Entity vs. Incremental Theories of Psychospiritual Development
October 21st, 2008[This post is submitted by the Society director, Dr. Eric Johnson (Southern Seminary)]
Last week I began considering a fascinating theory by Carol Dweck, based on an amazing research program that she’s been working on for over 30 years, that has focused on two theories that people form about themselves and others in many domains. You can see a brief discussion of them in last week’s blog, and a nice summary of her work at www. psychologicalscience.org/observer/getArticle.cfm?id=2187. Today I want to consider some of the implications of her work for a Christian psychology.
It seems likely to me that Christian understandings of psychospiritual development[i] might similarly fall into two camps. I suspect that many Christians hold to an “entity theory” of psychospiritual development (PSD). That is, they believe (implicitly) that Christians are either already quite holy and godly or they are not, and if not, there’s not much one can do about it. It seems to me that entity theorists who are fairly responsible in their walk and relationships secretly might believe themselves to be intrinsically pretty special. They have this godliness, and they end up being somewhat critical of those who don’t have it. Entity theorists who are not so blessed would tend towards a depressive mindset—I’m not very godly; I don’t fit into the Christian community; there’s something wrong with me and that’s just the way I am.
Of course, such entity theorists may know intellectually that God is the always available source of PSD, but at an unconscious level, they may be operating out of their own strength (much as the Pharisee who thanked God that he is better than the sinners around him, Lk 18:11), or they are unconsciously convinced that they are different than the “godly ones,” they are hopelessly deficient, and therefore are secretly immobilized, if not clinically depressed
As a result, entity theorist Christians do not put forward much effort to grow—either because they unconsciously believe they don’t need to (I’m already pretty good), or they are convinced there’s no hope (because the Holy Spirit obviously isn’t working in me, because I’m worse off than other Christians).
In contrast, Christians who hold to an incremental theory of PSD deeply believe that one can be changed, that is, one can develop psychospiritually, gradually over time, as one applies oneself through faith, exerting effort in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, using strategies (like the spiritual disciplines), and seeking help (through support groups or counseling). One of the great challenges of Christian counseling may be helping to move someone from an entity theory to an incremental theory of psychospiritual development.
The biggest problem with utilizing a secular theory like Dweck’s in Christian psychology is that its understanding of human change is based solely upon human effort. In Christian PSD, by contrast, the effort of Christians is based by faith on God’s grace within through the Holy Spirit’s indwelling. God is my strength (Ps 18:1); we work in dependence upon God’s working in us (Php 2:12,13).
These are just a few Christian psychology reflections on Dweck’s theory. It seems likely that it would illuminate Christian PSD. What is needed is some enterprising researchers to subject such ideas to empirical evaluation!
[i] Psychospiritual development (PSD) is the maturation of Christians into the image of God, and it includes their thinking, behavior, emotions, motives, desires, and actions making them more whole psychologically and relationally and more holy in their spiritual relationship with Christ.
October 31st, 2008 at 6:51 pm
As a Christian counselor I have the Holy Spirit helping me better help the person. If the client is a believer, they also have the working of the Holy Spirit in their lives. What does the unbeliever (the secular man) have besides self-effort?
My second question addresses the final sentence. How do you create a construct capable of empirically evaluating if differences are because of the power of the Holy Spirit? The measurable has to be tangible, right? What is the tangible that would be measured?
November 4th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Persons within and outside the faith have self-effort, as well as the socially mediated effort of others, through what we might call “interdependent activity”–like the improved performance of an athlete challenged by a good coach or the synergy that can occur when group members are stimulating each other to greater performance than they could achieve on their own). However, the Bible indicates that all good comes from above, so Christians have developed the doctrine of common grace (or creation grace), which recognizes that all good human power or effort is a gift of God’s kindness (Ja 1:17; Ps 104; Acts 14:17; Mt 5:45; Ro 2:4). For the person outside the faith, that gift (and its origin in grace) cannot be fully appreciated. In addition, Christians benefit from what has been called special or redemptive grace, that comes through faith and the indwelling Holy Spirit (Eph 3:16).
Of course, in secular psychological theory, the grace of God (whether creation grace or redemptive grace) is necessarily excluded from consideration.
In answer to your second question, most of the time it would be impossible to be 100% sure that differences in performance are due to the Holy Spirit. But this is actually not at all unusual in empirical research. Standard measurement theory recognizes that the “true score” of an individual on a test–the true measure of some capacity–is actually unattainable and needs to be seen as an ideal goal, towards which the measurer aspires, but which we can never be absolutely sure is “in our hands.” The “obtained score” that we have for an individual who has taken a test has to be regarded an an approximation, because for many reasons there is error in our measurement (as well as limitations in the person’s performance that day, and so on).
Therefore, in an empirical discipline like psychology (as well as physics!), there is no requirement that we be 100% sure of what we’re measuring. We human researchers have to be content to measure something as best as we can, something that presumably can always be improved upon. Only God has absolutely perfect knowledge of subtle empirical realities.
As with other subjective psychological topics, with regard to the Holy Spirit’s work in believers, we will have to rely on self-report. But it is clear from the Bible (a source of inspired, universal knowledge) that the Holy Spirit works in believers, and that they are sometimes aware of that work–so we ought to approach such research with confidence that believers can in fact faithfully describe some aspects of the Holy Spirit’s work in their lives. To give a rough example: “Think of the last time you were really engaged in worship. To what extent do you think that the Holy Spirit was the source of that experience–Not at all (1), Somewhat (3), Completely (5). These kinds of self-evaluations may be inaccurate, but they are not in principle false. We Christian psychology researchers are still human, and we simply do the best we can.
November 6th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Perhaps it is because I lack a mathematical mind, that I don’t understand. At what point does the subjective become so subjective that it becomes meaningless? Perhaps another way to say it is, at what point does the incremental margin of error topple any possible validity? For example, referencing your survey question…,
*”The Holy Spirit works in believers” Not empirically testable, but accepted as a given. So far, so good.
*”Person is a believer” Claimed believer might not be true believer. - Empirically untestable - Possible error.
*Even if believer, they are “sometimes aware” Unable to measure whether or how much someone is aware. More error.
*Varied definitions of the subjective terms “worship” and “really engaged” - more error. (Yes, I realize you quickly threw this together and would operationalize your terms on an actual survey.)
These few items immediately jumped into my mind as possible [is it confounds?]. There are probably more. When do we say too much possible error and no way to estimate and adjust for error, thus our findings don’t hold any water?
Perhaps not false in principle, yet perhaps exceedingly inaccurate. It seems to me a giant waste of time. (Looking forward to my research thesis next year. NOT!)
November 8th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Dr.Johnson,
I apologize that I jumped into continued questions without thanking you for your previous response. I found it helpful. It gave me more to think about and as you see, gave me more questions! Please know that my questions are sincere and not meant to be inflammatory or attacking. — Are these questions of mine out of place with the objectives of this site? If so, I will refrain. Again, thank you.