Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

  • We're Hiring!
  • Help Center

paper cover thumbnail

The psychology of worldviews

Profile image of Mark E Koltko-Rivera

2004, Review of General Psychology

A worldview (or “world view”) is a set of assumptions about physical and social reality that may have powerful effects on cognition and behavior. Lacking a comprehensive model or formal theory up to now, the construct has been underused. This article advances theory by addressing these gaps. Worldview is defined. Major approaches to worldview are critically reviewed. Lines of evidence are described regarding world-view as a justifiable construct in psychology. Worldviews are distinguished from schemas. A collated model of a worldview’s component dimensions is described. An integrated theory of worldview function is outlined, relating worldview to personality traits, motivation, affect, cognition, behavior, and culture. A worldview research agenda is outlined for personality and social psychology (including positive and peace psychology).

Related Papers

PsycEXTRA Dataset

Mark E Koltko-Rivera

Approaches to counseling and psychotherapy are based upon philosophical assumptions that are usually unstated (Slife & Williams, 1995). In essence, these assumptions constitute worldviews (i.e., sets of assumptions about life and reality). However, the assumptions underlying different approaches to counseling and psychotherapy have never been stated in terms of a rigorous approach to the theory of worldviews. In this poster, I compare the implicit worldview orientations of (1) Freudian psychoanalysis, (2) cognitive-behavioral therapy, and (3) humanistic / transpersonal counseling and therapy, in terms of the Collated Model of worldview dimensions (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). I also note questions for future study, regarding theory, research, training, and practice in counseling and psychotherapy.

worldview psychology paper

Psychology of Religion Newsletter

An emerging trend in public discourse is a renewal of interest in psychological explanations of the phenomenon of religion. I point out some problems with that trend, one of which is that it diverts attention from a more interesting issue: religious explanations of psychology (i.e., how religion influences individual and social psychological phenomena). I focus upon this more interesting issue, and how it might be addressed through the use of the construct of Weltanschauung, or worldview. It has been asserted that “within the psychology of religion, the cry for good theory remains at the level of cacophony” (Spilka, Hood, Hunsberger, & Gorsuch, 2003, p. 539).My ambition here is to answer that cry in a useful way. I conclude with some suggestions for research.

Review of General Psychology

The conventional description of Abraham Maslow’s (1943, 1954) hierarchy of needs is inaccurate as a description of Maslow’s later thought. Maslow (1969a) amended his model, placing self-transcendence as a motivational step beyond self-actualization. Objections to this reinterpretation are considered. Possible reasons for the persistence of the conventional account are described. Recognizing self-transcendence as part of Maslow’s hierarchy has important consequences for theory and research: (a)a more comprehensive understanding of worldviews regarding the meaning of life; (b) broader understanding of the motivational roots of altruism, social progress, and wisdom; (c) a deeper understanding of religious violence; (d) integration of the psychology of religion and spirituality into the mainstream of psychology; and (e) a more multiculturally integrated approach to psychological theory.

The General Psychologist

This paper was presented on the occasion of the author's receiving the George A. Miller Award for Best Paper in General Psychology from the Society for General Psychology (Division 1, American Psychological Association). From the paper: "I am receiving this award for the article, 'The Psychology of Worldviews' (Koltko-Rivera, 2004). Today, I will do four things. First, I will briefly summarize the main points of that article, to describe what worldviews are. Second, I will share my thoughts about why the worldview construct has been ignored by disciplinary psychology, and about why this situation must change. Third, I will describe two ways in which focusing attention on the worldview construct can help to further the cause of unification in psychology. Fourth, in considering some of my work in progress, I will describe a final, and somewhat controversial, way in which we might further unification in psychology. My take home message is that the worldview construct should form a part of the research, practice, and theory agenda of every psychologist within this building [i.e., the Washington, DC Convention Center]; the construct is an important one for scientific and professional psychology, and, as further benefits, its use can advance the causes, not only of unification in psychology, but even world peace." [Reference: Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2006, Spring). Worldviews, families, and grand theories: Strategies for unification in psychology. _The General Psychologist_, _41_(1), 11-14.]

Ecological Economics

Annick De Witt

Mona Abo-Zena

APA PsycNET Our Apologies! - The following features are not available with your current Browser configuration. - display, print, save, export, and email selected records - get My List count - save record to My List - get references ...

Encyclopaedia of Psychology and Religion

el-Sayed el-Aswad

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

Mark E Koltko-Rivera , Peter Hancock

Researchers in human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) are encouraged to consider two classes of predictor variables that typically are not included in traditional performance research: worldview and acculturation. Worldviews are sets of assumptions about life and the physical and social worlds. Acculturation involves the degree of commitment made to a culture's set of values and practices. Worldview and acculturation are highly relevant to performance. Two worldview variables, Individualism—Collectivism and Locus of Control, have attracted research interest. At least four other dimensions within Koltko-Rivera's (2004) collated model of worldview are likely to be relevant to performance: mutability, time orientation, relation to authority, and interaction. As industrialized societies become more diverse, acculturation becomes more relevant to performance. Several areas are identified for future research, such as worldview/acculturation—task interactions, and team cognition. Assessment instrumentation is briefly described. [Reference: Koltko-Rivera, M. E., Ganey, H. C. N., Dalton, J., & Hancock, P. A. (2004). Worldview and acculturation as predictors of performance: Addressing these variables in human factors/ergonomics research. In _Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society_, _48_, 1223-1227.]

Teaching and Teacher Education

Dina Tsybulsky

In this qualitative study, we examined the worldviews that contemporary science teachers demonstrate in relation to the digital revolution. The main goal of the study was to gain insight into participants' worldviews as related to the digital revolution, specifically, the contents and structure of their worldviews. The data collection method consisted of in-depth interviews with 30 in-service high-school science teachers. Study findings revealed three different categories of the way teachers perceived their own place and role vis-à-vis the digital revolution: 1) outside observers; 2) circumspect participants; 3) conscientious participants.

Vincenzi, Mouloua, & Hancock (Eds.), _Human performance, situation awareness and automation: Current research and trends_

This paper reflects on issues raised in Schaab's (2004) presentation concerning personality characteristics of the cyber-competent. Schaab's findings raise the possibility that personality traits affect cyber-competence, an insight that is certainly congruent with everyday experience, where personality is seen as affecting human performance in many ways. To apply personality theory to human factors domains, researchers have available to them a variety of theoretical frameworks to study traits (including factorial and circumplex models) and motives (including specific motive and motivational structure theories), for all of which operationalizations are available. There is also a pressing need to develop a set of scales to assess attitudes towards high technology. Human factors researchers should use these theoretical frameworks and operationalizations to study how personality moderates human interaction with the products of high technology (e.g., computers, robots, software agents); this would be the first step in learning how to enhance the cyber-competence of all people. [Reference: Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). Personality theory and human factors research. In D. Vincenzi, M. Mouloua, & P. A. Hancock (Eds.), _Human performance, situation awareness and automation: Current research and trends_ (Vol. 2, pp. 261-265). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.]

RELATED PAPERS

Stanney & Zyda (Eds.), _Advances in virtual environments technology_ [CD-ROM, unpaginated]

Shelly P Harrell

Shelly Harrell

papers.ssrn.com

Pelin Kesebir

Journal of Environmental Psychology

Paul T P Wong

Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences

Silvia L. Mazzula

Mass Communication and Society

Isabella Ng

Ethics and Information Technology

Robert Magee

Fung Timothy K F , Dominique Brossard

Michael Mascolo

Psychotherapy

Nicholas Hedlund

David Kerrigan

Emerging Adulthood

Ian Gutierrez

Religious Education

Doret Ruyter

Journal of Counseling & Development

Gargi Roysircar

Annick De Witt , Nicholas Hedlund

Thomas J . Coleman III

Andrea Gaggioli

International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling

Lisa Frey , Gargi Roysircar

Personality and Individual Differences

John Duckitt

American Psychologist

MuSyarrafah Muqarramah SulaimanKurdi

American Journal of Sexuality Education

Justin Sitron

Mental Health, Religion & Culture

Ann Taves , Egil Asprem

Catherine Ann Lombard

Chin Ming Hui

Journal of International Management

V. Taras , Piers Steel

John Christopher

Handbook of multicultural perspectives …

Dipafrodita Usmanova

Tomas Chabada , Tomáš Hampejs

Katrina Michelle

Counselling Psychology Quarterly

Frederick Leong

Journal of Clinical Psychology

RELATED TOPICS

  •   We're Hiring!
  •   Help Center
  • Find new research papers in:
  • Health Sciences
  • Earth Sciences
  • Cognitive Science
  • Mathematics
  • Computer Science
  • Academia ©2024

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • PMC10370735

Logo of plosone

Worldviews and the role of social values that underlie them

Rebekah Mifsud

1 Department of Cognitive Science, University of Malta, Msida, Malta

Gordon Sammut

2 Centre for the Study and Practice of Conflict Resolution, University of Malta, Valletta, Malta

Associated Data

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

In today’s ideologically diverse world, it is pertinent to have a better understanding of how our beliefs of the social world shape our thinking and behaviour. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the key social values that underlie particular sets of beliefs, referred to here as worldviews. Worldviews encompass beliefs that shape one’s outlook on life and are, therefore, instrumental in providing meaning to one’s reality and one’s understanding as to how one fits in it. They can be classified into five unique types, namely, Localised , Orthodox , Pragmatist , Reward , and Survivor . In this paper we start by proposing a theoretical relationship between this five-factor typology and social values. Following this, we present findings that show that worldviews may be mapped onto the two higher order value dimensions of Openness to Change versus Conservation , and Self-transcendence versus Self-Enhancement . We conclude by outlining the implications that these findings have on understanding individual cognition and society in general.

Introduction

Investigating beliefs naturally solicits the question of what purpose they serve. Beliefs exist at varying levels of generalizability and are shaped and reinforced by culture, experience, and theology [ 1 ]. For this reason, they serve multiple purposes drawing upon the need to form “enduring, unquestioned ontological representations of the world” [ 2 ]. When a set of related beliefs combine, they do so in terms of overlapping substantive content or shared functionality. Either way, when they do they form belief systems that, when coherently clustered, are recognisable as generalized worldviews or ideologies. The understanding of belief systems and how different beliefs bind together has been a relatively popular focus of social research [ 3 – 5 ]. From political ideologies to religious beliefs, various studies have suggested that belief systems need not just be contained within the individual but rather may also exist across individuals [ 6 ], facilitating ways of developing alliances with others, maintaining a shared reality, and extending the lifespan of the belief system beyond the believers themselves [ 1 , 3 ]. It follows, therefore, that belief systems have an important role in both personal identity and society, serving the psychological needs of the individual as well as the institutionalised power structures of society. More relevant to our study is the need to understand how elements of belief systems, such as values [ 1 ], play a role in shaping and informing our understanding of ourselves and the world around us, and in what manner they serve to guide our actions. The need to investigate this is evident when considering the highly divided world we live in. For instance, religious beliefs and political ideologies are known to exert a significant influence on social cohesion [ 7 ]. Accordingly, it is not unreasonable to hypothesise that worldviews too may play such a role. Investigating the values that underlie our worldviews is an essential step towards understanding the motives and perspectives of individuals that enable effective communication and collaboration amongst diverse actors.

In this paper, we start by defining worldviews and values and follow with foraging a theoretical linkage between the two. We then proceed by reporting the findings of a study of this theoretical overture before we conclude with a discussion of implications and suggestions for future study. We conclude by asserting that the study of worldviews offers a pathway towards the understanding of coalitional and oppositional projects undertaken by social groups in everyday life.

