Measuring the Religious Variable: Replication

Author(s): Morton B. King and Richard A. Hunt

Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 11, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 240-251
Published by: Wiley on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1384548
Accessed: 16-12-2015 08:17 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Society for the Scientific Study of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Measuring

the

Religious

Variable:

Replication
MORTON B. KING
Department of Sociology
Southern Methodist University
RICHARD A. HUNT
Department of Psychology
Southern Methodist University
Is it useful to treat the religious variable as multidimensional? Can correlational techniques identify separate dimensions? If so, are the dimensions like those proposed in the
literature? A pilot study of Methodists using questionnaire data indicated "yes" answers to
these questions. The study was repeated on a larger number of subjects from four denominations using a modified universe of items and similar factor-analytic and item-scale analyses.
The earlier findings were confirmed. Ten scales, defining different dimensions of religious
behavior and congregational involvement, were developed. Correlations with each other and
with independent variables indicate that they may be useful, both in theoretical research and
in denominational evaluation and planning. The dimensions thus defined are quite similar
to those developed in the pilot study, some of which were like those hypothesized in the literature. Limitations of the study are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

iNeed for better measures of the religious variable has been recognized since at
least 1950. Simple, often single-item, measures were proving inadequate tools for
discovering the correlates of religious behavior. In different ways, Allport (1950,
1954), Fichter (1951, 1953), Glock (1954, 1962), and Lenski (1953, 1961)
directed attention to the lack of knowledge regarding causes and consequences of
individual differences in religion, to the inadequate measures then in use, and to
the multidimensional aspects of religious belief, commitment, and practice.
The idea that religion is multidimensional was quickly accepted. Moreover,
researchers (e.g., Wilson, 1960; Faulkner and DeJong, 1966) tended to treat as
established dimensions the typologies suggested by Allport (1959) and Glock (1962).
Less attention was paid to other typologies; e.g., Fichter (1951, 1953), Whitam
(1957, 1962), and Pittard (1963, 1966).
Much useful research was thereby spawned. Lacking, however, were (1) an
empirical test of the multidimensional hypothesis itself, and (2) a systematic empirical search for usable dimensions using correlational techniques.
King (1967) and King and Hunt (1969) reported a 1965 pilot study with those
240

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MEASURING THE RELIGIOUS VARIABLE

241

objectives. Questionnaire data were obtained from 575 Methodists on the rolls of
six congregations in Dallas and its suburbs. Out of 143 items, 120 related to various
aspects of religious belief and practice. They were selected to represent 11 hypothetical dimensions including those of Allport, Glock, and Lenski. Factor analysis
and hierarchal cluster analysis were used to search the matrix for homogeneous
sets of items. Factors and clusters which could be interpreted as religious dimensions were subjected to a rigorous item-scale analysis (Hunt, 1970) which examined the homogeneity and stability of each set of items. Their usefulness was
further examined by correlating them with each other and with selected independent variables. From the information thus obtained, some sets of items were
selected as possible measures of religious dimensions.
The conclusions from that study were: The methods permitted, for the items
and subjects used, separable dimensions to be identified with scales to measure
each. It was possible and useful to treat the religious variable as multidimensional.
Some of the eleven dimensions derived were similar to those proposed in the
literature (see King and Hunt, 1972: 22-24).
In 1968, the study was repeated on a larger and more diverse population of
subjects, with a modified universe of items, and using similar but not identical
analytical procedures.'
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The questionnaire contained 132 items. Of these, 91 related to religious belief,
knowledge, and practice; 27 to cognitive style variables; and 14 to a variety of
personal information ranging from conditions of first joining the Church (conversion, confirmation training, etc.) to such demographic data as age, sex, education,
and income. Three cognitive style variables were used. A nine-item measure of
tolerance/ prejudice toward Negroes and other minority groups (developed in
1965) was included. Intolerance of Ambiguity was represented by 8 items from
Martin and Westie (1959). Ten items were selected and adapted from the Crumbaugh and Maholick "Purpose in Life Scale" (see Crumbaugh, 1968; Crumbaugh
and Maholick, 1964).
The total universe of items differed from that in 1965. Sixty-eight (68) out of
120
the
"religious" items were retained: 37 in identical form; 14 reworded in major
ways; and 17 slightly modified in wording or answer format. There were 23 completely new religious items, selected to strengthen one of the dimensions or to
represent a dimension not found in 1965. The 27 cognitive-style items contained
nine which were identical and 18 which were completely new. Therefore, of the
118 items factor analyzed, 46 were identical to ones in 1965, 17 were modified
1. Field work and analysis were supported by the Reserve for Research Projects of the General
Administration Fund, the Advisory Committee on Research, and the Department of Research and Survey of the National Division of the Board of Missions, the United Methodist Church; by the General
Council and the Northeast Texas Presbytery, the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.; by the United Christian Missionary Society and the Texas Association of Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ); by
congregations of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; by the W. H. Francis Foundation of Dallas; and
by Southern Methodist University.

