SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dinbilimleri Akademik Araştırma Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1

Attachment Theory and the Evolutionary Psychology of Religion

BAĞLANMA TEORİSİ ve EVRİMSEL DİN PSİKOLOJİSİ

Lee A KIRKPATRICK
Pages
257–272
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Evolutionary psychology offers a valuable perspective within which the attachment system can be seen properly as just one (important) piece of a much larger puzzle--of psychology in general and religion in particular--as well as a powerful and generative paradigm for identifying and fitting together the many other pieces that will be required if we are to progress toward a comprehensive psychology of religion.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:More than 40 years after its inception, Bowlby's theory of infant-mother attachment remains widely accepted and highly influential across many areas and applications of psychology, including the psychology of religion.
📊
Key Findings & Data:From the perspective of contemporary evolutionary psychology--with which Bowlby's original theory has much in common--the attachment system is one among many functionally domain-specific cognitive adaptations that populate our species' evolved psychological architecture.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Evolutionary psychology offers a valuable perspective within which the attachment system can be seen properly as just one (important) piece of a much larger puzzle--of psychology in general and religion in particular--as well as a powerful and generative paradigm for identifying and fitting together the many other pieces that will be required if we are to progress toward a comprehensive psychology of religion.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

More than 40 years after its inception, Bowlby's theory of infant-mother attachment remains widely accepted and highly influential across many areas and applications of psychology, including the psychology of religion. From the perspective of contemporary evolutionary psychology--with which Bowlby's original theory has much in common--the attachment system is one among many functionally domain-specific cognitive adaptations that populate our species' evolved psychological architecture. Evolutionary psychology offers a valuable perspective within which the attachment system can be seen properly as just one (important) piece of a much larger puzzle--of psychology in general and religion in particular--as well as a powerful and generative paradigm for identifying and fitting together the many other pieces that will be required if we are to progress toward a comprehensive psychology of religion.

Özet

Bolwby'ın anne çocuk bağlılığı teorisi, kurulmasından itibaren 40 yıldan fazla süre geçmiş olmasına rağmen, din psikolojisini de içine alan psikolojinin pek çok alan ve uygulamalarda yüksek düzeyde etki ve yaygın kabule sahip olmayı sürdürmektedir. -Bowlby'ın orijinal teorisi ile pek çok ortak noktası olan- çağdaş evrimsel psikolojinin bakış açısından bağlanma sistemi, insanlığın geliştirdiği psikolojik yapıyı oluşturan işlevsel olarak pek çok özel bilişsel adaptasyonlardan birisidir. Evrimsel psikoloji, bağlanma sisteminin haklı olarak daha büyük bulmacanın -genelde psikoloji özelde ise din psikolojisi- sadece önemli küçük bir parçası olarak görülebildiği değerli bir bakış açısı ortaya koymakta ve bununla birlikte kapsamlı bir din psikolojisi geliştirmeye yönelik süreçte gerekli olacak olan diğer pek çok parçayı tanıma ve yerleştirmede güçlü ve üretken bir paradigma sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KIRKPATRICK, L. A. (2022). Attachment Theory and the Evolutionary Psychology of Religion. Dinbilimleri Akademik Araştırma Dergisi, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 1, 257–272. https://ajindex.com/articles/489256

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Allport, G. W. (1954).
  2. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Barrett, J. L. (2007). Cognitive science of religion: What is it and why is it? Religion Compass, 1, 768-786.
  3. Batson, C. D. (1983). Sociobiology and the role of religion in promoting prosocial behav- ior: An alternative view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1380- 1385. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books. Burkert, W. (1996). Creation Of The Sacred: Tracks Of Biology In Early Religions. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  4. Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 1-30.
  5. Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1987). From evolution to behavior: Evolutionary psychology as the missing link. In J. Dupre (Ed.), The latest on the best: Essays on evolution and optimality (pp. 121-146).
  6. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  7. Crippen, T., & Machalek, R. (1989). The evolutionary foundations of the religious life. International Review of Sociology, 3, 61-84.
  8. Granqvist, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2008). Attachment and religious representations and behavior. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 906-933).New York, NY: Guilford. Granqvist, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (in press). Religion, spirituality, and attachment. In K. I. Pargament, J. Exline, & J. Jones. (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The evolution of social behavior. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1-52.
  9. Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 673. Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1992). An attachment-theory approach to the psychology of religion. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 3-28. ________, (1999). Toward an evolutionary psychology of religion. Journal of Personality, 67, 921-952. ________, (2005). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion. New York, NY: Guilford. ________, (2006). Religion is not an adaptation. In P. McNamara (Ed.), Where God and science meet: How brain and evolutionary studies alter our understanding of reli- gion (Vol. 1, pp. 159-179).
  10. Westport, CT: Praeger Perspectives. ________, (2008). Religion is not an adapt