Beliefs and belief systems share several essential properties and features, namely: they vary in generalizability and strength; they may arise and be reinforced by experience, culture, society, philosophy, and theology; they are instrumental in helping us provide meaning of the world, ourselves and our place in society; and they also share a strong relationship with behaviour [ 1 ]. It is reasonable, therefore, to propose that we are wired for storing beliefs and using them to navigate the world around us. Buhagiar and Sammut [ 8 ] explain how beliefs serve an extended dual purpose of describing elements in our environment for the purpose of guiding action. Similar sentiments have been subsequently proposed by Power et al. [ 9 ] with regards to world-making. This involves worldviews, that is, a particular set of generalized beliefs that we use to describe ourselves and the world around us. Worldviews encompass beliefs that shape our outlook on life and they are pertinent in providing meaning to our reality and our understanding of how we fit within it [ 10 ]. In an extensive review of the literature on worldviews, Koltko-Rivera [ 10 ] has pointed out that the construct of worldviews has oftentimes been defined and named in a multitude of ways, from cultural and value orientations aimed at conceptualizing worldviews at a social level [ 11 – 13 ], to philosophical outlooks aimed at conceptualizing worldviews at an individual level [ 14 ]. More than a decade later, this scenario on worldviews remains largely the same, lacking a unified understanding of the concept. We attempt to remedy this pitfall in the present paper. Similar to Koltko-Rivera [ 10 ], we define worldviews as representations of the structure of how and what people think. We propose that their function lies in how they operate to enable subjects to adapt their responses to present ecological demands [ 15 , 16 ]. As outlined by Sammut et al. [ 16 ], a number of theoretical constructs fall in line with this definition of worldviews that have employed different terms. Sammut et al. (2022) identify four theories that propose remarkably identical five-factor typologies, namely: (i) symbolic universes [ 17 ], (ii) social axioms [ 18 ], (iii) moral foundations [ 19 ], and (iv) deep stories [ 20 ]. It is worth noting that these typologies possess various similar features. Firstly, they do not solely focus on individual disposition but situate individual dispositions within the wider social sphere, tapping into psychological constructs that shape the way individuals interpret their social world. Secondly, they all serve the practical purpose of enabling individuals to adapt suitably to different situational demands. For instance, the symbolic universe, Interpersonal Bond ; the moral foundation, Loyalty/Betrayal ; and the deep story profile, Team Player , emphasize pro-social behaviour. Conversely, the symbolic universe, Others’ World ; the social axiom, Social Cynicism ; the moral foundation, Authority/Respect ; and the deep story profile, Cowboy , emphasize selfish behaviour. With consideration to these commonalities, Sammut et al. [ 16 ] proposed the notion of worldviews, offering a novel five-factor typology aimed at unifying the above-mentioned concepts. The five worldview types include the (i) Localised , (ii) Orthodox , (iii) Pragmatist , (iv) Reward , and (v) Survivor worldviews [ 16 ]. As summarised in Table 1 , each worldview captures a symbolic universe, social axiom, moral foundation, and a deep story profile. The Localised worldview involves the desire to fix problems or address social issues. The Orthodox worldview seeks to preserve the status quo. The Pragmatist worldview is protective and revolves around self-interest. The Reward worldview centres around determination to work hard to obtain a desired goal. Lastly, the Survivor worldview involves fatalism, distrust in others and the need to overcome adversity [ 16 ]. It is worth noting that what differentiates these worldviews from the other similar five-factor typologies is the way in which they are measured, namely through vignettes. Vignettes are better suited for identifying worldviews because they provide a rich holistic formulation that may otherwise not be captured through the sum of a sequence of Likert scales. Specifically, the worldview vignettes offer a flexible approach in which, given a narrative, respondents are allowed to formulate and consider a generalized situational outlook when interpreting them [ 21 ]. For instance, when interpreting a Survivor worldview, a respondent in India might be despairing about food whilst a respondent in the USA might be despairing about mortgages. Ultimately, despite the differences in personal experiences that respondents draw upon, the psychological experience remains similar. Therefore, worldviews can be thought to be the phenomenological filter for engaging the cognitive miser, acting as a lens through which individuals interpret their own personal experiences.

Social values

Belief systems and values are linked to each other because the former allows the manifestation of the latter [ 1 , 22 ]. One could argue that the distinction resembles that between genotype and phenotype in evolution. Values are formulated on the basis of what an individual or social group deems to be important, desirable or favourable, playing a key role in bridging the gap between individual and society [ 13 , 23 ]. One of the most established theories of values is the one outlined by Schwartz [ 13 ]. In his theory Schwartz [ 13 ] defines values as individually held subjective beliefs that (a) are strongly associated with feelings (b) refer to desirable goals that motivate action (c) are ordered in level of relative importance, and (d) set a standard on which judgements and decisions are made. Furthermore, values are also defined as universal because they are thought to satisfy three universal requirements of human existence, namely, the needs of individuals as human beings, of harmonious social interaction, and of survival and welfare of social groups [ 23 ]. Schwartz’s theory of values organizes them in the form of a circumplex consisting of 10 broad value types, namely: (1) self-direction (independent thought and action), (2) stimulation (excitement towards life), (3) hedonism (gratification for oneself), (4) achievement (personal success), (5) power (authority and status), (6) security (safety and stability), (7) conformity (following social norms), (8) tradition (respecting customs), (9) benevolence (well-meaning towards others), and (10) universalism (respecting of all people and nature) [ 13 , 23 ]. Empirical evidence for this model emerged from smallest space analysis that examined the spatial relationships amongst the values [ 13 ]. Notably, Schwartz et al. [ 24 ] have recently developed a more detailed value circumplex consisting of 19 different value types that can, however, be collapsed into the original 10. Additional analysis of the original 10 value circumplex revealed a two-dimensional structure [ 13 , 23 ]. On the one hand, Conservation versus Openness to Change reflects the tension between values relating to preservation or change of the status quo [ 13 ]. On the other hand, Self-Enhancement versus Self-Transcendence reflects the tension between values relating to personal or other-related interests and successes [ 13 ]. Schwartz’s theory has been validated across a wide range of countries and cultures, and the measures of these values (i.e., the Schwartz Values Survey [SVS]), has demonstrated strong psychometric properties [ 24 – 26 ]. In addition, meaningful relationships have been reported between values and beliefs [ 13 , 14 ].

The hypothesized relationship between worldviews and values

Worldviews and values may be thought of as comprising a hierarchical structure with values being the more abstract and worldviews being the less abstract [ 27 ]. Earlier it was noted that values are universal and applicable regardless of context [ 23 ]. Particularly, since values transcend specific situations and contexts, they offer an opportunity to understand the motivational constituents that make up one’s avowed worldview. The values that we refer to in our study are the higher order values identified by Schwartz [ 13 , 23 ]. Though Schwartz’s value theory and the concept of worldviews are distinct frameworks having different foci and applications, we believe there is a degree of correspondence between the two. Particularly, the two higher order values outlined seemingly correspond with Triandis’ dissection of individualism-collectivism dimensions, which have been linked to cultural worldviews [ 28 , 29 ]. Due to this, Schwartz’s higher order value dimensions, that are more individual-oriented, offer an opportunity to link values to our conceptualisation of worldviews. Indeed, with reference to Schwartz’s value theory, empirical evidence has provided support for a meaningful relationship between individually-held beliefs and generalized values [ 30 , 31 ]. For instance, Feldman [ 30 ] reported that despite evidence that values and moral foundations are unique and separate constructs, findings still indicate a telling relationship between the two. In one contrast, the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity foundations were associated with higher benevolence and universalism values when collapsed under the higher order value of self-transcendence. In the other contrast, the Loyalty/Betrayal , Authority/Respect , and Purity/Sanctity foundations were associated with higher tradition, conformity, and security values when collapsed under the higher order value of conservation [ 30 ]. These findings corroborate an earlier meta-analysis examining the value-attitude relationship based on moral foundation theory [ 32 ], where self-transcendence values were found to be related to the Fairness foundation/pro-environmental attitudes and the Care foundation/pro-social attitudes [ 33 ]. Conversely, conservation values were found to be related to the Purity foundation/religious attitudes and the Authority foundation/political attitudes [ 33 ]. With reference to research on social axioms and values, Social Complexity has been reported to positively correlate with self-direction and benevolence values, Reward for Application has positively correlated with conformity values, and Fate Control and Religiosity have positively correlated with tradition values [ 31 ]. Though such studies do not directly tap into the construct of worldviews being investigated here, they are meaningful in their implications on the construct (see Table 1 ). For this reason, such findings offer a strong basis for predicting a relationship between worldviews and values (see Table 2 for summary of predictions).

The Localised worldview is associated with a generally positive outlook of people and the world, with a strong willingness to contribute towards the wellness of others. Furthermore, it is also associated with flexible and open views. As outlined in Table 1 , this worldview is conceptually linked to the Social Complexity social axiom, amongst others. Social Complexity has been positively linked to values of self-transcendence [ 31 ]. Furthermore, prosocial behaviour, the central underlying characteristic of the Localised worldview, has also been linked to values of self-transcendence. In light of these findings, it is reasonable to expect that the Localised worldview will correlate positively with values of self-transcendence. Findings relating these beliefs to the values of openness to change, or conservation, are not entirely in synch. Specifically, the Loyalty/Betrayal foundation has been linked to values of conservation, however, the Social Complexity social axiom has not been linked to either of the values of conservation or openness to change. These noncomplementary findings may be attributed to slight variation in each belief’s underlying notions, or perhaps even to differing methodological approaches. Nevertheless, considering that the Localised worldview is conceptually linked to open mindedness, it is expected to positively correlate with values of openness to change. These expected linkages emphasize the significance of other-related interests and the resistance of maintaining a status quo for the Localised worldview.

The Orthodox worldview is associated with a generally positive outlook of people and the world, however, without the desire to change the status quo. For this reason, this worldview is characterised by rather rigid and convergent thinking, ready to accept the current state of matters with little challenge. Indeed, in a study on views towards recreational cannabis use, Sammut et al. [ 16 ] reported that the Orthodox worldview stood out from the other worldviews in predicting opposition towards recreational cannabis use. The Orthodox worldview is conceptually linked to the Purity/Sanctity foundation and the Religiosity social axiom, both of which were correlated with values of conservation [ 30 , 31 , 33 ]. Furthermore, Religiosity was also found to be positively linked to values of self-transcendence [ 31 ]. With consideration to these findings, it is expected that the Orthodox worldview correlates positively with values of self-transcendence and conservation.

The Pragmatist worldview is associated with distrust in social institutions and a relatively negative outlook of people and the word. Despite this, individuals who endorse the Pragmatist worldview also believe that one can easily navigate such a world if one is willing to adapt and bend the rules. This worldview is conceptually linked to the Fairness/Reciprocity foundation and Fate Control social axiom, amongst others. It is worth noting that findings on the two belief systems are different, namely, the Fairness/Reciprocity foundation positively correlates with values of self-transcendence whereas Fate Control does not [ 30 , 31 , 33 ]. Another conceptual link to this worldview includes the Niche of Belongingness symbolic universe. Salvatore et al. [ 17 ] claim that this symbolic universe, along with Interpersonal Bond , may be seen as a source of bonding social capital (i.e., prioritizing in-group identity and cohesion). For this reason, it will be expected that, like Fate Control but unlike the Fairness/Reciprocity foundation, this worldview will correlate negatively with values of self-transcendence (and so positively with values of self-enhancement). Additionally, due to the element of distrust in those with power, it is expected that the Pragmatist worldview will correlate positively with values of openness to change. In an early study investigating the relationship between values and trust in institution, Devos et al. [ 34 ] reported that levels of trust correlated positively with values that emphasize security, preservation, and tradition, that is, those values subsumed under the higher order value of conservation. The authors also reported that levels of trust correlated negatively with values that emphasize change and independent action, that is, those values subsumed under the higher order value of openness to change. These findings were later corroborated by Morselli et al. [ 35 ] through a multilevel assessment carried out on cross-cultural datasets.

