_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest
April 01 2013 04:58
_______________________________________________________________

01 April 2013 ProQuest
Table of contents
Search Strategy................................................................................................................................................ iii
1. Meta-analysis of correlational relationships between perspectives of truth in religion and major
psychological constructs.................................................................................................................................. 1
Bibliography...................................................................................................................................................... 21
01 April 2013 ii ProQuest
Search Strategy
Set# Searched for Databases Results
S1 relationship between science
and religion
PsycARTICLES
3675
01 April 2013 iii ProQuest
Duplicates are removed from your search and from your result count.
01 April 2013 iv ProQuest

Document 1 of 1

Meta-analysis of correlational relationships between perspectives of truth in religion and major
psychological constructs.
Author: McCleary, Daniel F.;
1
; Quillivan, Colin C.;
1
; Foster, Lisa N.;
1
; Williams, Robert L.;
1
;
1
Department of
Educational Psychology and Counseling, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN, US
bobwilliams@utk.edu
Publication info: Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 3. 3 (Aug 2011): 163-180.
ProQuest document link
Abstract: The current meta-analysis examined the empirical linkages between (a) absolute versus conditional
views of religious truth and (b) widely researched psychological constructs. Measures of religious
fundamentalism typically include the notion of absolute religious truth, whereas quest measures reflect the
notion of conditional religious truth. The meta-analysis represented the overall relationship between each of
these truth orientations and four psychological variables (i.e., authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, militarism, and
prejudice) most frequently related to the truth orientations. To accommodate our meta-analytic procedures, we
included only studies reporting Pearson productmoment correlations. Participants resided in America, Canada,
Korea, Northern Ireland, and England and included undergraduate and graduate students, parents of college
students, members of the American Psychological Association, and members of various religious groups.
Because of the relatively small number of studies (28) and the small samples used in many of those studies, we
used a random effects model as the framework for calculating the average effect sizes. Overall, the
psychological constructs tended to be more frequently and strongly related with religious fundamentalism than
with religious quest, as well as related in opposite directions with the two perspectives of religious truth. The
meta-analysis showed authoritarianism to be the psychological construct most strongly and consistently related
to the religious truth orientations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)(journal
abstract)
Full text:
Contents
Abstract
Conceptual Distinctions Between Orientations to Religious Truth
Relationships Between Truth Orientations and Psychological Constructs
Framework for the Current Study
Method
Retrieval Procedures
Coding Procedures
Collective Studies and Participants
Instruments for Assessing Truth Orientations
Statistical Methods
Results
Discussion
Authoritarianism
Religious fundamentalism
Quest orientation
01 April 2013 Page 1 of 21 ProQuest