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

242

JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

slightly, 14 were changed in major ways, and 41 were brand new. That is, we were
"sampling"from a rather different universe of items.
Subjects were members of four Protestant denominations in the Dallas-Fort
Worth metropolitan area. As in 1965, inner city and suburban congregations were
purposively selected to include different socioeconomic levels and varied theological and liturgical styles. A systematic sample was drawn in each congregation
of all members 16 and over who were local residents. Questionnaires were mailed
out with a covering letter from each pastor, to be returned directly to the research
director. Confidentiality was promised both respondents and congregations. Code
numbers were used which made possible telephone follow-up of nonrespondents.
The 1356 usable returns represented a 44 per cent response rate, rather equally
divided among the denominations: Disciples, 314 (45%);Lutheran, Missouri Synod,
344 (45%); Presbyterian, U.S., 346 (45%); United Methodist, 339 (40%); and 13
questionnaires with denomination unknown. The subjects are homogeneous as
white, mainline Protestants in urban north Texas who could read and write
well enough to complete questionnaires and were motivated to do so. They
differ, among other ways, in denominational affiliation, degree of congregational
activity, age, sex, education, and income-although on the latter two indices the
lowest quartile of the total population is largely missing.
A principal component factor analysis with varimax rotation (IBM Scientific
Subroutine Library) was applied to the data for all cases combined.2 Nineteen
(19) factors with eigen values over 1.0 and with two or more items loading over
.30 were produced. The content of high loading items on each factor was examined
subjectively, and 15 sets were judged to "make sense" as an aspect of religious
behavior. These were subjected to an item-scale analysis (Hunt, 1970) based
on the covariance matrix. The program uses predetermined criteria to search the
matrix, adding to the set highly correlated items and dropping items with low
correlation. By this process, some sets "grow" into a more homogeneous form;
others "wilt" as a result of low homogeneity or of instability. The information
thus obtained aids selection of item sets whose internal consistency, as well as
item content, indicates possible utility.
The 10 scales presented here were selected using two additional criteria: a
set of items (1) with a coefficient of homogeneity of approximately .75; which (2)
demonstrated some analytical power when correlated with other variables. These
are in effect indicators of reliability and validity, and deserve at least brief comment.
The coefficient of homogeneity is Cronbach's (1970) alpha: the ratio of the
covariance among items on a scale to the total scale variance, in relation to the
number of items. It is called a "homogeneity" coefficient to emphasize interitem
relationships as the basis for an estimate of internal consistency or reliability.
Such use has been evaluated by Rozeboom (1966, 445f). As the coefficient approaches 1.0, the more each item measures what all the other items on the scale
2. Different and more powerful analytic techniques are available. We will be glad to cooperate with anyone
wishing to apply them to our data: either all cases combined or each denomination. The latter were analyzed
separately but not reported here.

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MEASURING THE RELIGIOUS VARIABLE