The Reward worldview is largely associated with hard work and a strong drive for achievement. Importantly, it is also characterised by obedience and respect of social norms. For this reason, an individual endorsing this worldview believes that life’s consequences are generally always fair and deserved, especially if one is unable to exercise restraint over their actions that violate the status quo. The Reward worldview is conceptually linked to the Harm/Care foundation and the Reward for Application social axiom, amongst others. Findings linking the two beliefs to values have shown a positive link between the Harm/Care foundation and values of self-transcendence [ 30 , 33 ], and between the Reward for Application social axiom and values of conservation [ 31 ]. As outlined earlier, the Harm/Care foundation represents the notion of looking after others. Although this aspect is shared with the Reward worldview, it is worth noting that possibly, for the Reward worldview, caring for others may arise as a by-product of the desire to be in a higher position (i.e., a parental/authority figure). Therefore, it is possible that the Harm/Care foundation is rooted in more egalitarian intentions in contrast to the Reward worldview. Due to this conceptual difference, it is expected that unlike the Harm/Care foundation, the Reward worldview positively correlates with values of self-enhancement. Furthermore, due to characteristics relating desire for authority and control to prevent harm, and in line with the findings on the Reward for Application social axiom, the Reward worldview is expected to correlate positively with values of conservation.

Lastly, the Survivor worldview is associated with a fatalistic and cynical view of people and the world. This negative view is also accompanied by significant distrust in society and its institutions. The Survivor worldview is conceptually linked to the Authority/Respect foundation which was found to correlate positively with values relating to conservation [ 30 ]. In addition, it is conceptually linked to the Social Cynicism social axiom which has correlated positively with the value of power but not with other values collapsed under the higher order values of self-transcendence and self-enhancement [ 31 ]. For this reason, it is not theoretically evident how the Survivor worldview correlates with the self-transcendence/self-enhancement value tension. Nevertheless, considering the findings within the domain of moral foundations [ 30 ] and findings linking fatalism to the values of conservation [ 36 ], it can be reasonably expected that the Survivor worldview correlates positively with conservation values.

This study formed part of a larger exercise investigating the cognitive and behavioural correlates of different beliefs, and their influence on self-regulatory processes. For the present purposes, only methods, data analyses, and results pertaining to the component investigating the correlations between worldviews and values will be reported.

Participants and procedure

Participants were recruited through Prolific Academic (ProA). ProA has been reported to produce superior data quality for behavioural research when compared to other online recruitment platforms such as Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) [ 37 ]. Since the study was a multi-part study, entailing participation in two different sessions, participants were pre-screened in ProA using the criteria of having already taken part in a minimum of five other studies and possessing an approval rate of 100%. These criteria were selected to ensure that participants had prior experience with using ProA and taking part in online studies.

Participants were provided with an online information letter and consent form outlining the details of the study. Following consent of participation by clicking the “continue to experiment” button, the first session commenced. This session contained the worldviews scale and vignettes, amongst other measures. Once the first session was completed and after a few hours had elapsed, the second session was made available to the same participants. This session contained the PVQ-RR, amongst other sessions. Each session lasted around 20 minutes and participants were rewarded a total of £7.00. This study received self-assessed ethical clearance following the University of Malta’s research code of ethics and ethical clearance procedures.

An initial total of 290 participants were recruited, 33 of which failed the attention checks put in place to ensure good quality of the data, and 6 participants failed to participate in the second session, resulting in 251 participants. Out of the 251 participants ( M age = 25.12, SD age = 3.20), 156 identified as female and 95 identified as male. All participants resided in one of the OECD countries as per ProA’s sign-up criterion. Most participants resided in Europe (66.9%), followed by Africa (17.9%), America and Canada (8.4%), and lastly Australia (6.0%).

A list of 5 vignettes were used, each characterising one of the worldviews (see Table 3 ). The vignettes were created and eventually refined through a preliminary study in which a correlation analysis was carried between items used in the measures of symbolic universes [ 17 ], social axioms [ 18 ], moral foundations [ 19 ], and the initial conceptualisation of the worldview vignettes. For each of these vignettes, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they believed that each vignette applied to themselves using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely). In addition, participants were also required to select a single vignette that best approximated their own views. This measure of worldviews has reliably been used in a different study that investigated the role of worldviews in predicting support for recreational cannabis use [ 16 ].

The Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ-RR) is an alternative to The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) that is more suitable for online administration. It comprises 57 short verbal portraits that describe a person’s goals and aspirations, implicitly tapping into a particular value. There are 3 verbal portraits for each of the 19 values. Typically, all portraits are gender-matched with the respondent, however, for the present study, gender neutral pronouns (they/their) were used to facilitate the online administration of the questionnaire. Participants were asked to complete the PVQ-RR by indicating the extent to which they believe they are like the person being described in each of its portraits, using a 5-point Likert scale. A 5-point Likert scale was adopted to match it with other scales being used in the questionnaire. PVQ-RR allowed for the measure of the 10 personal values, originally identified by Schwartz [ 13 ], the refined 19 values [ 24 ], and 4 higher order values [ 24 ]. The questionnaire demonstrates good psychometric properties for measuring personal values in non-clinical groups [ 24 ]. Particularly, the mean Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities for the 4 higher values in the present sample were: .88 self-transcendence, .79 self-enhancement, .84 openness to change, and .80 conservation.

Data analyses

The 19 values, outlined by Schwartz [ 23 ], were calculated by taking the average rating across the 3 verbal portraits that are related to the particular value [ 32 ]. Following this, the 4 higher order values were calculated as follows: self-transcendence was calculated by computing the mean score of the values of universalism and benevolence; self-enhancement was calculated by computing the mean scores of the values of achievement and power; openness to change was calculated by computing the mean score of the values of self-direction and hedonism; and conservation was calculated by computing the mean score of the value of security, tradition, and conformity [ 38 ]. As per the PVQ-RR scoring and analysis instructions recommended by Schwartz [ 38 ], centred value scores were calculated to correct for scale use bias. This was especially recommended since the primary modes of analyses for this study was correlation analyses and linear regression. Scores were centred for all values by calculating the mean rating across all items (MRAT) and subtracting this from each of the value scores [ 38 ].

To examine differences between worldviews, dummy variables for each worldview were created. Separate dummy regression analysis were then carried out including all the dummy worldviews, with the Localised worldview as the reference category and each individual higher order value as the dependent variable. To control for known sex differences and cultural differences in value orientation [ 39 , 40 ], all analyses entailed a two-block hierarchical model. With reference to cultural differences, since participants resided in a disproportionate variety of countries, these were grouped together in terms of continent. In the [ 39 , 40 ]two-block hierarchical model, gender (male, female) and continent (Africa, America, Australia, Europe) were included in the first block and the dummy coded worldviews were included in the second block. No issues of collinearity were detected in any of the analyses.

When asked to select the single worldview that best approximated their own, the majority chose the Localised worldview (45.4%), followed by Pragmatist (24.7%), Reward (13.1%), Orthodox (8.8%), and lastly, Survivor (8.0%). When asked to rate the extent of their agreement with each individual worldview, the Localised worldview received the highest rating ( M = 4.08, SD = .79) whereas the Survivor worldview received the lowest rating ( M = 2.60, SD = 1.17). With reference to value orientations, self-transcendence tended to be scored highest by those preferring the Localised worldview ( M = .54, SD = .38) and lowest by those preferring the Reward worldview. ( M = .27, SD = .31). Furthermore, self-enhancement tended to be scored the highest by those preferring the Reward worldview ( M = -.36, SD = .38) and lowest by those preferring the Orthodox worldview ( M = -.76, SD = .54). As for openness to change, it tended to be scored the highest by those preferring the Pragmatist worldview ( M = .37, SD = .32) and lowest by those preferring the Survivor worldview ( M = .15, SD = .46). Finally, conservation tended to be scored the highest by those preferring the Survivor worldview ( M = -.12, SD = .36) and lowest by those preferring the Localised worldview ( M = 3.27, SD = .54). These findings are illustrated in Fig 1A and 1B .

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0288451.g001.jpg

A. Mean (centred) score for self-transcendence and self-enhancement grouped by worldview. B. Mean (centred) score for openness to change and conservation grouped by worldview.

Correlations between worldviews and values

An overview of the correlations between the ratings for each individual worldview and the scores for each of the four higher-order values is outlined in Table 4 . The Localised worldview correlated positively with self-transcendence, r = .17, p = .009, and negatively with self-enhancement, r = -.17, p = .008. In contrast, the Reward and Survivor worldviews correlated negatively with self-transcendence, r = -.19, p = .003 and self-enhancement, r = -.21, p < .001 respectively. The Reward worldview also correlated negatively with openness to change, r = -.15, p = .018, and positively with conservation, r = 18, p = .004. Similarly, the Orthodox worldview correlated negatively with openness to change, r = -.15, p = .019, and positively with conservation, r = 19 p = .003. Lastly, the Pragmatist worldview was the only worldview to correlate negatively with conservation r = -.13, p = .040.

a Centred value scores

* p < .05.

** p < .01

Regression analyses

To investigate the influence of worldviews on higher order values (see Fig 1A and 1B ), a series of hierarchical regression models, with each of the four higher order values as the dependent variable, was carried out. As noted earlier, the first block of the model analysed the influence of the demographic variables (gender, continent) whereas the second block analysed the influence of worldviews.

The model predicting self-transcendence was significant, R 2 = .186, F (9, 241) = 3.719, p < .001. In this model, the worldviews alone contributed to 11.5% of the variance. Relative to the Localised worldview, all but the Orthodox worldview resulted in lower self-transcendence: the Reward , β = -.261, t (241) = -4.037, p < .001, Survivor , β = -.181, t (241) = -2.191, p = .029, and Pragmatist worldview, β = -.263, t (241) = -5.072, p < .001, predicted lower self-transcendence scores.

The model predicting self-enhancement was significant, R 2 = .96, F (9, 241) = 2.844, p < .01. In this model, the worldviews alone contributed to 6.7% of the variance. Relative to the Localised worldview, the Reward , β = .302, t (241) = 2.834, p = .005, and Pragmatist worldview, β = .283, t (241) = 3.304, p < .001, predicted higher self-enhancement scores.

The model predicting openness to change was significant, R 2 = .112, F (9, 241) = 3.372, p < .001. In this model, the worldviews alone contributed to 4.6% of the variance. Relative to the Localised worldview, the Reward , β = -.167, t (241) = -2.272, p = .024, and Survivor worldview, β = -.228, t (241) = -2.418, p = .016, predicted lower openness to change scores.

Lastly, the model predicting conservation was also significant, R 2 = .131, F (9, 241) = 4.030, p < .001. In this model, the worldviews alone contributed to 4.3% of the variance. Relative to the Localised worldview, the Reward , β = .160, t (241) = 2.310, p = .022, Survivor worldview, β = .201, t (241) = 2.258, p = .025, and Orthodox worldview β = .191, t (241) = 2.326, p = .021, predicted higher conservation scores.

The present paper examined the relationship between worldviews and values. Correlational analysis and a series of hierarchical linear regressions were carried out to assess this relationship as well as the influence that worldviews exert on specific higher order values. The findings show that, even though some belief systems, referred to herein as worldviews, are evidently different from each other, there are nevertheless unique points of convergence that may notably be attributed to underlying values. Moreover, when compared to the results of the regression analyses, the weaker results from the correlation analyses lend further support to the notion that, in quantitative research, the worldviews construct is best suited for explaining a proportion of variance that may otherwise remain unaccounted for by the predictor variables [ 10 ].

