexity, Postformal Stages, and Religious Thought

Cognitive complexity, religious cognition, cognitive development, and religious judgment: An empirical study of relationships amongst “normal” and “gifted” young people.

“…This research also lends further evidence to the utility of Day’s (2007a, 2008, 2010, 2011b, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c) construct of complexity in religious cognition, and its utility in understanding relationships among stage, structure, and problem-solving where religious elements are involved in intellectual, interpersonal, and social dilemmas, with repercussions for understanding both psychological development and implications for applied domains such as social, moral, and religious education, as well as clinical practice and pastoral accompaniment in religious settings.…”

“…The stages in order of increasing complexity in keeping with the Model of Hierarchical Complexity are concrete , abstract , formal, systematic , and metasystematic. Previous studies showed robust validity in both the conception of the stage structures in the descriptions of the pastors’ responses, and that nearly all subjects in the validation studies using religious diverse samples from Belgium, England, and the U.S.A. selected preferred stages as extremely good, and ranked the corresponding lower stages in descending order of preference, entirely in keeping with the logic of the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (Day, 2008, 2011a, 2011b, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c).…”

“…In speaking of religious cognition we are concerned with how people cope with, and mobilize, both numbers and complexity of variables when considering religious questions, and dilemmas where religious elements are concerned. The number, and complexity, of variables employed by a person faced with the need to resolve a practical problem or hypothetical dilemma in experimental settings constitutes their level of complexity in religious cognition (Day, 2013c).…”

Religion and human development in adulthood: Well-being, prosocial behavior, and religious and spiritual development.

“…In these, religious was associated with institutionalized practices, beliefs, and authority structures linked to identifiable religious traditions, and spiritual was associated with a personal quest for meaning, and experience of the transcendent, quasi-independent of institutionalized religion. For our purposes, it is relevant to note, as I and others have elsewhere done, that this difference has become increasingly marked in studies of adults, and would appear particularly salient for studying what spiritual development means to developing adults (Day, 1994, 1999, 2010b, 2013a; Robinson, 2013; Sinnott, 1994, 2002, 2010).…”

“…Early contributors in psychoanalysis, experimental, and personality psychology wrote on the topic, and enquired about what led to, or impeded “healthy” psychological development. Today, as recent meta-analyses of the literature demonstrate, psychology is rich with research on religious and spiritual development and its relationship to moral development (e.g., Day, 2007a, 2007b, 2008a, 2008b; 2010a, 2010b; 2013a, 2013b, 2013c; Day & Naedts, 2006; Day & Youngman, 2003; Day & Jesus, 2013; Robinson, 2013; Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger, & Gorsuch, 2003; Streib, Hood, Keller, Csoff, & Silver, 2009; Toth-Gauthier & Day, 2015), as well as psychological studies comparing and, sometimes contrasting, religious and spiritual experience (e.g., Streib & Hood, 2015; Zinnbauer & Pargament, 2005), and religion in its relationship to positive psychology and human well-being (e.g., Day, 2010b; Pichon, Boccato, & Saroglou, 2007; Saroglou, Buxant, & Tilquin, 2008; Spilka et al, 2003). All of this research has implications for understanding, fostering, and enhancing adult development.…”