243

measure. As it approaches zero, the separate items measure different characteristics. Two cautions should be noted. First, alpha reliabilities are not the same as
test-retest correlations. Alpha is based on the same matrix (sample) from which
the items for the scales were selected. Second, reliability is influenced by more
than items, e.g., differences between samples of subjects and changes in subject
behavior over time. In the absence, then, of clear norms or binding conventions,
we assume that coefficients of .75 and above indicate enough homogeneity among
items to discuss them as a potential scale. The higher the coefficient the better,
since single-dimension (or, pure) scales are desired.
The validity of a scale was judged in terms of its utility or explanatory power.
Alternative forms of all possible scales were correlated with each other and with
measures of independent variables. Examination of the intercorrelations led to
elimination of some scales and to selection of one form of each scale. Table 1 shows
the inter-correlations among the 10 religious and 5 cognitive style scales finally
selected. To obtain scale scores, the items were summed without weights or other
manipulations. Simple scales of this nature are easier to construct and score. Ordinarily they prove as reliable and discriminating as more complex products (see
Nunnally, 1967: 277-79; Rozeboom, 1966: chapter 9).
We believe that some theoretically interesting relationships are revealed
which, while low, indicate the potential use of these scales with other populations.
Computations indicate that correlations of about .08 are probably significantly different from zero at the .05 level. For example, there are low but statistically significant positive correlations between ethnic attitude and religious scales IIIA, IIIB,
IV, VA, VIA, and VIB. That is, for these subjects, there is a tendency toward
tolerance and away from prejudice among congregationally active, knowledgeable
church members, who are not satisfied with their present religious attainments,
and for whom religion is salient. This finding supports one Allport and Ross hypothesis (1967: 433-434).
FINDINGS
The Appendix lists the items for the 10 religious scales believed to be of greatest potential interest to social scientists and church officials. Each will be discussed
briefly in relation to the work of Allport, Glock, Lenski, and others, and to our
1965 findings. Of the eleven (11) 1965 scales (King and Hunt, 1969; or 1972: chapter IV), all but two were also derived from the 1968 data. These two were "Church
Work with Friends" and the orientation to "Religious Security or Dogmatism."
One new scale (VIB, Salience: Cognition) was developed. Two scales were given
different labels, as noted below.
The first 6 scales shown are similar to dimensions discussed by Glock (1962)
and Lenski (1961).
I. Creedal Assent (7 items; coefficient of homogeneity, .83) is similar to Glock's
"ideological" and Lenski's "doctrinal orthodoxy." One difference is that our
items attempted to avoid a literal-fundamentalist bias. They were worded to
encourage assent from a broad spectrum of believing Christians. The 1965
and 1968 scales both have 7 items, six of which are identical. "I know that I

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOURNALFOR THE SCIENTIFICSTUDY OF RELIGION

244

X~
?

r-

- O cq "It

o o aO ?,

_
C r>

< F-

!I

ZS 1 i

qr-

oo cn
^

o
-q

tn

Cs- b t? d. t

coX 'I cn)

o
cn

oo"o

CE

CI

n~I

Os NC

C1 ,t 0, t, c#

_ <U

5oN

t~~~~~c

m o m

o
o,-Nm

X,_oto
5

>U

<

< m

i 8

--<

}
x x

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MEASURING THE RELIGIOUS VARIABLE

245

need God's continual love and care" was dropped. "I believe honestly and
whole-heartedly in the doctrines and teaching of the Church"was added as the
last (lowest item-scale correlation) to be included.
11. Devotionalism (5 items; CH = .85) bears some similarity to Glock's definition
of "experiential," but is most like Lenski's "devotionalism." The items deal
with personal prayer, closeness to and communication with God. The 1965
scale (then called "Personal Religious Experience") had 7 items. The 1968
scale is composed of five of them. The two dropped as less useful are: "I know
that God answers my prayers" and "To what extent has God influenced your
life?"
III. Three Congregational Involvement scales are shown. These sets of items,
while interrelated, are separable aspects of Glock's "ritualistic" and Lenski's
"associational"dimensions. As in 1965, items related to attending worship services are associated with organizational activities. Although several new
items were written, in consultation with a Professor of Worship, no homogeneous cluster of items could be developed for a "liturgical" or worship dimension.
A. Church Attendance (3 items: CH = .82) has three items as compared to four
in 1965. One is identical, one slightly reworded, and one similar. The item
dropped was "How would you rate your activity in this congregation?"
B. Organizational Activity (6 items; CH = .83) contains six items in both studies. Four are identical and one slightly revised. "How many times during
the last month have you attended Sunday School or some equivalent educational activity?" was dropped. "How would you rate your activity in this
congregation?"was added.
C. Financial Support (5 items; CH = .73) contains five items in both years.
Three are identical and two slightly reworded. Its coefficient of homogeneity is slightly below the criterion of .75. However, a "financial factor" or
factors appeared in the analyses of both 1965 and 1968 data.
IV. Religious Knowledge (8 items; CH = .77) provides a way of measuring Glock's
"intellectual""dimension. It contains all five 1965 items in identical form,
plus three of the new ones prepared for the restudy.
The preceding six scales are considered indicators of religious dimensions,
different aspects of religious behavior. They are clear-cut, having no overlapping
items with each other. The following four are different in two ways. First, three
are "composite" scales, containing one or more items present in one or more other
scales.3 Despite this overlapping, the overall "meaning" of each set of items seems
to be different. Secondly, they measure orientations to religion, at least in its institutionalized congregational form, rather than dimensions of religious behavior.
V. Orientation. Two sets of items, similar to ones derived in 1965, indicate orientations to religion.
3. The items which overlap are indicated in the Appendix. Scale VA has two items in common with VIB, and
one each with 11and VIA. In addition, VIB shares one.itenf with II. Correlation coefficients among these
scales, especially between VA and VIB, should be interpreted with caution.