The Localised and Orthodox worldviews both agree on the value of self-transcendence but disagree on the value of conservation. Therefore, an individual who endorses either of these two worldviews is likely to be someone who subscribes to an egalitarian view of the world motivated to go beyond selfish desires to help and connect with others. However, what differentiates these two worldviews is the extent to which one is willing to act autonomously and freely. Those who endorse a Localised worldview are open to independence and are unrestricted by the need to abide by social order, whereas those who endorse an Orthodox worldview are more self-restricting and more comfortable acting within the confines of tradition and society. Though not empirically investigated, this difference between the two might be attributed to the sense of religiosity or belief in higher supremacy that characterises the Orthodox worldview. Earlier, the Orthodox worldview was proposed to be conceptually linked to the Ordered Universe symbolic universe, the Religiosity social axiom, the Purity/Sanctity moral foundation, and the Worshipper deep story profile. Notably, these have all been described as involving an underlying religious notion [ 17 – 20 ]. It could, therefore, be the case that the Orthodox worldview is linked to conservatism due to the tendency to adhere to religious teachings and the security that comes with that, undermining an element of agency and self-direction.

Like the Orthodox worldview, the Reward and Survivor worldviews also value conservation. The Reward worldview has been conceptually linked to the caring society symbolic universe, the Reward for Application social axioms, the Harm/Care moral foundation, and the Cosmopolitan deep story profile. A common feature underlying these beliefs is the importance of forming coalitions, developing trust, and living peacefully with others [ 17 – 20 ]. A reason for the link between the Reward worldview and conservation may arise out of the desire of maintaining peace within one’s group. For this worldview, it is possible that such peace is thought to be best achieved by exercising control and establishing and adhering to group norms. On a different note, the Survivor worldview, that has been conceptually linked to fatalistic and cynical beliefs, may be linked to conservation because of a sense of powerlessness. That is, even though one is distrustful of society, one would rather let matters remain as they are rather than risk having to adapt to something new. Put simply, for the Survivor worldview, “it is better the devil you know than the angel you do not know”. Unlike the Orthodox worldview, the Reward and Survivor worldviews do not value self-transcendence. Rather, the Reward worldview, in particular, has been linked to self-enhancement. Self-enhancement represents personal focus and self-protection. However, for the Reward worldview, the positive link with self-enhancement is not necessarily solely highlighting self-serving motives but could, more fittingly, be highlighting the importance of ingroup unity over outgroup helping. Therefore, for this worldview, ingroup favouritism may also explain a positive link with self-enhancement. The Survivor worldview is associated with cynicism. Early studies found empirical evidence linking cynicism with lower self-esteem and lower levels of interpersonal trust [ 41 ]. Such negative portrayals of the self and others may be a possible cause that explains why the Survivor worldview devalues self-transcendence and is not particularly linked to self-enhancement.

Similar to the Reward worldview, the Pragmatist worldview also has a negative relationship with self-transcendence and a positive relationship with self-enhancement. The Pragmatist worldview was earlier conceptually linked to Niche of Belongingness symbolic universe, the Fate Control social axioms, the Fairness/Reciprocity moral foundation, and the Rebel with a cause deep story profile. An underlying theme of these beliefs is a preference for individual autonomy coupled with reciprocal favouritism [ 17 – 20 ]. Essentially, the Pragmatist worldview utilises the “tit-for-tat” strategy to navigate the world. This strategy, which is synonymous with reciprocal altruism [ 42 ], is based on the principle that one reciprocates the other’s actions, collaborating only with individuals who are willing to return the favour [ 43 ]. The “tit-for-tat” strategy is an essential survival mechanism because it helps to protect self-interest whilst living peacefully with others [ 43 ]. It could be the case that the Pragmatist worldview is linked with self-enhancement because their actions are primarily driven by selfish intentions despite seeming to be altruistic in nature. The Pragmatist worldview potentially presents itself as a good example of how, ultimately, reciprocal altruism is rooted in a self-serving agenda [ 44 ].

The conceptual link between the Pragmatist worldview and openness to change differentiates it from the Reward worldview. A reason for this could be that individuals who endorse the Reward worldview find security in their social group whereas those with a Pragmatist worldview do not. Earlier, the Pragmatist worldview was related to a negative view of people and society, making them less likely to depend on others. This in turn makes individuals who endorse this worldview more likely to think and act independently, offering an explanation as to why one would be less willing to act within societal constraints.

Conclusion and future directions

The objective of this inquiry constitutes a starting point for understanding how worldviews may play a role in the formation of coalitions for action [ 8 ]. Specifically, the empirical relationship between worldviews and values facilitates the understanding of how individuals may come together and agree to support a cause or a course of action despite clear and widespread intra-group differences. In the pursuit of any cause, some stand to agree for one reason whereas others may agree with the cause or ends pursued for quite different reasons. We propose, therefore, that such agreement involves the coalition of worldviews. In other words, a worldview can ally with another worldview in the pursuit of conservative projects. This would be the case, for instance, in an alliance forged between those holding a Reward worldview and others holding an Orthodox worldview. That coalition, however, may well crumble should self-enhancing versus self-transcendent projects rise to the fore, at which point, the Reward worldview will find an ally in Pragmatist worldviews whilst the Orthodox emerge as a common opponent. This simple example illustrates the potential of understanding worldviews in explaining shifting coalitional dynamics in contemporary political landscapes.

A second domain of inquiry that requires empirical effort concerns the endorsement of worldviews and their cognitive correlates. A key question that arises in this theoretical formulation is whether worldviews are marked by individual differences in cognition that result out of inherent dispositions that incline some individuals towards a worldview more strongly than others, or whether, as Sammut [ 15 ] proposed, the worldview repertoire is accessible to all individuals with its utility exclusively contingent on situational circumstances. Sammut [ 15 ] proposes that individuals are able to change worldviews to ensure adaptation should their life conditions change. In this way, an individual pursuing a Reward worldview may, following a series of unfortunate events, emerge with a Survivor worldview that enables that individual to face adversity with grit even though there may be little to no personal gain. In essence, human subjects equipped with more or less similar cognitive power or prowess, as it were, should not be inclined one way or another relative to any particular worldview. Such inclinations should accrue solely as a consequence of life circumstances. Empirical study is required to determine whether this is indeed the case or whether, by contrast, the endorsement of worldviews is underlined by individual differences in cognition that incline people in determined directions.

A third domain of inquiry concerns the influence of educational attainment on one’s worldview. A higher level of education is known to act as a catalyst for expanding knowledge, engaging in critical thinking [ 45 ], increasing tolerance towards diverse others [ 46 ], and facilitating political and civic engagement [ 47 ]. Owing to this, for instance, one might expect that a higher level of education may predispose individuals towards a Localised worldview. Individuals with a higher level of education may be more motivated to address social issues due to the fact that they are exposed to diverse perspectives and are aware of the range of social issues that may accompany them. It would be worth exploring whether this is the case and, if so, to what extent does education play a role in worldviews when compared to other factors such as socioeconomic background.

A final domain of inquiry that emerges from the above concerns is how malleable the endorsement of worldviews might be over time. Developmentally, some people face certain circumstances at birth that may be markedly different from those faced by different others, predisposing them to a particular worldview over another. Consequently, one wonders whether worldviews change in the face of changing life circumstances and what processes govern such adaptation. For instance, one could determine whether adverse life events like divorce or job loss could nudge individuals towards a Survivor worldview. Developmental/longitudinal research is required to potentially inform the helping professions and their ability to prescribe psychological remedies in the form of changing outlooks in line with more adaptive worldviews considering the individual’s own circumstances. In this light, it will be worth looking at the role played by certain demographics in the endorsement of worldviews and the extent to which this endorsement may be a function of grand ecological circumstances that mark generational eras. For instance, the study of worldviews stands to be informative in understanding differences between pre- to post-Covid mentalities that may go on to mark the perceptions and expectations of generations to come.

Supporting information

Funding statement.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

  • PLoS One. 2023; 18(7): e0288451.

Decision Letter 0

13 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-05362Worldviews and the role of social values that underlie themPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mifsud,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. First allow me to apologize for the delay. I struggled to find qualified and willing reviewers for this paper. Second (and thankfully) they both felt the paper is nearly ready, just requiring some minor revisions. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 28 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at  gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Peter Karl Jonason

Academic Editor

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This was a very interesting paper that contributes to the theorisation and empirical study of socio-cognitive mechanisms of worldviews/values. It was wonderful to see that you try to advance a more situational understanding of the concept, which is lacking in the field. I have some minor comments that I hope can be helpful to improver your wonderful work.

1. Even though you clarify the similarities between worldviews and the other concepts are, it is not very clear what are the differences between them and how the idea of the worldview is a better choice. Is it possible to explain a bit more?

2. You are highlighting the importance of situational demands in the conceptualisation and operationalisation of worldviews. Yet it is not entirely clear how this is reflected in the operationalisation of the construct i.e. in the vignettes. For example, who are these ‘others’ in the scenarios, who constitutes an in-group/out-group can vary across situations and topics/projects of interest. You introduce this idea towards the conclusion but it is important to clarify what situational aspects (if any) the vignettes are taking into account. Another point is that you are drawing on Schwartz’s values which are quite abstract and do not take into account the importance of situations and contexts. Can you please explain address this?

3. Can you please explain a bit more why you chose for your study Schwartz’s values as opposed to the other constructs you review in your introduction?

4. In the sampling section, can you please provide some more information about the educational background of the participants? Did you also control for that in your analyses? If not, it's ok. Can you just please explain why.

5. In the results section, some of the correlations are quite weak. Can you please comment on that and what implications this has for your theorisations and findings?

6. In the results section, why did you choose to perform the analyses with the higher order values eg self-transcendence and not the individual ones e.g. benevolence, universalism ? There has been some evidence that goes against Schwartz’s value relationships. Can you explain your rationale?

7. In terms of further research and reflections, the vignettes seem to capture rather secular and anthropocentric worldviews. What about relationships to more than human worlds eg nature, spirits, but also orientations to time (role of temporality- how we understand history links to our worldviews maybe Lola Olufemi could be an inspiration?). Another question is: Does a worldview include what is or also what could be different? Perhaps it would be interesting to engage with questions about speculation and world-making e.g. Power, S. A., Zittoun, T., Akkerman, S., Wagoner, B., Cabra, M., Cornish, F., Hawlina, H., Heasman, B., Mahendran, K., Psaltis, C., Rajala, A., Veale, A., & Gillespie, A. (2023). Social Psychology of and for World-Making. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 0(0).  https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683221145756

8. In your conclusion, you argue about the role of situations and you bring the example of poor versus rich people. You argue ‘poverty may predispose individuals towards a Survivor worldview whilst riches might predispose others towards a Reward worldview’ Actually this is an erroneous belief. There is a lot of evidence to the contrary. You can refer to literature on development eg Robert Chambers, Arturo Escobar

Congratulations on a super interesting paper and for making a case for the importance of situations in the study of worldviews.

Reviewer #2: please see attached document--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool,  https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at  gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: review PONE-D-23-05362.pdf

Author response to Decision Letter 0

27 Jun 2023

Specific responses have been provided in an uploaded letter titled "Response to Reviewers"

Submitted filename: Response Letter.docx

Decision Letter 1

28 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-05362R1

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Acceptance letter

Dear Dr. Mifsud:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Peter Karl Jonason

Book cover

Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion pp 1–6 Cite as

Worldview, The Concept of

  • Naji Abi-Hashem 2 , 3  
  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online: 07 April 2017

2841 Accesses

1 Citations

3 Altmetric

Introduction

Worldview is the outlook one has about life. It is a paradigm by which the individual or the group interprets reality and acts upon life. It is how we normally view and conceptualize the world. Worldview can be a personal-subjective endeavor or a communal-collective enterprise, depending on the social context and particular subculture – whether it is predominantly individualistic or collectivistic. Worldviews represent our pragmatic framework on existence and shapes our beliefs, attitudes, actions, and philosophies. Basically, the term worldview is used in a broad sense to entail a collection of impressions, perceptions, and phenomena and has roots in anthropology, psychology, sociology, morality, spirituality, mortality, and cosmology.