Ethnocentrism
Religious fundamentalism
Militarism
Religious fundamentalism
Prejudice
Religious fundamentalism
Religious quest
Conclusions and Limitations
AppendixA
Show less
Figures and Tables
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table
Show less AbstractThe current meta-analysis examined the empirical linkages between (a) absolute versus
conditional views of religious truth and (b) widely researched psychological constructs. Measures of religious
fundamentalism typically include the notion of absolute religious truth, whereas quest measures reflect the
notion of conditional religious truth. The meta-analysis represented the overall relationship between each of
these truth orientations and four psychological variables (i.e., authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, militarism, and
prejudice) most frequently related to the truth orientations. To accommodate our meta-analytic procedures, we
included only studies reporting Pearson productmoment correlations. Participants resided in America, Canada,
Korea, Northern Ireland, and England and included undergraduate and graduate students, parents of college
students, members of the American Psychological Association, and members of various religious groups.
Because of the relatively small number of studies (28) and the small samples used in many of those studies, we
used a random effects model as the framework for calculating the average effect sizes. Overall, the
psychological constructs tended to be more frequently and strongly related with religious fundamentalism than
with religious quest, as well as related in opposite directions with the two perspectives of religious truth. The
meta-analysis showed authoritarianism to be the psychological construct most strongly and consistently related
to the religious truth orientations. Diversity of views about religious truth in American culture may reflect basic
psychological differences rather than strictly theological views. We do not doubt that cultures are powerful
contributors to theological views, yet psychological tendencies may predispose individuals to gravitate toward a
particular view of truth in religion. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine the strength of the
relationships between two truth orientations in religion and targeted psychological constructs. Although the truth
orientations were both predicted to correlate with the psychological constructs, we expected the directionality of
those correlations to be opposite for those orientations. Conceptual Distinctions Between Orientations to
Religious TruthThe professional literature on the perception of religious truth points to a distinction between
fundamentalist and quest orientations to truth. By definition, the two orientations are inherently antithetical in
their notion of truth. The key issue is whether religious truth can best be regarded as absolute or conditional.
Perhaps the most basic marker of religious fundamentalism is the belief in absolute and inerrant religious truth.
An assumption that appears to underlie this orientation is that religious truth can be determined objectively (
01 April 2013 Page 2 of 21 ProQuest
Sleat, 2006). For fundamentalist Christians, ultimate objective truth about moral and religious issues resides in
the Bible. According to Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992), Christian fundamentalists claim that the Bible not
only contains the one and only absolute truth about God and human life but that this ultimate truth must be
vigorously defended against the attacks of skeptics.On the other hand, religious quest embraces a continuing
reevaluation of religious truth, while leaving open the possibility of absolute truth. The quest orientation does not
necessarily claim that objective truth is unknowable but does express skepticism regarding the claim of a one
and only objective truth (Sleat, 2006). Overall, the quest search for religious truth is characterized by
complexity, doubt, and tentativeness (Batson, Schoenrade, &Ventis, 1993, p. 166). One continues to confront
complex questions related to the existence of God, the meaning of human life, and existence beyond death
without necessarily finding ultimate answers to these questions. Batson and Burris (1994) proposed that people
with a quest orientation recognize that they do not know, probably never will know, the final truth about these
matters (p. 157).In what appears to be the only phenomenological analysis done so far on the experiences of
individuals having a strong quest perspective, several themes emerged as pivotal to their life experiences:
desire for a profound spiritual connection, transcendence in daily life, refinement of personal identity, and
growth beyond traditions (Graham, McDonald, &Klaassen, 2008). Nonetheless, the participants had traveled
different existential paths in arriving at these themes. Some participants came from traditional religious groups,
whereas others came from nonreligious backgrounds. Nature, the Bible, and the voice of God all served as
avenues for a profound spiritual connection. These advocates of quest placed a heavy emphasis on asking
complex questions about the nature of religion in their life experiences. Several acknowledged feelings of being
misunderstood, alienated, and treated with suspicion in raising questions unlikely to be answered with certainty.
Relationships Between Truth Orientations and Psychological ConstructsSeveral studies have shown
fundamentalism and quest to be related to a variety of psychological constructs, but sometimes only one or two
studies provide the empirical support for an important relationship between a truth perspective and a particular
psychological variable. For example, Wylie and Forest (1992) found religious fundamentalism to be positively
related to participants' assignment of jail sentences for a variety of hypothetical violations (e.g., selling drugs,
soliciting sex, and assaulting someone). Danso, Hunsberger, and Pratt's (1997) survey of Canadian
undergraduate students and parents of students led to a small but significant correlation between religious
fundamentalism and approval of corporal punishment in a college student sample and a nonsignificant
correlation in a parent sample. Saroglou's (2002b) study with adults living on a Catholic university campus in
Belgium found religious fundamentalism to be negatively related to creation of humor in responding to
hypothetical daily hassles, whereas religious quest was positively related to creation of humor. In a study with
teacher-education undergraduates in a Southeastern U.S. university, Williams, Oh, and Bliss (2007) reported
fundamentalism to be significantly related to a variety of politically laden values: positive relationship with
nationalism but negative relationship with respect for civil liberties and tolerance of dissent.Although singular
studies have generated interesting relationships between the two truth orientations and isolated psychological
constructs, a pattern of recurring relationships between the truth orientations and major psychological
constructs would be more substantive. Meta-analysis is the statistical tool typically employed in assessing and
evaluating such recurring relationships. Already several meta-analyses have investigated relationships between
religious and psychological constructs. For example, Saroglou (2002a) found fundamentalism to be negatively
and significantly related to openness, a construct that could be conceptually related to several psychological
constructs included in our meta-analysis. Similarly, Saroglou, Delpierre, and Dernelle's (2004) meta-analysis
01 April 2013 Page 3 of 21 ProQuest
showed religiosity to be negatively related to openness to both change and autonomy.Whitley (2009) and Hall,
Matz, and Wood (2010) recently published meta-analyses that partly overlap some relationships targeted in our
meta-analysis. For example, Whitley found fundamentalism to be negatively related to tolerance for lesbians
and gay men but religious quest to be positively related to tolerance for homosexuals. The effect size for the
negative relationship between fundamentalism and tolerance for homosexuality was approximately twice as
large as the positive relationship between the quest orientation and tolerance for homosexuality. The Hall et al.
meta-analysis focused on the relationship between a variety of religious variables, including fundamentalism
and quest and racial prejudice. Using correlations as their measure of average effect size, these researchers
found weak relationships between the two religious notions and racial prejudice (positive for fundamentalism
and negative for quest). Framework for the Current StudyDespite the illuminating results produced by the
previous meta-analyses involving religious constructs, none approximated the scope of the current study (i.e.,
the relationship between the religious truth orientations and a variety of psychological constructs). In our meta-
analysis, we did not initially select psychological constructs primarily on an a priori basis but rather permitted
quantitative research findings to point to the psychological constructs most frequently related to the truth
orientations. We began our search with descriptors representing psychological variables we expected to be
empirically related to religiosity, but we did not restrict the search to those variables.After identifying four
psychological constructs most commonly related to religious fundamentalism and quest, we hypothesized that
our meta-analysis would show fundamentalism to be positively related to authoritarianism, ethnocentrism,
militarism, and prejudice, whereas the quest orientation would be negatively related to those variables.
Specifically, we predicted fundamentalism to be most strongly related to authoritarianism (a notion consistent
with looking to a higher power and/or religious leaders for direction and guidance). We also expected
ethnocentrism and prejudice to be positively related to fundamentalism in that both tend to view other religious
groups and nonreligious groups less favorably than their own group. The numerous accounts of warfare
between God's people and opposing groups found in various divine revelations (e.g., the Old Testament,
Koran), as well as contemporary accounts of fundamentalists' support for U.S. military ventures, led to an
expected linkage between fundamentalism and militarism (Williams, Bliss, &McCallum, 2006).Based on the
premise that questers (advocates of the quest orientation) are inclined to question mainstream religious doctrine
and authority figures, we hypothesized that this orientation would be strongly and negatively related to
authoritarianism. Similarly, we expected the quest orientation to be negatively related to prejudice measures,
given questers' openness to different views of theological and moral issues. Method Retrieval ProceduresWe
began our proposed meta-analysis with a search for all professional articles reporting correlations between the
truth orientations and such psychological variables as authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, militarism, and prejudice.
We searched PsycINFO, PsycArticles, Social Science Abstracts, American Theological Library Association's
Religion database, reference sections of potentially relevant articles, and specific journals that appeared to
contain relevant articles (e.g., International Journal for the Psychology of Religion and the Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion ). In searching the databases, we looked for terms in titles, abstracts, and full texts,
whenever the database provided these search options. We also searched for titles and abstracts of articles in
journals that frequently publish psychological articles on religion for additional research possibilities. Although
Dissertation Abstracts was not directly searched, the databases and reference sections of related articles
provided several dissertations to review for inclusion in the meta-analysis. No other attempt was made to collect
fugitive research findings.To be incorporated in the meta-analysis, an article first had to include a measure of
01 April 2013 Page 4 of 21 ProQuest
fundamentalism and/or quest and at least one psychological measure that had been correlated (Pearson
productmoment) with either or both truth orientations. According to Lipsey and Wilson (2001), the product-
moment correlation is a straightforward statistic to use when calculating effect sizes. We did not limit the article
search to specific religions but rather included such search terms as relig*, fundamental*, Christ*, Buddh*,
Islam*, Judai*, Jew*, Muslim*, quest*, authoritarian*, ethnocentric*, militar*, prejudice*, and
homosexual*. Our criterion for designating a collection of findings as a psychological category in the meta-
analysis was the availability of at least three separate studies addressing the relationship between that
construct and one or both truth orientations. Coding ProceduresThree advanced doctoral students were trained
to code research reports by a professor having extensive acquaintance with psychological, social, political, and
religious constructs. Two of the graduate students shared the initial search and coding of articles described in
the Appendix. A third graduate student coded 20% of the articles failing to meet inclusion criteria and 100% of
the articles meeting inclusion criteria as judged by the initial raters. Intercoder agreement between the first two
coders and the third coder was 96% for inclusion of articles and 100% for exclusion of articles. Collective
Studies and ParticipantsWe located 28 studies dealing with the psychological characteristics associated with
fundamentalist and/or quest orientations that were suitable for inclusion in our collective meta-analysis. The
number of participants in the 28 eligible studies totaled 8,994. Embedded within these articles were 33
participant samples, collectively producing 91 correlations between the two religious orientations and the
targeted psychological variables.The combined samples had the following demographic characteristics: 45%
U.S., 55% international (mainly Canada), 61% college students, 12% parents of college students, and 27%
other adult samples. One study (Kirkpatrick, 1993) that selected participants from five universities in Canada
and the U.S. did not distinguish the locations of the universities. Further, the correlations in the Kirkpatrick study
were based on the total sample, including both U.S. and Canadian students. Consequently, we considered this
study as using an international sample. Only one study (Hunsberger, 1996) compared the targeted relationships
for distinct non-Christian groups (Islam, Hindu, and Judaism), and 10 other studies specified a mixture of
religious backgrounds in their samples. However, most studies did not describe the religious composition of
their samples.The earliest relevant article was published by Wilson and Shutte in 1973, and the most recent
articles appeared in 2008 (Ji &Suh, 2008; Jonathan, 2008). A majority of the published reports came from the
1990s, with several more added since 2000. Although the pertinent articles were published in a diversity of
journals, half of the articles appeared in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion and the
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion . Instruments for Assessing Truth OrientationsTo assist the reader in
evaluating our findings, we have summarized the major instruments used in the assessment of religious
fundamentalism and religious quest (see Table 1). The fundamentalism measures ranged from 6 to 20 items,
but 14 of the 20 studies assessing fundamentalism used the 20-item measure, which was constructed by
Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992). The Batson Quest scale has been the primary measure of the quest
orientation. Ten-item and 12-item versions are the most popular editions of the Batson Quest Scale (Batson
&Schoenrade, 1991; McFarland, 1989). Altemeyer and Hunsberger developed their own measure of quest, the
Questions and Doubts about Religion Scale.
01 April 2013 Page 5 of 21 ProQuest
01 April 2013 Page 6 of 21 ProQuest

