Misconception of Quest: A Reply to Hood and Morris
Hood and Morris's critique of our work on the quest dimension seems to rest on two basic points: They claim, first, that we define the quest dimension as involving process but not content, while our operational measure of this dimension is not totally independent of content. They claim, second,...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
| Published: |
1985
|
| In: |
Review of religious research
Year: 1985, Volume: 26, Issue: 4, Pages: 398-407 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Parallel Edition: | Non-electronic
|
| Summary: | Hood and Morris's critique of our work on the quest dimension seems to rest on two basic points: They claim, first, that we define the quest dimension as involving process but not content, while our operational measure of this dimension is not totally independent of content. They claim, second, that we argue that "quest is best." A review of what we have said about the quest dimension reveals that each of these claims is false, leaving Hood and Morris's critique without foundation. We suspect that their misunderstanding of our position arose because of their reliance on typological thinking--for them, a person's orientation to religion is either quest or intrinsic, either quest or orthodox. Contrary to this view, the three dimensions in our model of religious orientation are independent, continuous variables. The degree to which a person's religion reflects one dimension says nothing about the degree to which it reflects another dimension. Finally, we consider possible implications of Hood and Morris's suggestion that we should stop collecting empirical evidence on psychological and social correlates of dimensions of religious orientation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2211-4866 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Review of religious research
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.2307/3511053 |