The scope and nature of worldviews can be general or specific, reflecting a global perspective (transnational-multicultural) or local heritage (indigenous-monocultural). Worldviews can be informed by religious thoughts, teachings, and...

  • Street Gang
  • Religious Culture
  • Existential Belief
  • Existential Adaptation
  • Safety Guard

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Bibliography

Abi-Hashem, N. (1998). Returning to the fountains. American Psychologist, 53 (1), 63–64. Online version http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/amp/53/1/63/ .

Article   Google Scholar  

Abi-Hashem, N. (2007). The psychology of religious conversion: A socio-cultural and spiritual analysis. In D. McCarthy, R. B. VanderVennen, & J. McBride (Eds.), Surprised by faith: Conversion and the academy: A collection of papers commemorating the 75th anniversary of C. S. Lewis (pp. 119–135). Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Google Scholar  

Abi-Hashem, N. (2012a). Cults and sects. In C. Figley (Ed.), Encyclopedia of trauma: An interdisciplinary guide (pp. 170–173). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Online version. http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/trauma/n59.xml?rskey=V55joj&row=1 .

Abi-Hashem, N. (2012b). Religious fundamentalism. In C. Figley (Ed.), Encyclopedia of trauma: An interdisciplinary guide (pp. 544–547). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Online version. http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/trauma/n184.xml?rskey=NzahHh&row=2 .

Abi-Hashem, N. (2013a). Counseling. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 257–260). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Online version http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp109/abstract .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Abi-Hashem, N. (2013b). Religion and spirituality. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 1091–1094). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Online version http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp453/abstract .

Abi-Hashem, N., & Brown, J. R. (2013). Intercultural adjustment. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 744–746). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Online version http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp299/abstract .

Abi-Hashem, N., & Driscoll, E. G. (2013). Cultural anthropology. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 292–295). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Online version http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp120/abstract .

Abi-Hashem, N., & Peterson, C. E. (2013). Intracultural communication. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Encyclopedia of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 766–769). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell. Online version http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118339893.wbeccp306/abstract .

Chopra, D., & Mlodinow, L. (2012). War of the worldviews: Where science and spirituality meet– And do not . New York: Three Rivers Press.

Chung, R. C. Y., & Bemak, F. (2002). The relationship of culture and empathy in cross-cultural counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80 , 154–159.

Entwistle, D. N. (2015). Integrative approaches to psychology and Christianity: An introduction to worldview issues, philosophical foundations, and models of integration . Eugene: Cascada Books.

DeWitt, R. (2010). Worldviews: An introduction to the history and philosophy of science (2nd ed.). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretation of cultures: Selected essays by Clifford Geertz . NewYork: Basic Books.

Gerstein, L. H., Heppner, P. P., Aegisdottir, S., Leung, S. M. A., & Norsworthy, K. L. (Eds.). (2009). International handbook of cross-cultural counseling: Cultural assumptions and practices worldwide . Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Govere, L., & Govere, E. M. (2016). How effective is cultural competence training of healthcare providers on improving patient satisfaction of minority groups? A systematic review of literature. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 13 , 402–410. Retireved 24 Feb 2017 from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/wvn.12176/abstract .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Ham, M. D. C. (2006). Worldviews. In Y. Jackson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of multicultural psychology (8th ed., pp. 479–481). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Retrieved 23 Feb 2017 from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3470000219&v=2.1&u=kirk10507&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=f2b0be0da1218735cbe804dc7c606c7f .

Heylighen, F. (2000). What is a worldview? In Principia Cybernetica web . Retrieved 20 Feb 2017 from http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/worlview.html .

Ibrahim, F. A., & Heuer, J. R. (2016). Cultural and social justice counseling: Client-specific interventions . New York: Springer.

Book   Google Scholar  

Johnson, K. A., Hill, E. D., & Cohen, A. B. (2011). Integrating the study of culture and religion: Toward a psychology of worldview. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5 , 137–152.

Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2000). The Worldview Assessment Instrument (WAI): The development and preliminary validation of an instrument to assess world view components relevant to counseling and psychotherapy . ProQuest Information & Learning: Doctoral dissertation.

Koltko-Rivera, M. E. (2004). The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology, 8 (1), 3–58.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Overton, W. F. (1984). World views and their influence on psychological theories and research: Kuhn-Lakatos-Laudan. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 18 , 191–226.

Perdersen, P. J. (2009). Teaching towards an ethnorelative worldview through psychology study abroad. Intercultural Education, 20 (1), S73–S86.

Schlitz, M., Vieten, C., Miller, E., Homer, K., Petersen, K., & Erickson-Freeman, K. (2011). The worldview literacy project: Exploring new capacities for the 21st century student. New Horizons For Learning, 9 . Retrieved 24 Feb 2017 from http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Journals/Winter2011/Schlitz .

Smart, N. (1999). Worldviews: Crosscultural explorations of human beliefs (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Pearson.

Tillich, P. (1959). Theology of culture . New York: Oxford University Press.

Toelken, B. (1996). Cultural worldview: Dynamics of folklore . Logan: Utah State University Press.

van den Bos, K., van Ameijde, J., & van Gorp, H. (2006). On the psychology of religion: The role of personal uncertainty in religious worldview defense. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28 (4), 333–341.

Van Dijk, L., & Withagen, R. (2014). The horizontal worldview: A Wittgensteinian attitude towards scientific psychology. Theory & Psychology, 24 (1), 3–18.

Walker, R. L., Alabi, D., Roberts, J., & Obasi, E. M. (2010). Ethnic group differences in reasons for living and the moderating role of cultural worldview. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16 (3), 372–378. Retrieved 20 Feb 2017 from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20658880 .

Webb, E. (2009). Worldview and mind: Religious thought and psychological development . Columbia: University of Missouri Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Clinical & Cultural Psychologist, 14054 Wallingford Avenue North, Seattle, Washington, 98133, USA

Naji Abi-Hashem

Beirut, Lebanon

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Naji Abi-Hashem .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Rhinebeck, New York, USA

David A. Leeming

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Abi-Hashem, N. (2017). Worldview, The Concept of. In: Leeming, D. (eds) Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27771-9_9357-6

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-27771-9_9357-6

Received : 27 February 2017

Accepted : 19 March 2017

Published : 07 April 2017

Publisher Name : Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-642-27771-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-642-27771-9

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

  • Publish with us

Policies and ethics

  • Find a journal
  • Track your research

IResearchNet

The human psyche represents a complex constellation of activity that impacts how people perceive and respond to reality. Culture firmly impacts the human experience, and worldview is subsequently one of the most studied constructs in the field of cultural, cross-cultural, and multicultural psychology. Worldview has been defined as a person’s perception of his or her relationship with the world. More specifically, world-view is a by-product of the way in which a person is socialized to perceive, think, feel, and experience the world. It attempts to make sense of life experiences that might otherwise be construed as chaotic, random, and meaningless. Worldview articulates the basic philosophical assumptions, values, and beliefs underlying culture and is expressed through its various structural or institutional manifestations. Moreover, worldview is a by-product of culture that affects, and tends to determine, behavior.

Historical Synopsis

The construct of worldview is one of the earliest cultural variables to be integrated into psychological research, theory, and practice. Worldview represents a unifying thread in the psychological literature that suggests practices to guide culturally competent research and psychotherapy with culturally diverse communities. In 1970, J. L. White wrote the first article—”Toward a Black Psychology”—that questioned the utility of applying mainstream psychology toward African Americans. This article, which was published in Ebony, argued that it was difficult—if not impossible—to understand the African American experience by using traditional psychological theories that were developed by European American psychologists to explain European American behavior. Implicit in this assertion was the position that world-view differences exist between these two groups and that a psychology that is rooted in Western philosophy could lead to conclusions that could be harmful in the scientific research, clinical diagnosis, and prescribed treatment of African Americans.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

This investigation into the implications of world-view differences was advanced more broadly by D. W. Sue and his colleagues. In 1982, they published a position paper in The Counseling Psychologist. Ten years later (1992), Sue and his colleagues followed up with a call to the profession, which was published in the Journal of Counseling & Development. This body of work represented an initial step toward articulating a set of competencies that each culturally skilled psychologist should be able to wield in psychotherapy. Such competencies were organized along the dimensions of beliefs, knowledge, and skills. For the first time, the implications of worldview differences in psychotherapy were clearly delineated and therapist self-exploration was promoted. Two decades after the original position paper was published, in 2002, the American Psychological Association Council of Representatives adopted a set of guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. These guidelines noted that awareness of the research participant’s—or client’s—worldview is not sufficient to actualize cultural competence in research—or psychotherapy. Psychologists must also be aware of their own worldview and have the skills to work through worldview differences in research, training, and psychotherapy in a culturally sensitive and meaningful manner.

Conceptualization of Worldview

Contemporary debates about the construct of world-view are focused more on how it is conceptualized and less on its utility in the field of psychology. It is widely understood that the construct of worldview can be used to understand interpersonal dynamics in a therapeutic relationship. Furthermore, some counseling psychologists have argued that therapists who work with culturally different clients will increasingly be exposed to clients who exhibit different worldview orientations. To the extent that these views diverge, services may be viewed as unacceptable and unnecessary and may influence the underutilization of psychotherapy by various ethnic groups in our society. Given the mental health-related help-seeking disparities that plague such populations, several counseling psychologists have articulated a need for a comprehensive characterization of worldview that can be applied to psychological assessment and psychotherapy.

Perspectives

To date, there are two primary perspectives that are driving the evolving conceptualization of worldview. The most prominent perspective is an existential approach that is rooted in cultural anthropology. Alternatively, some psychologists have tried to provide a more comprehensive articulation of worldview by investigating the depths of culture through the interrogation of various dimensions of philosophy.

Cultural Anthropology

Traditionally, conceptions of worldview in psychology have been grounded in cultural anthropology. In 1961, F. R. Kluckhohn and F. L. Strodtbeck articulated an anthropological model of value orientations that focused on five existential categories: human nature (what is the character of human nature?), activity orientation (what is the modality of human activity?), social relationships (what is the modality of people’s relationships?), person-nature (what is the relationship of people to nature?), and time orientation (what is the temporal focus of human life?). Furthermore, each existential category was thought to vary among three potential options: human nature—bad, good and bad, or good; activity orientation—being, being in becoming, or doing; social relationships—lineal/hierarchical, collateral/mutual, or individualistic; person-nature— harmony, subjugation and control, or power of nature; and time orientation—past, present, or future.

Psychologists have used this model to conceptualize various dimensions of worldview orientations and have hypothesized that the beliefs and values along each dimension are shaped by the individual’s cultural context. It is important to note that researchers have also operationalized worldview according to other value dimensions such as justice beliefs, sense of coherence, and cultural attitudes. A value-based conceptualization of worldview was the basis of several assessment instruments, including the Value Orientations Questionnaire (Green & Haymes), the Value Orientations Scale (Szapocznik & colleagues), and the Scale to Assess World View (Ibrahim & Kahn). These scales were designed to be applied to psychological research and to improve cultural competence in psychotherapy. In 1991, R. T. Carter provided a comprehensive summary of worldview studies based on this existential values conceptualization. F. A. Ibrahim, G. Roysircar-Sodowski, and H. Ohnishi later updated this review in 2001. Readers may consult these summaries for more detail.

Conceptions of worldview in psychology have also been grounded in the discipline of philosophy. Psychologists such as W. C. Banks, L. James-Myers, K. K. K. Kambon, and W. A. Nobles argued that cultural phenomena—like worldview—could best be captured through the deep structure of culture. According to this conceptualization, worldview is organized into several philosophical constructs: cosmology—nature of the universe, epistemology—theory of knowledge, ontology—connection of psychological facts with reality, axiology—science of values, and teleology— theory that things act for an end purpose. This method of conceptualizing worldview encompasses the values-based approach, while adding a layer of complexity by including additional culturally influenced dimensions that have the capacity to deepen the breadth of the worldview literature.