Enlarge this Image.
Primary Instruments for Measuring Fundamentalism and Quest OrientationInternal consistency of the
instruments is especially important in determining the legitimacy of integrating the findings from several different
instruments into one meta-analysis. The internal consistency of the fundamentalism measures ranged from .75
to .96, with an average of .90. The internal consistency for the quest measures tended to be lower (range .70 to
.95, average .76) than those for fundamentalism but still strong enough to be used for research analyses.
Fourteen of the 20 studies that included a measure of fundamentalism used Altemeyer and Hunsberger's
(1992) 20-item scale, and six of the 10 studies including a measure of quest used Batson and Schoenrade's
(1991) 12-item scale. Statistical MethodsAlthough Lipsey and Wilson (2001) recommended Pearson
productmoment correlation as the correlation of choice in conducting meta-analyses involving bivariate
correlations with continuous variables, they also acknowledged that product-moment correlations can be
adversely affected by less than desired statistical proprieties, especially in the computation of its standard-error
(Alexander, Scozzaro, &Borodkin, 1989; Rosenthal, 1994). Standard error corresponds to error resulting from
random fluctuations within a sample. Potential problems with standard-error formulations based on product-
moment correlations can be countered using Fisher's Z r -transformation to convert correlations into effect
sizes (Hedges &Olkin, 1985). We converted each Pearson productmoment correlation to an effect size using
the following formula recommended by Lipsey and Wilson (p. 63), in which r represents the correlation
coefficient and log e represents the natural logarithm (universal constant).

