Goals and regulations of religiosity: A motivational analysis

Abstract

The fields of religious and motivation psychology have quite independently developed their own conceptualizations and research agendas. Few scholars, however, have examined issues that are at the intersection of both fields and, if so, most researchers in the psychology of religion did not make use of existing general motivational frameworks to enrich their understanding of the motivational dynamics for religious behaviors. The aim of the present chapter is to indicate how self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, (2000a) American Psychologist, 55, 68-78) might help to further refine Allport's classical distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation. Specifically, it is argued that the reasons or regulations for religious behavior (initially, intrinsic vs. extrinsic; later, autonomous vs. controlled) and the goals of religious behavior (intrinsic vs. extrinsic), as they are defined within self-determination theory, are not distinguished within Allport's and other researchers' frameworks. Both conceptual dimensions might better be disentangled, so that their independent effects could be studied.

Updating Allport's and Batson's Framework of Religious Orientations: A Reevaluation from the Perspective of Self-Determination Theory and Wulff's Social Cognitive Model

“…Hence, going to church to attain social affiliation (i.e., an intrinsic goal) can be regulated autonomously or controlled, just like one can feel free or obligated to contribute to the community by donating money. Following Neyrinck, Lens, and Vansteenkiste (2005), Allport's IR can be conceptualized as autonomous behavioral regulations, while both Ep and Es can be framed as goal pursuits.…”

“…Hence, Allport's IR should correlate positively with SDT's intrinsic motivation, while both Ep and Es should correlate with all the different subtypes of extrinsic motivation. However, given that the concept of extrinsic motivation has been broken down into different subtypes within SDT, we propose a more refined set of hypotheses (Neyrinck, Lens, and Vansteenkiste 2005).…”

“…The conceptual distinction between qualitatively different types of extrinsic motivation has been examined in several life domains, including the domain of religion (see Neyrinck, Lens, and Vansteenkiste 2005 for an overview). Research has shown that a more internalized behavioral regulation of religious behaviors is positively related to well‐being, more frequent engagement in religious behaviors (Ryan, Rigby, and King 1993), and a more flexible approach to religious contents (Assor et al 2005; Neyrinck et al 2006).…”

How Do Perceptions of God as Autonomy Supportive or Controlling Relate to Individuals' Social-Cognitive Processing of Religious Contents? The Role of Motives for Religious Behavior

“…Although at first sight it may seem as if the distinction between autonomous and controlled motivation is equivalent to the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, Neyrinck and colleagues pointed out a number of important differences between both perspectives (Neyrinck, Lens, & Vansteenkiste, 2005;Neyrinck, Lens, Vansteenkiste, & Soenens, 2010). For instance, it was argued and found that Allport's concept of intrinsic religious orientation (which involves considering religiosity as a master motive in life and deriving a sense of meaning from religious engagement) leans more closely toward the SDT-based concept of identified motivation (where people fully endorse and understand the importance and meaning of their religious activities) than toward the SDT-based concept of intrinsic motivation (where people engage in religious activities for the inherent satisfaction derived from the activities themselves).…”

“…Further, it was found that Allport's extrinsic religious orientation was relatively orthogonal to an SDT-based measure of controlled motivation. Neyrinck and colleagues (Neyrinck et al, 2005;Neyrinck et al, 2010) argued that an extrinsic religious orientation as defined by Allport does not necessarily reflect a sense of pressure or coercion to engage in religious activities (i.e., controlled motivation). Instead, an extrinsic orientation appears to encompass a number of goals (rather than motives), such as safety and social contact, that can be undergirded by either autonomous or controlled motives.…”