Historically, the aforementioned philosophical constructs have been traced back to KMT (or Ancient Egypt) and the definitions of these constructs have been debated by philosophers such as G. Berkeley, R. Descartes, G. W. F. Hegel, M. Heidegger, D. Hume, I. Kant, J. Locke, K. Marx, and Plato, to name a few. In 2005, L. James-Myers and colleagues advanced the cosmology, epistemology, ontology, axiology, and teleology model for analyzing worldview systems. More specifically, they provided potential questions that could be used to gain insight into a person’s worldview orientation. Examples of such questions included (a) How was the universe created? (b) What powers animate life and gives it form? (c) What can be accepted as truth? (d) How is knowledge obtained and transmitted? (e) What is the nature of reality? (f) What exists in reality? (g) What are some values that can be used to guide human interactions? (h) What is the purpose of life?

Several behavioral scientists have used these philosophical dimensions of worldview to conceptualize the notion of self and consciousness for diverse ethic groups. Additionally, several categorizations have been illustrated to delineate differences and similarities between different ethnic groups along these philosophical dimensions of worldview. A philosophically based conceptualization of worldview was the basis of several assessment instruments, including the Worldview Scale (Baldwin & Hopkins) and the Worldview Analysis Scale (Obasi, Flores, & James-Myers).

Measuring Worldview

Although there is a multitude of psychological literature addressing the implications that worldview differences may have in conducting culturally competent psychotherapy, psychologists have been less adamant in investigating this issue in the domain of research. Within the field of psychology broadly, complex formulations of cultural phenomena often are relegated to race-based stereotypes. Whereas there are various theoretical formulations that conjecture the existence of worldview differences among various ethnic groups, there is a dearth in the amount of empirical evidence to substantiate such claims. In part, this is due to conceptual incarceration where Western science dictates what epistemology and methodology are deemed credible for uncovering such ontological relationships. In light of the imposed etic (cultural universals) methodology that is often inherent in Western science, limitations in researching cultural deep thought become inevitable when epistemological and ontological relationships rooted in various non-Western worldview orientations come into conflict with research methods that are grounded in a Western worldview.

For various reasons, this has bearing on the lack of instruments that can be used to research such theoretical formulations. When race-based instruments represent the closest alternative, researchers interested in cultural phenomena are faced with the alternative of pounding a square construct into a round hole. Research on racial constructs—such as racism, racialism, stereotypes, and race-related stress—is very much needed to address the stimulus value that physical features might have on attitude formulation or well-being. However, a racial paradigm will have little to no utility when the researcher is interested in cultural factors that influence spiritual, psychological, and/or behavioral phenomena.

The measurement of worldview is crucial to advancing psychological theory, research, training, and practice. Specifically, worldview is an important cultural variable that has the capacity to effectively assess between- and within-group differences so that individuals can be understood within a broader ethno-cultural context. Scholars also have highlighted the importance of assessing the relationship of cultural factors (e.g., worldview, acculturation, cultural identity) to other psychological variables in research studies. Moreover, investigating the influence of a client’s worldview in both process and outcome variables in psychotherapy may provide important data regarding effective modes of psychotherapy for culturally diverse populations.

One characteristic of the culturally competent therapist is awareness of personal assumptions, values, and biases. An important dimension of therapist self-awareness includes understanding one’s own world-view and how worldview perspectives are shaped by the processes of enculturation and socialization. A worldview assessment instrument can serve as a tool for training programs in helping graduate students become more aware of the lens through which they perceive and interpret events around them. Furthermore, worldview assessment can help therapists understand the client’s perception of her or his presenting concerns. In addition to assisting in conceptualizing and assessing the problem, knowledge of the client’s worldview can also aid the therapist in establishing methods and goals for psychotherapy that are consistent with the client’s worldview and determining the roles the therapist might serve in the context of the therapeutic relationship.

Finally, worldview assessment is invaluable to psychological research. In 1995, A. J. Marsella and F. T. L. Leong identified several methodological problems that contribute to errors in validity in psychological research. Of importance to worldview assessment is the “error of commission.” In summary, this error describes conducting psychological research on diverse ethnic groups without regard of their world-view. Not having a valid worldview assessment tool would force the researcher to make stereotypical interferences (e.g., African Americans are spiritual and communalistic people), which were not assessed in the research study, to inform their results.

Moreover, uncovering empirical differences in world-view may serve as a catalyst toward deriving much needed research methods that are obligatory for culturally competent research to be actualized.

As a result of the increased focus within psychology on providing effective services to culturally diverse populations that is informed by the research literature, and the recognition that culturally competent therapists and ethically responsible practice necessitate the assessment of worldview, researchers, trainers, and therapists are in need of measurement tools to assess worldview. To date, there are a few instruments to assess worldview orientation that are used in the psychology literature: Scale to Assess World View (Ibrahim & Kahn), Worldview Scale (Baldwin & Hopkins), and the Worldview Analysis Scale (Obasi, Flores, & James-Myers).

Scale to Assess World View

The Scale to Assess World View consists of 45 items and was developed to assess individual and group beliefs, values, and assumptions regarding (a) views of human nature, (b) interpersonal relationships, (c) nature, (d) time, and (e) activity. Human nature is categorized as being either bad (3 items), good and bad (3 items), or good (3 items). The modality of an individual’s relationships is categorized as being lineal-hierarchical (3 items), collateral-mutual (3 items), or individualistic (3 items). The relationship of people to nature is categorized as being in harmony (3 items), subjugation to control (3 items), or power of nature (3 items). The temporal focus of human life is categorized into the past (3 items), present (3 items), or future (3 items). Finally, the modality of human activity is categorized as being (3 items), being-in-becoming (3 items), or doing (3 items). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Responses to each item are trichotomized into “no,” “neutral,” or “yes.” A factor analysis was conducted on the Scale to Assess World View and a four-factor solution was reported. These factors were named Optimistic, Traditional, Here and Now, and Pessimistic.

Worldview Scale

The Worldview Scale (WVS) consists of 37 items assessing three broad philosophical-conceptual orientations of African and European worldview: (1) orientation toward nature, (2) orientation toward the physical and the nonphysical/metaphysical realms, and (3) orientation toward other human beings. Additionally, items are included that assess the six bipolar conceptual components of harmony versus antagonism toward nature, spiritualism versus materialism, collectivism versus individualism, strong versus weak religious orientation, interdependence versus separateness, and humanism versus racism. Part I of the WVS consists of 24 items to which participants respond using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree (4) to strongly disagree (1). In part I, 15 items are positively worded for the African worldview, and 9 items are positively worded for the European worldview. Part II consists of 9 items in a forced-choice format that alternates randomly from an African worldview response set to a European world-view response set. The WVS score is computed based on the total scale score; high scores correspond to an African worldview orientation, and low scores correspond to a European worldview orientation.

Worldview Analysis Scale

The Worldview Analysis Scale is a 55-item questionnaire based on the philosophical dimensions of cosmology, epistemology, ontology, axiology, and teleology. These philosophical dimensions serve as a theoretical framework to operationalize measurable dimensions of worldview, such as perceptions of the universe, spirituality, immortality, communalism, knowledge of self, reality, reason, and indigenous value systems. Individual perceptions of these dimensions exist in the fabric of culture and are believed to influence cognitions, decisions, and behaviors. Factor analysis confirmed a seven-factor structure that included Materialistic Universe, Tangible Realism, Communalism, Indigenous Values, Knowledge of Self, Spiritual Immortality, and Spiritualism. The Worldview Analysis Scale hypothesizes several assumptions with regard to worldview assessment.

  • Worldview is a schema that is used to establish meaning consistent with a person’s cultural framework.
  • Each culture possesses both universal and particular dimensions of worldview that are similar to and different from other cultures; thus, the measured dimensions should be able to differentiate between-group and within-group similarities and differences.
  • Cultures are constantly in contact with other cultures. Through these interactions, dimensions of worldview can be either borrowed and transformed in a meaningful fashion or rejected altogether.
  • Worldview is a construct that has the capacity to go beyond superficial race-based models to explore cultural phenomena.

Future Directions

Historically, the majority of people of color (African American, Asian American, Native American, Mexican American, etc.) residing in the United States in need of some type of psychological intervention do not seek professional psychological help for their personal dilemmas. Of those who seek therapeutic assistance, an estimated 50% or more prematurely discontinue treatment after the initial session. Factors cited as reasons for this premature termination include traditional psychological paradigms that reflect the worldview of the dominant culture, diagnosis and treatment by a culturally different therapist, differential expectations between clients and their therapists, and lack of resources and lack of availability of services.

People of color are more likely to rely on traditional support networks (e.g., relatives, spiritual advisors, community organizations, and friends) rather than professional psychological services. This growing body of scientific literature consistently identifies common implications (e.g., diagnosis and treatment of the culturally different, differential expectations, and lack of resources in culturally diverse communities) that the field of psychology must address to improve therapeutic practice with diverse groups. Furthermore, these studies hypothesized that factors such as worldview, values associated with the counseling process, and cultural differences between the counselor and client can negatively impact an individual’s willingness to seek professional psychological services.

In addition to the cross-cultural/multicultural discourse, it is imperative to look at the impact that worldview can have on designing empirically supported treatment modalities and training competent service providers to administer such interventions. Specifically, it is important to understand the factors that influence worldview and how differences are manifested between and within ethnic groups. For example, which dimensions of worldview predict counselor preferences, treatment modality preferences, conceptualizations of health, help-seeking attitudes and behaviors, and so on? Are culture-specific treatments needed to address worldview differences, or are adjustments to current treatment modalities sufficient? It is anticipated that the construct of worldview will continue to influence the future of psychotherapy while solid empirical evidence continues to accumulate in this area of research.

References:

  • American Psychological Association. (2002). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research, practice, and organizational change for psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.
  • Baldwin, J. A., & Hopkins, R. (1990). African-American and European-American cultural differences as assessed by the worldviews paradigm: An empirical analysis. Western Journal of Black Psychology, 14(1), 38-52.
  • Carter, R. T. (1991). Cultural values: A review of empirical research and implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 70(1), 164-173.
  • Constantine, G. C., & Sue, D. W. (2005). Strategies for building multicultural competence in mental health and educational settings. New York: Wiley.
  • Dana, R. H. (1993). Multicultural assessment perspectives for professional psychology. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  • Ibrahim, F. A., & Kahn, H. (1987). Assessment of world views. Psychological Reports, 60(1), 163-176.
  • Ibrahim, F. A., Roysircar-Sodowski, G., & Ohnishi, H. (2001). Worldview: Recent developments and needed directions. In J. G. Ponterotto, J. M. Casas, L. A. Suzuki, & C. M. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Kluckhohn, F. R., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1961). Variations in value orientations. Evanston, IL: Row Paterson.
  • Sue, D. W. (1978). World views and counseling. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 56, 458-162.
  • Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. E., Durran, A., Pederson, P., Smith, E. J., & Vasquez-Nuttall, E. (1982). Position paper: Cross-cultural counseling competencies. The Counseling Psychologist, 10(2), 45-52.
  • White, J. L. (1970, August). Toward a Black psychology. Ebony, 25, 44-45, 48-50, 52.
  • Counseling Psychology
  • Multicultural Counseling

Jeff DeGraff Ph.D.

Your Worldview Is Your Greatest Strength

(but also your greatest weakness.).