In the present meta-analysis, the number of correlations (i.e., k ) used to compute representative effect sizes
ranged from 6 to 27. Due to the small number of correlations within several truth-psychological combinations
and the small samples in several studies, we used a random effects model for all analyses. Lipsey and Wilson
(2001) prefer this method for conducting meta-analyses based on a small number of correlations. The random
effects model assumes that two sources of variability can affect results across studies, subject-level sampling
error and a randomly distributed source of error. All reported results in the current study included both sources
of error.In accordance with meta-analysis procedures recommended by Lipsey and Wilson (2001, p. 114), we
used the formula below to compute the weighted mean effect size ES r for each set of correlations:

In this calculation, w i is the inverse variance weight (i.e., n -3) and ES i is the effect size computed for each
product-moment correlation included in the meta-analysis, 1 through k . Due to the nature of the random effects
model, both the sampling-error variance and random-effects variance are included in the inverse variance
weight (w i ).We constructed a 95% confidence interval indicating the degree of precision for the estimate of
the mean effect size for each variable pair, using the procedure recommended in Lipsey and Wilson (2001, p.
114). Specifically, we used the standard error of the weighted mean effect size SE ES in the construction of
the confidence interval.

To construct the lower limit, we multiplied the standard error for the effect size SE ES by 1.96 (i.e., critical z -
value). Then we subtracted this product from the weighted average effect size. To construct the upper limit, we
added the product to the weighted average effect size.In addition to computing the average effect size and 95%
confidence interval, we determined the statistical significance of the average effect size by using the following
01 April 2013 Page 7 of 21 ProQuest
z test formula (Lipsey &Wilson, 2001, p. 115).

If the value of z exceeds 2.58, the weighted mean effect size is considered significant at p .001. Taking into
account both sources of error, the z test used in evaluating the significance level of the mean effect sizes
showed all to be significant at the .001 level (see Table 2).
01 April 2013 Page 8 of 21 ProQuest
01 April 2013 Page 9 of 21 ProQuest

Enlarge this Image.
Weighted Mean Effect Sizes for Relationships Between Notions of Religious Truth and Major Psychological
VariablesFinally, the homogeneity of the weighted mean effect sizes was assessed using a Q -statistic (Lipsey
&Wilson, 2001, p.115). In a homogeneous distribution, the effect size of any particular finding differs from the
effect size mean only by sampling error. The Q -statistic indicates whether there are differences among the
effect sizes used to calculate the mean effect size not due to sampling error (e.g., variations in procedures and
settings).

If the Q -statistic is significant, the effect size distribution is considered heterogeneous. We found all of the
weighted mean effect sizes for the specific variable pairs to be significant, suggesting a heterogeneous
distribution for all sets of effect sizes. However, due to the small number of effect sizes, the Q -statistic may not
be able to detect significance accurately. Nonetheless, we used a random-effects model to account for
differences in samples beyond sampling error per se. It would have been desirable to assume a homogeneous
sample and conduct a meta-analysis using a fixed effects model, but our significant Q -statistics precluded that
option. Furthermore, k was small for all effect sizes computed.We assessed the potential for publication bias by
using the funnel plot. Egger, Davey-Smith, Schneider, and Minder (1997) and Sterne and Egger (2001)
recommended plotting the standard error rather than the sample size. The funnel plots revealed a potential
publication bias for the relationship between fundamentalism and ethnocentrism, as well as between
fundamentalism and authoritarianism. All other funnel plots were symmetrical, suggesting no publication bias.
One alternative for addressing publication bias is the fail-safe N (Lipsey &Wilson, 2001). This analysis revealed
that 12 studies investigating the relationship between fundamentalism and ethnocentrism would need to have
an effect size of zero to reduce the weighted mean effect size to a nonsignificant level (i.e., the effect sizes
would be too scattered for the mean to be representative). It is unlikely that there are 12 studies examining this
relationship in the file drawer, given that we only identified 10 for the meta-analysis (Lipsey &Wilson, 2001).
Also, the criterion effect size of .25 (the magnitude of the weighted mean effect size to be considered
nonsignificant for that variable pairfundamentalism and ethnocentism) would still probably be considered a
publishable finding. In fact, one published study included in our analysis reported an effect size of .29.
Additionally, in the case of fundamentalism and authoritarianism, 285 studies would be needed to reduce the
weighted mean effect size to a nonsignificant level. ResultsWithin the selected journal articles, more than twice
as many correlations were located for fundamentalism as for quest. Half of the psychological variables
correlated with both orientations to religious truth. Fundamentalism correlated positively with authoritarianism,
ethnocentrism, militarism, and prejudice, whereas quest correlated (mainly negatively) with only two of those
constructs (authoritarianism and prejudice). Fundamentalism and quest correlated with the latter variables in
opposite directions. We converted these correlations to weighted effect sizes using the procedure
recommended by Lipsey and Wilson (2001).Our findings included 60 effect sizes between religious
fundamentalism and psychological variables, compared with 31 effect sizes between religious quest and
psychological variables. Only one effect size out of 91 was directionally similar for religious fundamentalism and
religious questa positive effect size for the relationship between quest and authoritarianism for a Korean
university evangelical sample (Ji &Suh, 2008).All the mean effect sizes involving religious fundamentalism
(ranging from .33 to .89) were positive and significant at the .001 level (see Table 2). Conversely, the effect
01 April 2013 Page 10 of 21 ProQuest
sizes for religious quest (ranging from .23 to .40) were negative but also significant at the .001 level. In
interpreting Table 2, one should note that not all 91 correlations reported in the Appendix are represented by the
weighted average effect sizes. When an overall correlation in a study included a series of subscales, the
subscale correlations rather than the overall correlations were used in the computation of effect sizes. The
analyses showed the strongest mean effect size (.89) to be for the relationship between fundamentalism and
authoritarianism. With the exception of the effect size representing the relationship between fundamentalism
and militarism, the effect sizes involving fundamentalism were substantially larger than those involving quest.
Table 3 shows the range of effect sizes converted from individual correlations. The table indicates the number
of these effect sizes that could be classified as large (.50 and above), medium (.30 to .49), small (.10 to .29),
and <than .10. The relationship between fundamentalism and authoritarianism produced the strongest and most
consistent effect sizes: 17 out of 17 large. The relationship between fundamentalism and ethnocentrism resulted
in the second highest proportion of effect sizes: eight large, one medium, and one small. Of the 17 effect sizes
representing the relationship between fundamentalism and prejudice toward homosexuality, a substantial
majority fell in the large category: 12 large, four medium, and one small. The weakest relationship involving
fundamentalism was with militarism: one large, two medium, and three small.
01 April 2013 Page 11 of 21 ProQuest
01 April 2013 Page 12 of 21 ProQuest