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

246

JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

A. Growth and Striving (6 items; CH = .81) contains two items from a similar
1965 scale, but in substantially reworded form. It contains four items
which are on other scales. Therefore, its use and interpretation in relation
to those dimensions should be especially cautious. However, it has adequate homogeneity and it reflects an orientation to religion which is both theologically and ecclesiastically important. It appears to measure the opposite of an "I've-got-it-made"attitude. Rather, the high scorer expresses
dissatisfaction with his current religious state and a feeling of need to
learn, change, and grow.
B. Extrinsic. (7 items; CH = .73) This scale is one of two derived from the 1968
data. It contains all five of the Allport-Feagin extrinsic items included in
the questionnaire with two others. Its homogeneity is low, but higher than
that of the Allport-Feagin items considered alone. The other five-item
scale (CH = .715) contains none of the Allport-Feagin items. The meaning
of the item content is similar in both: an instrumental, selfish attitude toward religion (see Feagin, 1964).
VI. Salience. Two sets of items seem to indicate two types of salience which religion has in the lives of these individuals.
A. Behavior.(7 items; CH = .83) "Salience: Behavior" is quite similar to the
six-item 1965 scale called "Talking and Reading About Religion." The four
identical, one very slightly modified, and two new items relate to the relevance of religion for certain kinds of out-of-church personal activities.
B. Cognition. (5 items; CH = .81) "Salience: Cognition" is the new scale, developed around three of the seven Allport-Feagin instrinsic items (Feagin,
1964; Allport and Ross, 1967) included in the 1968 questionnaire. Total item
content suggests the salience of religion for thought and feeling, more than
Allport's (1960, 1966) definitions of "intrinsic."4
DISCUSSION
The conclusions of the 1965 pilot study were, in general, supported.5 The
methods enabled multiple dimensions of religious belief and practice to be identified
by reasonably homogeneous scales. The scales, when correlated with each other
and with measures of cognitive style variables, exhibited enough explanatory power
to indicate potential usefulness. Of the 11 scales derived from the 1965 data, nine
were rederived in similar form. Seven of the ten 1968 scales (I; II; IIIA, B, and
C; IV; and VB) are similar to dimensions in the Allport (1960), Glock (1962), and
Lenski (1961) typologies. We believe that the possibility and usefulness of multidimensional measures of religion have been confirmed.
The study has a number of limitations which must be considered in evaluating
its findings and our conclusions. We are aware of six main ones.
4. The Allport-Feagin intrinsic items did not appear as a factor, but were scattered among several. When
subjectedto the item-scale analysis, they did not comprise a stable, homogeneous cluster of items. See Hunt
and King (1971); King and Hunt (1972: 29-32).
5. See King and Hunt, 1972, for more detailed description of the methodology, findings, conclusions, and
limitations of the 1965 and 1968 studies.

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MEASURING THE RELIGIOUS VARIABLE

