What Is Integral Theory?

Integral theory is a way of knowing that helps foster the recognition that disparate aspects of reality—such as biological constitution, cultural world‐views, felt‐sense of selfhood, and social systems—are all critically important to any knowledge quest. Integral theory provides an “all quadrants, all levels” (K. Wilber, 2006, p. 26) metatheoretical framework that simultaneously honors the important contributions of a broad spectrum of epistemological outlooks while also acknowledging the parochial limits and misconceptions of those perspectives. In other words, integral theory affords a perspective that allows counselors to situate diverse knowledge approaches in such a way that they synergistically complement, rather than contradict, one another.     

Sacred sound in world religions: An interreligious teaching and learning experience

This article reflects on the experience of teaching a course called “Sacred Sound in World Religions” at Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, CA. I claim that the nature of music and music‐making has profound implications for teaching and pedagogical theory in an interreligious setting. Drawing upon scholars including Lisa M. Hess, Susanne K. Langer, Guy L. Beck, bell hooks, and Paolo Freire, I argue that to teach and learn in an in‐depth and transformative way, we must integrate the basic components of musicality: relationality, embodiment, multidimensionality, and expressive delight. This “performative mode” is what musicians enter when they make music well. It is what we all experience when our teaching and learning make a difference. Approaching interreligious pedagogy the way a musician approaches making music is the focus of this article.     

The fixity of reasons

I consider backtracking reasoning: that is, reasoning from backtracking counterfactuals such as if Hitler had won the war, he would have invaded Russia six weeks earlier. Backtracking counterfactuals often strike us as true. Despite that, reasoning from them just as often strikes us as illegitimate. A number of diagnoses have been offered of the illegitimacy of such backtracking reasoning which invoke the fixity of the past, or the direction of causation. I argue against such diagnoses, and in favor of one that invokes a principle I call the fixity of reasons. Backtracking reasoning violates the fixity of reasons. But, the fixity of reasons is a principle that must be observed in order to engage in practical reasoning at all.     

The exact vs. approximate distinction in numerical cognition may not be exact, but only approximate: How different processes work together in multi-digit addition

Two types of calculation processes have been distinguished in the literature: approximate processes are supposed to rely heavily on the non-verbal quantity system, whereas exact processes are assumed to crucially involve the verbal system. These two calculation processes were commonly distinguished by manipulation of two factors in addition problems: the identity of the target and the distance of the distractor. However, in all previous studies, these two factors were not manipulated independently. In this fMRI study, we could disentangle the two factors by using a different (two-digit) number stimulus set. Both behavioral and neurofunctional data suggest that the cognitive processes involved could be best explained by the (independent) factors target and distractor distance. Based on these data we suggest that the exact/approximate distinction does not seem to be as generally valid as previously assumed. We conclude that this study may be a starting point for a closer examination of the experimental, procedural and strategic conditions of when the exact/approximate distinction is valid and when it is not.     

Four meanings of “categorization”: A conceptual analysis of research on person perception

It is widely assumed that people tend to “categorize” other people. However, the term “categorization” has been used with qualitatively different underlying definitions in the person perception literature. We present a conceptual analysis in which we disentangle four existing definitions: (a) categorization as representing, (b) categorization as dichotomizing, (c) categorization as organizing, and (d) categorization as grouping. Subsequently, we show that seemingly antagonistic viewpoints in the literature may be reconciled by disentangling these definitions. Furthermore, we argue that disentangling these definitions is vital for theoretical interpretations of (past and future) empirical findings. Overall, our work aims to contribute to the clarity of person perception theories, provide novel perspectives on existing debates, and serve as a stepping stone for more differentiated models of person perception.     

When Women’s Gains Equal Men’s Losses: Predicting a Zero-Sum Perspective of Gender Status

Believing that reduced discrimination against women directly corresponds to increased discrimination against men, referred to as a zero-sum perspective (ZSP), may inhibit further attempts toward gender equality. Based on a sample of 313 men and women, we developed and tested both a general measure and a domain-specific measure of the ZSP of gender status then examined sociodemographics (age, education, political orientation, religious beliefs, and past experience with discrimination) and social dominance orientation as predictors of the ZSP of shifts in gender status. Hostile and modern sexism were examined as potential mediators of this relationship. Structural equation models were computed to examine predictive paths separately for men and women. Although some similarities were found, results showed important differences in predictive paths for women and men, and supported the expected mediating role of sexism in the relationships between sociodemographic predictors and the ZSP. Findings have implications for targeting intervention efforts to enhance a win-win or non-zero-sum perspective that may facilitate efforts toward reducing gender discrimination.     

Who is more ethical? Cross‐cultural comparison of consumer ethics between religious and non‐religious consumers

Religion is a significant part of daily life that affects consumers' decisions and behaviors. Religious consumers are predicted to be more ethical than non‐religious consumers. Nonetheless, past research suggests mixed results. Hence, the present study has two main objectives: (1) to examine differences in moral ideologies and ethical beliefs among religious and non‐religious consumers in Indonesia and Australia and (2) to investigate the impact of moral ideologies and religiosity on consumer ethical beliefs. This is one of the first cross‐cultural studies to compare consumer moral ideology (specifically, idealism and relativism) and consumer ethical beliefs between religious and non‐religious consumers. The results show that religious consumers tend more toward idealism than relativism and have stronger ethical beliefs regarding negative consumer ethical behaviors compared with non‐religious consumers. However, for ethical beliefs regarding specific consumer behaviors, namely, recycling and software piracy/buying counterfeit, the effect of religion was overshadowed by cultural differences between the two countries. This study contributes to the debate on the impact of moral ideologies and religiosity on consumer ethical beliefs. The findings may assist managers and public policymakers in their efforts to mitigate unethical consumer activities. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.