Enlarge this Image.
Range of Effect Sizes and Number of Non-Significant, Small, Medium, and Large Effect Sizes for Relationships
Between Notions of Religious Truth and Major Psychological VariablesComputation of effect sizes involving
quest resulted in only one large effect size (authoritarianism) across the two psychological variables with which
quest was related. In addition to the one large effect size between quest and authoritarianism, seven effect
sizes for that relationship fell in the medium category and three in the small category. The quest and prejudice
combination also produced a sizable number of medium effect sizes: eight medium, six small, and six <.10.
With respect to prejudice toward homosexuals, quest contained five medium effect sizes, four small, and six
<.10. In contrast to fundamentalism, the overall pattern of relationships for quest favored medium to no
relationships with the targeted psychological variables.The appendix provides a brief summary of the specific
features of each research article cited in the text: overview of the correlation(s), significance level(s), description
of the sample(s), and citation for each study. The appendix should be particularly helpful to readers wishing to
gain a synoptic perspective of the magnitude, directionality, and consistency of relationships between each
religious orientation and each psychological construct. Specific consistencies and inconsistencies between the
findings may be more readily apparent in the appendix than in the textual description of the studies and findings.
DiscussionReligious fundamentalism was related to all the psychological constructs that qualified for the meta-
analysis, but no correlations with quest were identified for ethnocentrism and militarism. The greatest number of
correlations was identified for prejudice and the smallest number for militarism. We converted all correlations
into weighted effect sizes using a procedure described in Lipsey and Wilson (2001). Using an adaptation of
Cohen's (1988) classification scheme, we subsequently classified all individual effect sizes into categories
according to their magnitude. AuthoritarianismBy far the strongest and most consistent psychological variable
linked to the two truth orientations was authoritarianism. Altemeyer (1981) described authoritarianism as a
combination of submission, aggression, and conventionalism in response to authorities. Authoritarian individuals
submit to authorities, aggress against those inclined to challenge authorities, and embrace societal standards
perceived as established by authorities. Religious fundamentalismCanadian studies done in the 1990s
accounted for most of the relationships between religious fundamentalism and authoritarianism. Approximately
half of the studies on religious fundamentalism and authoritarianism were done with undergraduate students,
with a majority of the studies conducted in Canada. Three studies also surveyed parents of college students
and obtained correlations similar to those for students. Most articles did not provide information on religious
affiliation(s) within their samples. Only one study actually compared the relationships between fundamentalism
and authoritarianism across non-Christian groups. Three articles identified religious groups included in their
samples but did not provide separate group correlations.The number of effect sizes considered large between
religious fundamentalism and authoritarianism across all samples was 17 of 17, with an average effect size of
.89. Inasmuch as belief in literal truth and inerrancy of the Bible is one of the foundational beliefs in Christian
fundamentalism, authoritarianism and belief in absolute truth of the Bible appear to have a common conceptual
base. In fact, Laythe, Finkel, and Kirkpatrick (2001) claimed that authoritarianism represents the lens through
which fundamentalists perceive religious truth. Hood, Hill, and Williamson (2005) have suggested that belief in
an inerrant text requires unquestioning submission, a key element in authoritarianism. Quest orientationSeveral
of the studies that investigated the relationship between religious fundamentalism and authoritarianism also
assessed the relationship between the quest orientation and authoritarianism. All of the quest effect sizes were
01 April 2013 Page 13 of 21 ProQuest
statistically significant but less than half the magnitude of the fundamentalist effect sizes and, with one
exception, directionally opposite the fundamentalist effect sizes. Most of these effect sizes were derived from
undergraduate samples or parents of undergraduate students.The predominately medium and negative
relationships between the quest orientation and authoritarianism reported in most American studies may not
generalize to societies in which authoritarian structures are regarded more positively by the college educated,
such as in the Ji and Suh (2008) study in Korea, than by the college educated in American samples. It is also
important to note that Ji and Suh conducted their study in evangelical Protestant schools, which may have more
authoritarian expectations for student beliefs than would be the case in secular state schools. Six of the 10 or 11
effect sizes (depending on whether the Korean study is counted) representing relationships between quest and
authoritarianism came from U.S. samples, with the religious composition of samples not specified in the majority
of cases. Only one of the 10 or 11 effect sizes (depending on whether both of the Ji and Suh samples are
included) between quest and authoritarianism can be considered large. The mean effect size with the positive
Korean correlation included was .34 and without that correlation included .40. EthnocentrismEthnocentrism
represents a world view that sees humanity as consisting of in-groups and out-groups, typically with in-groups
much smaller and more exclusive than out-groups (Altemeyer, 2003). An in-group consists of those whose
views are similar to one's own and an out-group consists of those who hold opposing views. The term suggests
that this in-group/out-group distinction is often anchored in ethnicity, with religion frequently playing a pivotal
role in that ethnicity. Inasmuch as one's religion typically reflects the moral standards by which one attempts to
live and judge the efficacy of all religions, the dichotomy between in- and out-groups often represents strong
moral judgment. Therefore, one might assume that the notion of absolute religious truth would be strongly
associated with the good-bad dichotomy of ethnocentrism. However, research on the nature of this linkage is
not as extensive as one might expect. Only three studies were identified that correlated fundamentalism with
ethnocentric measures (Altemeyer, 2003; Altemeyer &Hunsberger, 2004; Jackson &Hunsberger, 1999). We
located no studies that examined the relationship between the quest orientation and ethnocentrism. Religious
fundamentalismEight of 10 effect sizes representing the strength of the relationship between fundamentalism
and ethnocentrism could be considered large. However, the generalizability of these strong relationships
between fundamentalism and ethnocentrism could be tempered by the location of the studies, given that all
were done with students and their parents in Canadian universities. Only one of the three studies mentioned
having some Christians in the sample; otherwise, the articles did not specify the religious composition of the
samples. MilitarismOne of the most sensitive issues empirically linked to notions of religious truth is the
commitment to the use of military force to affect religious conditions in a society (e.g., protecting the dominance
of a particular religion or freeing society from religious oppression). Given the number of wars that have been
fought over the authority of religion in society, one might expect the two truth orientations to be differentially
related to the use of military force to accomplish religious change in a society However, the research on this
possibility is one-sided, dealing only with the relationship between religious fundamentalism and militarism. We
could identify no studies that examined the relationship between the quest orientation and militarism.The most
recent analysis (McCleary &Williams, 2009) of the relationship between religiosity and militarism was
incorporated in a meta-analysis on militarism research. Militarism was defined in this meta-analysis as belief in
the nobility and efficacy of the U.S. military (p. 165). Although all of the religious constructs included in their
meta-analysis were not expressly identified as religious fundamentalist, several of the constructs (e.g., divine
law and authority of the church, literal inerrancy of the Bible) are consistent with definitions of religious
01 April 2013 Page 14 of 21 ProQuest
fundamentalism. We have reexamined those studies in the context of the current meta-analysis. Religious
fundamentalismThe effect sizes between religious fundamentalism and militarism proved to be quite varied,