247

The study is culture-bound. It emphasizes, and is largely confined to, congregationally-related aspects of institutional, mainline Protestant Christianity.
The project was called a Church Involvement Study. It is an excellent example
of work which Luckmann (1967) has properly criticized as reducing the sociology
of religion to a "sociology of the church." The scales by no means tap the whole
spectrum of behaviors which can be considered "religious," Christian, or even
mainline Protestant. Glock's typology (1954, 1959, 1962), as modified after Fukuyama (1960), was the principal inspiration of our work. It was presented as universal, applying to all religions. Our research strategy was, first, to search for
dimensions and scales within homogeneous populations of subjects and of items,
and second-provided useful scales were developed-to test them on gradually expanding and more diverse populations. The present study is a small beginning
on the second step.
The subjects are not a "sample" of any population. The availability of four
denominations, purposive selection of congregations, and low response rate make
the returns studied unrepresentative even of mainline Protestants in metropolitan
north Texas. Luckly, the purposes of the study were not to estimate parameters
for any universe. We sought a number of subjects sufficient for correlation analyses
and with a balance between homogeneity and heterogeneity. The number and
mix obtained proved acceptable for the exploratory aims of the research. The prod-uct is a set of scales to be tested on other populations, not a description of the
four denominations.
Questionnaire data of the kind used present problems of reliability and
validity. If the item stimuli were presented at another time or in another context,
we do not know how the subjects would respond. Nor do we know (one rarely does
in such studies) the relation of the paper-and-pencil responses obtained to the
"real" thoughts, feelings, and actions of the subjects. Therefore, for this reason
also, our data would be inadequate to describe the religious life even of the subjects
who responded. That, however, is not necessarily the only important use of scales.
A scale is useful, if it can be so correlated with another variable that the latter is
predicted more efficiently or "understood" more thoroughly, within tolerable
margins of error. The 10 scales show an informative pattern of correlations with
measures of ethnic prejudice and of intolerance of ambiguity. (Table 1).
Correlation methods are not inductive statistics. They do not usually test
hypotheses. Decisions regarding the "existence" of dimensions and the utility of
scales are personal judgments of the researchers. Such judgments are influenced
by subjective considerations, by knowledge of the data and subjects, and by results
of the quantitative analysis. The mathematical procedures used only put the data
in forms which instruct the human judgments and partially objectify them.
Dimensions and scales are not "things" which we discover. They should
not be reified. They are constructs, relative to and dependent upon the population
of subjects, the universe of items, and the analytical procedures (both mathematical and subjective). Change any of the research procedures or the conditions
surrounding them, and our "findings" might change or even disappear. It is paradoxical, but true, that appropriate replication requires both similarity and variation

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

248

JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

in subjects, items, and tools of analysis. The present restudy introduced changes
in all three. Under these conditions, the 1965 findings and conclusions were
supported.
The scales are simple, additive, unweighted. As noted above, methodologists
are coming to view the more complicated procedures as "almost never worth the
trouble" (Nunnally, 1967: 279). An important test is whether scales correlate in
meaningful ways with measures of other variables. Ours do.
Therefore, we offer for use ten scales measuring selected aspects of religious
behavior. They are not finished products with established reliability, validity, and
norms for different populations. They are only ready for testing in use on a variety
of populations and in questionnaires with other items. We are pretty confident
they are useful for research (both theoretically relevant and ecclesiastically useful)
with mainline Protestants throughout the United States and in similar societies
such as Canada and The Netherlands. Use with Roman Catholics and Protestant
pentecostals, for example, is problematical. With substantial changes in most
items, the scales might be tried on Jewish and Muslim subjects. Beyond that,
they are probably not applicable at all (see, for example, Keene's work on Baha'is
in the U.S., 1967).
The proof will be in repeated cautious use.

APPENDIX
Items for Ten Religious Scales'
1. CreedalAssent (.834)2
1. (.70)3 1 believe that the word of God is revealed in the Scriptures4
2. (.65) 1 believe in God as a Heavenly Father who watches over me and to whom I am accountable
3. (.58) 1 believe that God revealed Himself to man in Jesus Christ
4. (.58) 1 believe that Christ is a living reality
5. (.58) 1 believe in eternal life
6. (.54) 1 believe in salvation as release from sin and freedom for new life with God
7. (.53) 1 believe honestly and wholeheartedly in the doctrines and teaching of the Church
11. Devotionalism (.852)
1. (.74) How often do you pray privately in places other than at church?4
2. (.73) How often do you ask God to forgive your sin?
3. (.65) Private prayer is one of the most important and satisfying aspects of my religious
experience
4. (.63) When you have decisions to make in your everyday life, how often do you try to find
out what God wants you to do5
5. (.59) 1 frequently feel very close to God in prayer, during public worship, or at important
moments in my daily life5
111. CongregationalInvolvement
A. ChurchAttendance (.821)
1. (.71) How often have you taken Holy Communion (The Lord's Supper, The Eucharist) during
the past year?
2. (.69) During the last year, how many Sundays per month on the average have you gone to
a worship service: (None-Three or more)4
3. (.64) If not prevented by unavoidable circumstances, I attend Church: (More than once a
week-Less than once a month)
B. OrganizationalActivity (.831)
1. (.69) How would you rate your activity in this congregation? (Very active-Inactive)
2. (.63) How often do you spend evenings at church meetings or in church work?

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MEASURING THE RELIGIOUS VARIABLE

3.
4.

