Search

In my comment on the article Christian Tolerance of Ambiguity I argue that we do not need an Ideological Surround Model for achieving a kind of "balanced objectivity" in the psychology of religion. In addition, I argue that the distinction between two ideological surrounds is much too simple with regard to the debates and controversies among psychologists of religion concerning the "good" theoretical concepts and empirical methods and the "evil" ones. I also formulate some problems I have with the suggested Christian translation of the Budner Scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study assessed the possibility that the Budner (1962) Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale can offer an ideologically biased understanding of religious commitments. In a large sample of university undergraduates (N = 650), Budner Scale correlations with Religious Interest, Religious Orientation, Need for Cognition, and Response Uncertainty supported the conclusion that religion predicts an inability to cope with uncertainty. At the same time, however, special procedures were used to create new scales expressing a Christian Tolerance of Ambiguity by translating Budner Scale items into a language that was more compatible with religious beliefs. These Christian Tolerance of Ambiguity measures revealed that religiousness was associated with an ability rather than an inability to cope with uncertainty. Conflicting results between these Christian and nonreligious Tolerance of Ambiguity measures yielded additional support for the Ideological Surround Model of the psychology of religion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]