ranging from .10 to .69, with only one of six effect sizes considered large. This variation may have been based
in part on the diversity of the samples and the instruments used in assessing religious fundamentalism and
militarism. Nonetheless, the mean effect size of .33 was significant at the .001 level. Although militarism was
significantly related to religious fundamentalism, the mean effect size was substantially weaker than between
religious fundamentalism and the other three psychological variables. Two of the lowest effect sizes came from
international samples in Korea and Northern Ireland and England, whereas two of the highest effect sizes came
from American samples. It is possible that location of the study makes a considerable difference in the strength
of the relationship between fundamentalism and militarism, with the connection being stronger in the U.S. than
in some European nations. To test this hypothesis, one would need enough samples from European countries
to use location as a moderator variable. PrejudiceThe research on the relationships between truth orientations
in religions and psychological constructs has most extensively targeted prejudice. Generalized prejudice, as
well as more specific racial, ethnic, and sexual discrimination, is conceptually similar to the notion of
ethnocentrism. In a sense, negative relationships between religious orientation and ratings of particular groups
suggest that those groups are considered out-groups. Some measures of prejudice assessed rejection of
specific groups, whereas other measures assessed positive to negative ratings of those groups. Consequently,
a high score on the first type of assessment and a low score on the second type were considered conceptually
equivalent, with both indicating a negative orientation toward a particular group. Of the 47 individual effect sizes
involving relationships between religious truth orientations and prejudice measures, a majority focused on
attitudes toward homosexuality and homosexual individuals. Religious fundamentalismOverall, we classified 12
of 27 effect sizes between fundamentalism and various measures of prejudice as large, with an overall average
weighted effect size of .45. Although these studies included assessment of prejudice toward communists,
women, and Blacks, the principal target of fundamentalists' prejudice was homosexuals and/or homosexuality.
The mean effect size between religious fundamentalism and prejudice toward homosexuals was .54, with 12 of
17 individual effect sizes being large. In comparison, Whitley (2009) reported a correlational effect size of .45
(also based on 17 findings) between fundamentalism and tolerance for homosexuality. Remember that a
positive relationship between a truth orientation and prejudice is conceptually analogous to a negative
relationship between a truth orientation and tolerance for homosexuality. Religious questEffect sizes for the
relationships between quest and prejudice generally constituted relationships directionally opposite and lower in
magnitude than the companion relationships for religious fundamentalism. The overall mean effect size for the
relationship between quest and prejudice was .23, with none of the 20 individual effect sizes considered large
and 6 classified as less than .10. Our classification showed the most common level for these quest effect sizes
to be medium (8 out of 20).The most frequent target of prejudice in the quest studies proved to be
homosexuality. Our mean effect size for this relationship was .20 (based on 15 individual effect sizes),
whereas Whitley's (2009) correlational effect size for the relationship between quest and tolerance of
homosexuality was .24 (based on 10 individual effect sizes). Comparisons between our findings and Whitley's
findings revealed stronger relationships between fundamentalism and prejudice toward homosexuals in our
findings but also slightly weaker relationships between quest and attitudes toward homosexuality.One
contribution of the quest research is a more precise differentiation of prejudice toward homosexuals than has
generally been the case in the fundamentalist research. For example, Fulton, Gorsuch, and Maynard (1999)
01 April 2013 Page 15 of 21 ProQuest
divided items on an antigay scale into morally rationalized and nonmorally rationalized categories. Wilkinson
(2004) subdivided the notion of homophobia into four subtypes: contact apprehension, adverse moral judgment,
civil rights intolerance, and stereotypes of homosexuals. Tsang and Rowatt's (2007) homosexuality scale
provided a measure of explicit negativity toward homosexuals (blatant condemnation of gays and lesbians) and
implicit distance from homosexuals (ratings of cold rather than warm feelings toward homosexuals). Rosik,
Griffith, and Cruz (2007) first differentiated negative attitudes toward lesbians from those toward gays. Then
they differentiated attitudes toward gays who were celibate from attitudes toward gays who were sexually
active. Delineating these subcategories of prejudice toward homosexuality will likely contribute to a more
precise understanding of the nature of that prejudice. Conclusions and LimitationsBy far the strongest set of
comparisons for both fundamentalism and quest was with right-wing authoritarianism, which was consistently
related to both religious notions of truth: fundamentalism was positively related with authoritarianism, but quest
was negatively related with authoritarianism (with the exception of one study in an evangelical Korean
university). With regard to the kindred concepts of ethnocentrism and prejudice, fundamentalism was
associated with an in-group/out-group mentality and with prejudice toward groups whose ethnicity, values, or
sexual orientations tended to deviate from fundamentalist norms. On the other hand, religious quest tended to
be either negatively related or unrelated to measures of prejudice and discrimination. Fundamentalism has also
been moderately and positively related to the advocacy of military power in forging change in other societies.
The linkage between quest and militarism has been minimally investigated, although one might speculate that
questers would question the use of military force to impose a nation's values on other societies.A potential
limitation in interpreting the variations in effect sizes across relationships (e.g., the relationship between quest
and prejudice toward homosexuality, the relationship between fundamentalism and militarism) is the absence of
model testing in our meta-analysis. Although the range of instruments used to assess the two truth perspectives
could suggest that diversity of instrumentation contributed to variation in effect sizes, high internal consistency
for most of the instruments would mitigate this explanation. The fundamentalism measures contained alphas
ranging from .75 to .96. Quest alphas ranged from .70 to .95. Also, a relatively small number of instruments
were used to assess the two truth orientations. While we agree that the instrument variability could have
affected the magnitude of some effect sizes, we concluded that model testing was unnecessary with such
consistently high alphas. Furthermore, model testing does not appear to be common practice in published meta-
analytic studies when instruments have consistently high alphas.Several studies in our meta-analysis included
both student and parental samples, with the latter samples consisting either of the participating students'
parents or parents of college students in general. These studies produced remarkably similar relationships
between religious fundamentalism and psychological variables for students and parents of students. This
pattern suggests that these relationships may remain stable across generations. However, this continuity across
generations does not preclude the possibility that education may affect the levels of fundamentalism and quest
across generations within a society. The direction of that change may prove profoundly important to specific
societies and the world community.Inasmuch as the world religion with the largest number of adherents
(approximately 33%) is Christianity (Major Religions), it is not surprising that most of the articles meeting our
selection criteria focused on Christianity. The meta-analysis mainly dealt with the Christian religion as practiced
in North America (United States and Canada). We were able to identify very limited research on the relationship
between the truth orientations and psychological constructs in Jewish and Islamic societies, which excludes
some of the most dominant religions in the world community. Our meta-analysis is especially limited in
01 April 2013 Page 16 of 21 ProQuest
illuminating the psychological relevance of the truth perspectives in Middle Eastern religions. Much research
remains to be done to extend and clarify the relationships of the notions of religious truth and important
psychological constructs across the world's major religions.