Posted July 20, 2017

Medium

A worldview is more than a type or a style. It’s a collection of deeply held beliefs about how we interpret and experience the world. A dominant worldview is a comprehensive conception of the world from a specific standpoint. We derive these views from our personal experiences as well as the cultures in which we are socialized, for we are neither self-contained nor self-created. We exist as part of a larger community and system. Our dominant worldview may change over time as we experience new situations and become more self-aware of our own inclinations.

In revealing your greatest strength, your dominant world-view also reveals your greatest weakness. Furthermore, it considers how each kind of thinker and leader interacts with others, so you can determine the other people you need to surround yourself with most. The best innovation teams are like bands of superheroes: each member acknowledges and makes use of his or her gifts and talents, but they don’t let those superpowers limit them. They use them at the appropriate moments and then stand back and let their partners take over at other moments. There are four basic approaches to innovation: the Artist, who loves radical innovation; the Engineer, who constantly improves everything; the Athlete , who competes to develop the best innovation; and the Sage, who innovates through collaboration . These approaches come together to produce a positive tension, a constructive conflict that promotes sustainable and scalable growth.

When you combine the radical, visionary thinking of the Artist and the methodical, practical thinking of the Engineer, you get innovation that’s both revolutionary and manageable, highly ambitious but without high risk. When you combine the cutthroat, results-oriented attitude of the Athlete with the conscientious , values-oriented attitude of the Sage, you get innovation that’s both a good investment and good for the world.

In today’s snappy corporate speak, forms of creative leadership are like statement blazers or ultra low-rise jeans: they’re either in or they’re out. Every year, the most popular business magazines claim that a certain type of person is the most innovative of the moment. This month, it might be the triumph of the technological guru. In the fall, it might be the rise of the artistic genius. Pundits treat innovation strategies as if they were fashion trends,hot during one season, only to become passé the next.

The truth is that dominant worldviews are more than just catchy buzzwords on a glossy list. There is no single approach to innovation that will always come out on top. There is no over-riding trend you can rely on. Rather, knowing which kinds of leaders to bring to your project is about knowing all the things you can’t do yourself.

Excerpted from The Innovation Code by Jeff and Staney DeGraff (Berrett-Koehler Publishers August 7, 2017)

Jeff DeGraff

Innovation requires creativity , discipline and work. The Innovation Code is the perfect tool to discover the secrets to get the most out of your innovative process and learn how to best approach innovation.

Jeff DeGraff Ph.D.

Jeff DeGraff, Ph.D. , is a professor at University of Michigan's Ross School of Business.

  • Find a Therapist
  • Find a Treatment Center
  • Find a Psychiatrist
  • Find a Support Group
  • Find Teletherapy
  • United States
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Chicago, IL
  • Houston, TX
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • New York, NY
  • Portland, OR
  • San Diego, CA
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Seattle, WA
  • Washington, DC
  • Asperger's
  • Bipolar Disorder
  • Chronic Pain
  • Eating Disorders
  • Passive Aggression
  • Personality
  • Goal Setting
  • Positive Psychology
  • Stopping Smoking
  • Low Sexual Desire
  • Relationships
  • Child Development
  • Therapy Center NEW
  • Diagnosis Dictionary
  • Types of Therapy

January 2024 magazine cover

Overcome burnout, your burdens, and that endless to-do list.

  • Coronavirus Disease 2019
  • Affective Forecasting
  • Neuroscience

Psychology From A Christian Worldview Of Modern Psychology

What is Modern Psychology? How did it start? Is it a special type of psychology? We have so many questions when it comes to something we don’t know, and often times it’s hard to know where to start because of all the overwhelming amount of information we have today. When the topic was shown to me, I took a great interest in it. When I first started, the only thing I knew about Modern Psychology was the name. Through this paper I want to help you understand what Modern Psychology is from a Christian worldview.

The definition of psychology goes as follows 1) The scientific study of the human mind and it’s function. Esp, those affecting behavior in a given context 2) the mental characteristics or attitude of a person or group 3) The mental and emotional factors governing a situation or activity. (“ What is Modern Psychology-Modern Psychology Defined,” 2) The main goal in psychology is to understand individual people and groups. One way psychologist can do that is to establish principles.

Each principle has been established through research . Their end goal is for the health and well-being of every individual. “ What is Modern Psychology-Modern Psychology Defined,” 1) Though these definitions seem endless, they are not. In fact, the modern science of Psychology can be broken down into seven groups of thought. Each group is categorized by the major theories in the field of Psychology study: Biopsychology, Behavioral Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Humanistic Psychology, Cross-Cultural Psychology, and Evolutionary Psychology. (“ What is Modern Psychology-Modern Psychology Defined,” 2) The origins of psychology can be traced back to two different periods in history spanning 2,000 years apart.

This makes psychology one of the oldest scholarly practice, and one of the newest. One starting point we can trace back to is in the ancient philosophical writings. The problems written back then have come in a modern formal discipline known as psychology. The study of philosophy can be traced back to the time of Plato and Aristotle. Many of the problems which confuses them about human behaviour and nature still complex the minds of psychologists today. ( Shultz, 3 ) Philosophers studied human nature by hypothesizing, apprehending, and abstracting based on personal experiences .

In the second half of the nineteenth century , philosophers started to apply the methods and tools used in the physical and biological sciences. They applied these tools and methods to studying the human nature . But to understand the complex issues that define and divide psychology today, we need to look back at the nineteenth century. In that age, psychology became an autonomous discipline with clear methods of inquiry and theoretical rationales. ( Shultz, 3 ) Nineteenth century physiologists were studying the mechanisms elemental mental processes.

Their mode of study was different than that of the philosophers. Ironically, the philosophers were making headroom for experimental attacks on the human mind which was a problem, however, the philosophers were also approaching similar problems. There was, however, a collaboration between the two that produced a new area of study. This new study earned its on own identity and stature. ( Shultz, 4) Ancient Greeks were among the leading front-runners for psychology. From the Greeks emerged Aristotle. Aristotle was one of the leading men to establish foundations in the history of psychology.

Aritsotle psychology was convoluted with his philosophy . (Shuttleworth, 2) It has been said that Aritsotle’s psychology proposed the idea that the mind was the reason for existence and function of the body. He believed that both the mind and reason could exist outside of the body. That thought was supported through his zoology that there are three defining life: the plant soul, the animal soul, and the human soul. He believed this was why humans could reason and create . He also believed that desire and reason were the determined actions between impulse and urges.

It was through his psychology the idea of having a balance between desire and reason or else the imbalance would lead to bad actions, came into prominence. (Shuttleworth, 3) Sigmund Freud is considered a groundbreaking man. Not only did he develop new techniques for comprehending human behavior , but through his work work psychoanalysis ( a study that focuses on the unconscious aspects of personality ) was born. ( Rana, 1,2 ) He described the mind like a tip of an iceberg, there is conscious which we are aware of, but even more unconsciousness that we don’t know about.

He breaks down the mind into 3 parts: id, ego, and the superego. ( Rana, 2 ) He believed that the development and the disparity of these three things could determine someone’s behavior in a certain situation, which can ultimately lead to the development of someone’s personality . For him, psychoanalysis was defined by two things: the development of the humans phsycosexual years we go through as children, and the development of defense mechanisms . ( Rana, 2,3) Psychoanalysis can also be used in therapy.

This is when the psychologist observes the person that is talking to determine the emotions and behaviors that the individual may not have realized they were feeling. ( Rana, 3 ) Charles Darwin’s philosophy had a major impact in the sciences. He hypothesized that man and animals have a common ancestor. For a long time, scientists had done research on animals and made inferences to humans, but after Darwin posed his theory, scientists made inferences to human nature based on how humans study, their emotions, and the interactions they have with other humans based on observations and experiemnts with animals.

Darwin proposed that humans and animals have many things in common, which lead to comparative psychology increasing in the 1900s and 2000s. ( Tanner, 1) His theories had a major impact on psychology. Much of the psychology today has firm biological underpinnings, which can be traced back to Darwin. His views have impacted both ethological psychology and evolutionary psychology. ( Tanner, 2 ) Though many people from all different worldviews would agree with some aspects of modern psychology, the worldview that would fully support it is Secularism.

Many points of modern psychology would be in alignment with Secularism. For example, a secularists believes in evolution, and that we evolved from monkeys. For some aspects of modern psychology, scientists try to rationalize through natural selection, naturalism, and materialism to try to explain why humans act and think the way we do. But, Modern Psychology isn’t just meant to be for one worldview. Many Christians have been using the methods of modern psychology in their own lives to bring people to the Lord.

For example, my Uncle Rodger. He is a doctor of psychology and applies it in his everyday life . He is able to understand any person’s psychological behavior, and be able to reason with them using their own thinking process. When he does this, he is able to help people understand their need for a savior, and help people overcome the addictions they may be facing. Every idea has its share of effects and consequences. Modern Psychology, though it can be useful, has opened many doors of consequences. The first consequence is pornography.

Through Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis, many have come to understand sex, if used properly, can be an asset. Sigmund believe that children go through psychosexual stages. He believed that there are five stages in which children go through: Oral, Anal, Phallic, Latent, and Genital. The genital stage is when children realize their desire for sexual intercourse. It is also believed that there could be mental abnormalities if the stages aren’t completely filled. ( McLeod, 4 ) One way to make sure that they can be mentally normal, is to let the kids have sex when they hit the genital stage.

Though not all parents agree, society has been pushing its ideas into the home by making condoms appeal to the teenage demographic, making it appear on the shows they watch, and making pornography accessible to them through youtube or through their websites. What this has done, is make a sex crave culture, mostly by young adults and teens . Society has made it socially acceptable , and have tried to reinforce it. Another consequence of modern psychology is that it has opened the flood gate to atheism. Through Darwin’s ideas, evolution has become integrated with modern psychology.

To many people, you can’t have a complete view of modern psychology unless you believe in ALL of its aspects. Many psychologists and scientists are trying to prove the theory of evolution. After all, according to modern psychology natural selection and evolution have been attributed to the reason why we are a modern society. Because of this view, a need for a God becomes irrelevant and superstitious. Though modern psychology has shaped our cultural into a sex driven, godless society, there is good in modern psychology. A good aspect of modern psychology is how we have tried to understand a person’s behavior, and how we can help them.

For example, an autistic person back in the 1800s would’ve been viewed as a crazy person, but today we are able to recognize the disease and help the person be able to understand and reason, though not in the way a normal person could. In talk back therapy sessions, psychologists are able to listen to the person, understand their thought pattern, and help them with their needs mentally or emotionally. A way this has helped the Christian community is that if a young man with homosexual feelings came in and sought help, we could help him understand the root problem, and be able to help the young man walk back to the way of the Lord.

Overall, I personally find Modern Psychology very fascinating. Throughout this study, I’ve been able to find what I agree and disagree with in Modern Psychology. I believe that Modern Psychology is good and can help us gain insight to mankind in a way that we haven’t been able to before. I also believe that, Modern Psychology has been corrupted with people who want nothing to do with God so they take Psychology and rid it of any religious implications . It is my hope to see this become an even bigger tool in evangelism.

To export a reference to this essay please select a referencing style below:

Related essays:

  • Charles Darwin And The Theory Of Evolution
  • Charles Darwin and the Development and impact of the Theory of Evolution by Natural and Sexual Selection
  • Evolution – Explanatory Theories II
  • Charles Darwin’s Influence On Modern Science Research Paper
  • Charles Darwin Biography
  • Definition and History of Industrial Psychology
  • History of Social Psychology
  • Charles Robert Darwin Essay
  • Examination Of Clinical Psychology Paper
  • Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer
  • Charles Darwin Research Paper
  • Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

I’m a Neuroscientist. We’re Thinking About Biden’s Memory and Age in the Wrong Way.

President Biden seated in a chair holding a stack of what looks like index cards.

By Charan Ranganath

Dr. Ranganath is a professor of psychology and neuroscience and the director of the Dynamic Memory Lab at the University of California, Davis, and the author of the forthcoming book “Why We Remember: Unlocking Memory’s Power to Hold On to What Matters.”

