After Lofland and Stark’s pioneering model, sociologically-driven conversion paradigms began to emerge in the ‘age of conversion’.38 During this time, the traditional understanding of conversion as a one-time event or process changed towards seeing it as a more complex phenomenon. Researchers evaluated various process models of conversion and confirmed conversion as a multi-event phenomenon rather than a single occurrence (Richardson, 1977, Greil and Rudy, 1984).39 Richardson (1977), sought to expand limited models into a more generalized model through incorporating types and processes of
conversion over time constituting a ‘conversion career’. His model incorporated past (prior socialization), present (contemporary experiences and circumstances), and present/future (structure for problem definition and resolution). In Richardson’s paradigm, negative life circumstances prompt potential converts to move towards resolution within available ideological alternatives. Individuals decide to behave as a convert, playing the convert role, as they test or affirm their personhood during attempted problem-solving.40 Affective and
relationships for maintenance of new religious beliefs. The only necessary condition for conversion, according to Austin, was the presence of intense interaction between the potential convert and the religious adherent. However, he made the distinction between those who had a prior belief in God as requiring only the final three socialization steps and those who had no prior belief in God as requiring six of seven conditions (all but turning point).
HEIRICH, M. 1977. Change of Heart: A Test of Some Widely Held Theories about Religious Conversion. American
Journal of Sociology, 12, 653-680. (1977) Max Heirich judged the Lofland-Stark model to be inadequate in its lack of
explanation as to why any worldview is attractive to a potential convert, it did not account for the range of circumstances precipitating conversion and ignored the nature of conversion.
GOOREN, H. 2007. Reassessing Conventional Approaches to Conversion: Toward a New Synthesis. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 337-353.This model, according to Gooren, outlined the primary factors in conversion as
social networks, personality (which informs felt tensions, problem-solving perspective, and active/passive tendencies), and the turning-point experience. For Gooren, this and other ‘crisis determinism’ models were too restrictive in their
motivational impetus toward conversion.
38 RICHARDSON, J. T. 1977. Conversion Process Models and the Jesus Movement. American Behavioral Scientist, 20, 819-838. The ‘age of conversion’ was designated during the 1960’s and 1970’s in the United States with the sweeping influence of Jesus Movement as well as other cult movements.
39 RUDY, A. L. G. A. D. R. 1984. What Have We Learned from Process Models of Conversion? Sociological Focus, 17, 305-323. Problems with process models: Process models did not incorporate group affiliation as part of process analysis; ‘true’ conversion (evoking radical change) was confused with mere alternation and affiliation; and, post-conversion accounts were potentially biased by new post-conversion perspectives (e.g., biographical reconstruction rather than recollection of pre-conversion reality).
40 RICHARDSON, J. T. 1977. Conversion Process Models and the Jesus Movement. American Behavioral Scientist, 20, 819-838. Richardson acknowledged a fluidity of ideologies within a pluralistic marketplace of ideas, including a widely diverse range of interpretations of and resolutions to felt problems. More than merely ‘secular’ or ‘religious’ perspectives for problem solving, he included psychiatric, political, physiological and conventional means of problem solving.
emotional ties are influential as the potential convert participates, negotiates, and commits to a religious group.41
2.3.2. Straus’s Personal and Collective Conversion Process (1979)
Straus (1979) perceived conversion as a dynamic social process between individuals and groups. Social actors actively construct and reconstruct social and phenomenological
realities within a particular group. Potential converts seek and engage with new group experiences and
practices as formalized within the new group and sustain new identity and beliefs through ongoing active engagement and participation to ‘keep reality real’.
2.3.3. Lofland and Skonovd’s Conversion Motifs (1981)
After recognizing his prior Value-Added Process Model failed to appreciate the individualized, complex nature of religious conversion, Lofland (1981) expanded his earlier model by adding a variety of conversion profiles. Lofland and Skonovd’s six conversion motifs included intellectual, mystical, experimental, affectional, revivalist, and coercive. This model considers variables of social pressure, temporal duration, affective arousal, affective content as well as belief-participation sequence. All conversion motifs acknowledge belief-participation sequence whether belief was established prior to belonging to the new group, grew during experimental participation with the group over time, or, were driven by affectional social and emotional factors through group participation. In the Intellectual
Interestingly, Richardson perceived fundamental Christianity as counter-cultural within modern society and potentially provoking greater tension-producing problems.
41 Ibid. Richardson found that those with weak social/affective ties with non-group members were more likely to convert to a new group. Alternatively, non-group members who encouraged an individual’s conversion to a new group precipitated it; non-group disapproval discouraged it.
Straus 1979
Personal and Collective Conversion Process
STEP 1 Seeker actively looks for help.
STEP 2 Engages with new group members, bonds, language and worldview. STEP 3 Accepts new norms through active belief and commitment. STEP 4 Works to make conversion ‘real’ to self and others. STEP 5 Masters new practices, experiences new identity. STEP 6 Ongoing individual and collective action to ‘keep
reality real’.
Table 02. Straus’s 1979 Conversion Process Model
Motif, the convert independently acquires a new set of religious beliefs before becoming engaged with a religious group.42
The Coercion Motif acknowledges belief content insofar as it is manipulated through highly intense totalitarian cult mind control and brainwashing. Mystical and Revivalist Motifs recognize spiritual experience with conversion portrayed as a dramatic experience evoking heightened emotion (such as awe, love, fear) and onset or intensification of belief outside or in the context of social pressure. Within the remaining two motifs, belief followed social and emotional belonging. Experimental Motif is a curiosity-driven approach where converts participate in a religious group and gradually experiences a transformation of identity, behavior, and worldview. For the Affectional Motif, social or emotional factors drive belief change. As the convert is attracted to person(s) in the religious group, social knowledge and beliefs are sustained by personal attachments to or strong liking for practicing believers. Admirably, these motifs appreciated diversity within religious conversion and encouraged a broadened, more individualized view of conversion.
2.3.4. Kilbourne and Richardson’s Conversion Typology (1989)
Kilbourne and Richardson (1989) viewed religious conversion as inherently human, social, and interactive between individuals and social contexts. In their view, conversion requires three socio-psychological events - individual experience, effect on self, and social group confirmation of experiences and effects. Identifiable elements confirming conversion include change in discourse, convert role, and change in worldview perspective. Their religious conversion paradigm incorporates active vs. passive and inter- vs. intra-individual contrasts in the context of social contexts and influences:
42 SKONOVD, J. L. A. N. 1981. Conversion Motifs. Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, 20, 373-385. They attributed a rise in intellectual motif conversions with increased privatization of religion, pluralism, and technology (encouraging a ‘disembodied’ communication) within Western culture.
Lofland and Skonovd 1981
Conversion Motifs MOTIF 1 Intellectual MOTIF 2 Mystical MOTIF 3 Experimental MOTIF 4 Affectional MOTIF 5 Revivalist MOTIF 6 Coercive
Table 04. Kilbourne and Richardson’s 1989 Conversion Typology
Although socially-driven, this model incorporates substantive content in the Intellectual and Mystical components. Kilbourne and Richardson recognized the unique variability of
conversion, further substantiating the need for an enlarged, flexible conception of conversion.