AppendixA
Sorry, table cannot be found...

References
1. Alexander, R. A., Scozzaro, M. J., & Borodkin, L. W. (1989). Psychological Bulletin.
2. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
3. Altemeyer, B. (2003). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
4. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
5. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1997). Amazing conversions: Why some turn to faith and others abandon
religion. Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
6. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
7. Batson, C. D., Burris, C. T., Zanna, M. P., & Olsen, J. M. (1994). The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario
Symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological
perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
10. Beatty, A. E., Hull, M., & Arikawa, H. (2007). Mental Health, Religion, &Culture.
11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Danso, H., Hunsberger, B., & Pratt, M. (1997). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
13. Egger, M., Davey-Smith, G., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). British Medical Journal.
14. Fulton, A. S. (1990). Intrinsic religion and discriminatory attitudes toward homosexual individuals.
15. Fulton, A. S., Gorsuch, R. L., & Maynard, E. A. (1999). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
16. Graham, M. D., McDonald, M. J., & Klaassen, D. W. (2008). The International Journal for the Psychology
of Religion.
17. Hall, D. L., Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2010). Personality and Social Psychology Review.
18. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
19. Henderson-King, D, Henderson-King, E., Bolea, B., Koches, K., & Kauffman, A. (2004). Peace and
Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology.
20. Hood, R. W., Hill, P. C., & Williamson, W. P. (2005). The psychology of religious fundamentalism. New
York: Guilford Press.
21. Hunsberger, B. (1996). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
22. Hunsberger, B., Alisat, S., Pancer, S. M., & Pratt, M. (1996). The International Journal for the Psychology
of Religion.
23. Hunsberger, B., Owusu, V., & Duck, R. (1999). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
24. Jackson, L. M., & Hunsberger, B. (1999). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
25. Ji, C. C., & Suh, K. H. (2008). Journal of Psychology and Christianity.
26. Jonathan, E. (2008). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
01 April 2013 Page 17 of 21 ProQuest
27. Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
28. Laythe, B., Finkel, D., & Kirkpatrick, L. E. (2001). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
29. Leak, G. K., & Randall, B. A. (1995). Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
30. Lewis, C. A., & Maltby, J. (2000). Personality and Individual Differences.
31. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. (2007). .
33. McCleary, D. F., & Williams, R. L. (2009). Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology.
34. McFarland, S. G. (1989). Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion.
35. Rosenthal, R., Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
36. Rosik, C. H., Griffith, L. K., & Cruz, Z. (2007). American Journal of Orthopsychiatry.
37. Rowatt, W. C., & Franklin, L. M. (2004). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
38. Rowatt, W. C., Tsang, J., Kelly, J., LaMartina, B., McCullers, M., & McKinley, A. (2006). Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion.
39. Saroglou, V. (2002a). Personality and Individual Differences.
40. Saroglou, V. (2002b). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
41. Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, R. (2004). Personality and Individual Differences.
42. Shaffer, B. A., & Hastings, B. M. (2007). Mental Health, Religion &Culture.
43. Sleat, M. (2006). Journal of Applied Philosophy.
44. Sterne, J. A., & Egger, M. (2001). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.
45. Tsang, J., & Rowatt, W. C. (2007). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
46. Whitley, B. E. (2009). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
47. Wilkinson, W. W. (2004). The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion.
48. Williams, R. L., Bliss, S. L., & McCallum, R. S. (2006). Review of Religious Research.
49. Williams, R. L., Oh, E. J., & Bliss, S. L. (2007). Journal of Religion and Society.
50. Wilson, G. D., & Lee, H. S. (1974). The Journal of Social Psychology.
51. Wilson, G. D., & Patterson, J. (1968). British Journal of Social &Clinical Psychology.
52. Wilson, G. D., & Shutte, J. R. (1973). Journal of Social Psychology.
53. Wylie, L., & Forest, J. (1992). Psychological Reports.
Show less