The special counsel Robert K. Hur’s report, in which he declined to prosecute President Biden for his handling of classified documents, also included a much-debated assessment of Mr. Biden’s cognitive abilities.

“Mr. Biden would likely present himself to a jury, as he did during our interview with him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”

As an expert on memory, I can assure you that everyone forgets. In fact, most of the details of our lives — the people we meet, the things we do and the places we go — will inevitably be reduced to memories that capture only a small fraction of those experiences.

It is normal to be more forgetful as you get older. Generally, memory functions begin to decline in our 30s and continue to fade into old age. However, age in and of itself doesn’t indicate the presence of memory deficits that would affect an individual’s ability to perform in a demanding leadership role. And an apparent memory lapse may or may not be consequential, depending on the reasons it occurred.

There is forgetting, and there is Forgetting. If you’re over the age of 40, you’ve most likely experienced the frustration of trying to grasp that slippery word on the tip of your tongue. Colloquially, this might be described as forgetting, but most memory scientists would call this retrieval failure, meaning that the memory is there but we just can’t pull it up when we need it. On the other hand, Forgetting (with a capital F) is when a memory is seemingly lost or gone altogether. Inattentively conflating the names of the leaders of two countries would fall in the first category, whereas being unable to remember that you had ever met the president of Egypt would fall into the second.

Over the course of typical aging, we see changes in the functioning of the prefrontal cortex, a brain area that plays a starring role in many of our day-to-day memory successes and failures. These changes mean that as we get older, we tend to be more distractible and often struggle to pull up words or names we’re looking for. Remembering events takes longer, and it requires more effort, and we can’t catch errors as quickly as we used to. This translates to a lot more forgetting and a little more Forgetting.

Many of the special counsel’s observations about Mr. Biden’s memory seem to fall in the category of forgetting, meaning that they are more indicative of a problem with finding the right information from memory than Forgetting. Calling up the date that an event occurred, like the last year of Mr. Biden’s vice presidency or the year of his son’s death, is a complex measure of memory. Remembering that an event took place is different from being able to put a date on when it happened, which is more challenging with increased age. The president very likely has many memories, even though he could not immediately pull up dates in the stressful (and more immediately pressing) context of the Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

Other “memory” issues highlighted in the media are not so much cases of forgetting as they are of difficulties in the articulation of facts and knowledge. For instance, in July 2023, Mr. Biden mistakenly stated in a speech that “we have over 100 people dead,” when he should have said, “over one million.” He has struggled with a stutter since childhood, and research suggests that managing a stutter demands prefrontal resources that would normally enable people to find the right word or at least quickly correct errors after the fact.

Americans are understandably concerned about the advanced age of the two top contenders in the coming presidential election (Mr. Biden is 81, and Donald Trump is 77), although some of these concerns are rooted in cultural stereotypes and fears around aging. The fact is that there is a huge degree of variability in cognitive aging. Age is, on average, associated with decreased memory, but studies that follow up the same person over several years have shown that although some older adults show precipitous declines over time, other super-agers remain as sharp as ever.

Mr. Biden is the same age as Harrison Ford, Paul McCartney and Martin Scorsese. He’s also a bit younger than Jane Fonda (86) and a lot younger than the Berkshire Hathaway C.E.O., Warren Buffett (93). All these individuals are considered to be at the top of their professions, and yet I would not be surprised if they are more forgetful and absent-minded than when they were younger. In other words, an individual’s age does not say anything definitive about the person’s cognitive status or where it will head in the near future.

I can’t speak to the cognitive status of any of the presidential candidates, but I can say that, rather than focus on candidates’ ages per se, we should consider whether they have the capabilities to do the job. Public perception of a person’s cognitive state is often determined by superficial factors, such as physical presence, confidence and verbal fluency, but these aren’t necessarily relevant to one’s capacity to make consequential decisions about the fate of this country. Memory is surely relevant, but other characteristics, such as knowledge of the relevant facts and emotion regulation — both of which are relatively preserved and might even improve with age — are likely to be of equal or greater importance.

Ultimately, we are due for a national conversation about what we should expect in terms of the cognitive and emotional health of our leaders.

And that should be informed by science, not politics.

Charan Ranganath is a professor of psychology and neuroscience and the director of the Dynamic Memory Lab at the University of California, Davis, and the author of “ Why We Remember: Unlocking Memory’s Power to Hold On to What Matters .”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , X and Threads .

IMAGES

  1. AQA A-level PSYCHOLOGY Paper 1 Introductory topics in psychology JUNE

    worldview psychology paper

  2. 🌈 Psychology experiment paper. (PDF) Psychology research paper on

    worldview psychology paper

  3. RLGN 104 Worldview Paper Instructions

    worldview psychology paper

  4. ⚡ Define social psychology paper. What Is Social Psychology?. 2022-10-06

    worldview psychology paper

  5. 💋 Worldview paper. Worldview Paper .docx. 2022-11-17

    worldview psychology paper

  6. 👍 Ideas for a psychology research paper. How to Choose the Best

    worldview psychology paper

VIDEO

  1. Information about psychology

  2. ONE PROJECT

  3. Paper 2 Worldview Video

  4. Symposium: Diverse Perspectives in Psychological Science

  5. Timeline of Educational psychology

  6. Worldview Paper Instructions

COMMENTS

  1. The Psychology of Worldviews.

    A worldview (or "world view") is a set of assumptions about physical and social reality that may have powerful effects on cognition and behavior. Lacking a comprehensive model or formal theory up to now, the construct has been underused. This article advances theory by addressing these gaps. Worldview is defined.

  2. (PDF) The Psychology of Worldviews

    A worldview (or "world view") is a set of assumptions about physical and social reality that may have powerful effects on cognition and behavior. Lacking a comprehensive model or formal theory...

  3. Worldviews: overarching concept, discrete body of knowledge or

    Rather than consider worldviews as a discrete body of knowledge that imposes on an already overburdened curriculum, I propose that employing worldviews as an overarching concept, providing a type of paradigmatic analysis for RE, may lead to a greater and more profound understanding of religion (s).

  4. The Psychology of Worldviews

    A worldview (or "world view") is a set of assumptions about physical and social reality that may have powerful effects on cognition and behavior. Lacking a comprehensive model or formal theory up to now, the construct has been underused. This article advances theory by addressing these gaps. Worldview is defined.

  5. (PDF) The psychology of worldviews

    A worldview (or "world view") is a set of assumptions about physical and social reality that may have powerful effects on cognition and behavior. Lacking a comprehensive model or formal theory up to now, the construct has been underused. This article advances theory by addressing these gaps. Worldview is defined.

  6. Full article: Worldview psychology and the representation of

    The psychology of worldviews encourages conceptualisations of these belief systems as distinct constructs. The aim of this study was to develop conceptual definition and psychometric measurement for spirituality, naturalism, and agnosticism.

  7. [PDF] The Psychology of Worldviews

    The Psychology of Worldviews Mark E. Koltko-Rivera Published 1 March 2004 Psychology Review of General Psychology A worldview (or "world view") is a set of assumptions about physical and social reality that may have powerful effects on cognition and behavior.

  8. The Psychology of Worldviews

    A worldview (or "world view") is a set of assumptions about physical and social reality that may have powerful effects on cognition and behavior. ... Lines of evidence are described regarding worldview as a justifiable construct in psychology. Worldviews are distinguished from schemas. A collated model of a worldview's component dimensions ...

  9. The Importance of Worldviews for Developmental Psychology

    This article aims to examine the impact of worldviews on research in developmental psychology. To do so, we use the notion of the epistemic framework and recover aspects of other epistemological approaches to meta-theoretical problems.

  10. PDF Psychology, Meaning Making and the Study of Worldviews: Beyond Religion

    We argue that the language of enacted and articulated worldviews (for humans) and worldmaking and ways of life (for humans and other animals) is appropriate at the level of persons or organisms and the language of sense making, schemas, and meaning frameworks is appropriate at the cognitive level (for humans and other animals).

  11. [PDF] The Psychology of Worldviews: Toward a Non-Reductive Science of

    Philosophy, Psychology. Front. Psychol. 2014. TLDR. It is suggested that a non-reductive psychological science must take the person's worldview into account and argued that Cloninger's approach limits the understanding of human psychology by not considering the role of worldviews in the development of character and well-being. 7.

  12. Worldviews: overarching concept, discrete body of knowledge or

    The term 'Weltanshcauung' or worldview has evolved from its philosophical roots in Kant's initial use to infiltrate a range of disciplines including philosophy (Hegel 1807; Dilthey 1907), sociology (Walsh and Middleton 1984), anthropology, history, theology (Naugle 2002; Duderija 2007), and psychology (Freud 1933, 1938; Jung 1942).Within each discipline, differing definitions and ...

  13. Worldviews and the role of social values that underlie them

    The purpose of this paper is to investigate the key social values that underlie particular sets of beliefs, referred to here as worldviews. Worldviews encompass beliefs that shape one's outlook on life and are, therefore, instrumental in providing meaning to one's reality and one's understanding as to how one fits in it.

  14. Worldview, The Concept of

    Basically, the term worldview is used in a broad sense to entail a collection of impressions, perceptions, and phenomena and has roots in anthropology, psychology, sociology, morality, spirituality, mortality, and cosmology.

  15. Worldview: Implications for Culturally Responsive and Ethical Practice

    A method for assessing worldview, as identified by core values and assumptions is presented, i.e., Scale to Assess World View-II© (SAWV-II) along with research findings on the original SAWV and...

  16. From partial to integrated perspectives: How understanding worldviews

    This paper applies O'Fallon's STAGES model (Murray & O'Fallon et al., 2020; O'Fallon, 2020; O'Fallon et al., 2020) which builds on previous work by Loevinger and Cook-Greuter in particular to present a model of human development from infancy to adulthood in 12 sequential worldviews or 'stages', as outlined in Table 1.This model offers a nuanced and detailed insight on a wide range of ...

  17. Worldview

    Perspectives To date, there are two primary perspectives that are driving the evolving conceptualization of worldview. The most prominent perspective is an existential approach that is rooted in cultural anthropology.

  18. Your Worldview Is Your Greatest Strength

    A worldview is more than a type or a style. It's a collection of deeply held beliefs about how we interpret and experience the world. A dominant worldview is a comprehensive conception of the ...

  19. Worldview and Psychology essay

    Worldview and Psychology Jaiden Taggart Liberty University PSYC 101-B Professor Elizabeth Debolt 28 February 2022. Worldview and Psychology When I first took the biblical worldview indicator, I knew that my results were going to change the second time around. As I have never involved the biblical worldview into my day to day life.

  20. Psychology From A Christian Worldview Of Modern Psychology

    Through this paper I want to help you understand what Modern Psychology is from a Christian worldview. The definition of psychology goes as follows 1) The scientific study of the human mind and it's function.

  21. Worldview and Change in Cross-Cultural Counseling

    A model for conceptualizing the change process in cross-cultural counseling is presented, using worldview as a unifying construct. Drawing from anthropology and counseling process research, key understandings regarding culture and change are combined into a coherent framework that provides guidance to counselors on how to enhance the therapeutic relationship and effectively facilitate change ...

  22. Opinion

    Feb. 12, 2024. Doug Mills/The New York Times. 1982. By Charan Ranganath. Dr. Ranganath is a professor of psychology and neuroscience and director of the Dynamic Memory Lab at the University of ...

  23. Worldview Paper/ Worldview Paper Essay

    Worldview Paper. Department of Psychology, Liberty University June 07, 2021. What is a Worldview? A worldview, in my opinion, are beliefs that influence what we do on a daily basis and overall defines us on who we are. When I compare my beliefs to others worldview I begin to examine the differences, particularly the Christian Worldview.