I have always observed that religious people tend to have more of an external locus of control, and that non-religious people tend to have more of an internal locus of control.
I'll keep it simple for those who don't know: Internal = you blame yourself for everything in your life, external = you blame others/the world/variance for everything in your life.
Now. There's thousands of studies in psychology and sociology out there, that conclusively demonstrate that people with a higher internal locus of control are on average - more successful, happier, and oddly enough - more innovative/entrepreneurial.
The reason I bring all of this up, is that I have found a recent study that validates my long-standing hypothesis - that religious people have an external locus of control - and that as a result of this, their potential for personal and professional development, takes a significant hit.
Findings from a new study in the Sociology of Religion journal have now begun to substantiate my hypothesis:
http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/con...l.srr035.short
A long tradition of discourse has contended that religion may impede the cultivation of a sense of personal control, as well as other facets of psychosocial competence. Religious beliefs and worldviews have occupied a prominent place in this discourse. In particular, the types of religious worldviews associated with conservative and fundamentalist religious groups have been regarded as particularly problematic in this regard (Freud [1927] 1961; Fromm 1960). For example, such faith traditions often teach adherents to rely on sacred texts or other religious sources of truth and comfort, and these doctrines sometimes breed suspicion toward, and insularity from, secular knowledge. According to critics, these religious cultures may: (1) promote cognitive rigidity and intellectual inflexibility, (2) devalue the role of reasoning and intellectual effort in solving problems or finding solutions to challenges, and (3) discourage activities that might build a sense of confidence in one’s own capacities (Adorno et al. 1950; Rokeach 1960; Webster and Stewart 1973). Our findings appear broadly consistent with this line of argument, as persons who endorse the doctrine of biblical literalism—a key tenet of conservative Protestantism—tend to have somewhat lower levels of control than others.
Another longstanding focus of criticism has been the doctrine of original sin. Some psychologists have maintained that notions of human sinfulness can undermine the sense of control by: (1) fostering feelings of hopelessness; (2) promoting feelings of guilt and other unproductive emotions; and (3) diverting attention and energy from more productive thoughts and activities through which one could resolve difficulties and develop personal confidence (Branden 1969, 1983). The late Albert Ellis, the founder of Rational Emotive Therapy, was a particularly vociferous critic of the doctrine of original sin (Ellis 1962, 1983). Here, too, our findings lend credence to some of these concerns: Support for the view that human nature is fundamentally sinful is associated with a lower level of personal control in our data.
I'd like to know if anyone else here finds this research avenue interesting, and what you all think about the results here, and potential future research...?