Address for Correspondence:Robert L. Williams, Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, The
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, TN 37996-3400
Email:bobwilliams@utk.edu

2011 American Psychological Association

Subject: Religion (major); Religious Beliefs (major); Truth (major); Authoritarianism; Ethnocentrism; Prejudice;
Religious Fundamentalism
Classification: 2920: Religion
01 April 2013 Page 18 of 21 ProQuest
Age: Adulthood (18 yrs & older)
Population: Human
Identifier (keyword): authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, meta-analysis, militarism, prejudice, religious truth
Test and measure: Batson Quest Scale, Questions and Doubts about Religion Scale, Fundamentalism Scale,
Revised 12-item Religious Fundamentalism Scale, Christian Fundamentalism Scale, Religious-Puritanism
Scale,; 10-item Quest Scale, Religious Fundamentalism Scale
Methodology: Meta Analysis
Author e-mail address: bobwilliams@utk.edu
Contact individual: Williams, Robert L., Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, The University
of Tennessee, Knoxville, Knoxville, 37996-3400, US,; bobwilliams@utk.edu
Publication title: Psychology of Religion and Spirituality
Volume: 3
Issue: 3
Pages: 163-180
Publication date: Aug 2011
Format covered: Electronic
Publisher: Educational Publishing Foundation
Country of publication: United States
ISSN: 1941-1022
eISSN: 1943-1562
Peer reviewed: Yes
Language: English
Document type: Journal, Journal Article, Peer Reviewed Journal
Number of references: 53
Publication history
:
Accepted date: 01 Nov 2010
Revised date: 27 Oct 2010
First submitted date: 05 Apr 2010
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022208
Release date: 23 May 2011 (PsycINFO); 23 May 2011 (PsycARTICLES)
Correction date: 27 Aug 2012 (PsycINFO)
Accession number: 2011-10474-001
ProQuest document ID: 868623874
Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/868623874?accountid=15859
01 April 2013 Page 19 of 21 ProQuest
Copyright: American Psychological Association 2011
Database: PsycARTICLES
01 April 2013 Page 20 of 21 ProQuest
Bibliography
Citation style: APA 6th - American Psychological Association, 6th Edition
McCleary, D. F., Quillivan, C. C., Foster, L. N., & Williams, R. L. (2011). Meta-analysis of correlational
relationships between perspectives of truth in religion and major psychological constructs. Psychology of
Religion and Spirituality, 3(3), 163-180. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0022208

_______________________________________________________________

Contact ProQuest
Copyright 2012 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions
01 April 2013 Page 21 of 21 ProQuest