(.59)
(.59)

249

1 enjoy working in the activities of the Church

Church activities (meetings, committee work, etc.) are a major source of satisfaction
in my life
5. (.57) I keep pretty well informed about my congregation and have some influence on its decisions
6. (.55) List the church offices, committees, or jobs of any kind in which you served during
the past 12 months
C. Financial Support (.734)
1 (.56) Last year, approximately what per cent of your income was contributed to the Church?
(Answer in terms of your individual income or that of your family, whichever is appropriate.) (1% or less-10% or more)
2. (.53) 1 make financial contributions to church: (In regular, planned amounts-Seldom or
never)
3. (.51) During the last year, what was the average monthl' contribution of your family to your
local congregation'?(Under $5-$50 and up)
4. (.48) In proportion to your income, do you consider that your contributions to the Church
are? (Generous-Small)
5. (.40) During the last year, how often have you made contributions to the Church in addition to
the general budget and Sunday School? (Regularly-Never)
IV. Religious Knowledge (.769)
1. (.56) Which of the following were Old Testament prophets? (Deuteronomy; Ecclesiastes;
Elijah; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Leviticus)
2. (.54) Which of the following books are included in the Four Gospels? (James; John; Mark;
Matthew; Peter; Thomas)
3. (.53) Which of the following were among the Twelve Disciplies of Christ? (Daniel; John;
Judas; Paul; Peter; Samuel)
4. (.50) Which of the following acts were performed by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry? (Resisting the temptations of Satan; Healing ten lepers; Leading His people
against the priests of Baal; Parting the waters to cross the Red Sea; Overcoming Goliath; Turning water into wine)
5. (.48) Which of the following men were leaders of the Protestant Reformation? (Aquinas;
Augustine; Calvin; Cranmer; Hegel; Luther)
6. (.44) Which of the following principles are supported by most Protestant denominations?
(Bible as the Word of God; Separation of Church and State; Power of clergy to forgive
sins; Final authority of the Church; Justification by faith; Justification by good
works)
7. (.43) Which of the following books are in the Old Testament? (Acts; Amos; Galatians; Hebrews; Hosea; Psalms)
8. (.41) Which of the following denominations in the United States have bishops? (Disciples;
Episcopal; Lutheran; Methodist; Presbyterian; Roman Catholic)
V. Orientationto Religion
A. Growthand Striving (.806)
1. (.61) How often do you read literature about your faith (or church)? (Frequently-Never)6
2. (.60) How often do you read the Bible?5
3. (.59) 1 try hard to grow in understanding of what it means to live as a child of God5
4. (.57) When you have decisions to make in your everyday life, how often do you try to find
out what God wants you to do?5
5. (.54) The amount of time I spend trying to grow in understanding of my faith is: (Very much
-Little or none)
6. (.52) 1 try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life5,6
B. Extrinsic (.734)
1. (.52) It is part of one's patriotic duty to worship in the church of his choice
2. (.49) The Church is most important as a place to formulate good social relationships6
3. (.46) The purpose of prayer is to secure a happy and peaceful life6
4. (.45) Church membership has helped me to meet the right kind of people
5. (.42) What religion offers me most is comfort when sorrows and misfortune strike6
6. (.39) One reason for my being a church member is that such membership helps to establish
a person in the community6
7. (.39) Religion helps to keep my life balanced and steady in exactly the same way as my
citizenship, friendships and other memberships do6

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

250

JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

VI. Salience
A. Behavior (.825)
1. (.68) How often in the last year have you shared with another church member the problems
and joys of trying to live a life of faith in God?
2. (.60) How often have you personally tried to convert someone to faith in God?
3. (.59) How often do you talk about religion with your friends, neighbors, or fellow workers?
4. (.57) When faced by decisions regarding social problems, how often do you seek guidance
from statements and publications provided by the Church?
5. (.54) How often do you read the Bible?5
6. (.53) How often do you talk with the pastor (or some other official) about some part of the
worship service: for example, the sermon, scripture, choice of hymns, etc.?
7. (.49) During the last year, how often have you visited someone in need, besides your own
relatives?
B. Cognition (.808)
1. (.64) My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life6
2. (.64) 1 try hard to grow in understanding of what it means to live as a child of God5
3. (.59) Religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the
meaning of life6
4. (.56) 1 try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life5,6
5. (.54) 1 frequently feel very close to God in prayer, during public worship, or at important
moments in my daily life5
1. The items on each scale are ranked by their item-scale correlation coefficients, from highest to lowest.
2. A coefficient of homogeneity (Cronbach's alpha).
3. The item-scale correlation, with that item dropped from the scale.
4. All items have four alternative answers, except the knowledge items (E1-E8) which have six. Most
items are answered on a four-point scale from "Strongly Agree" to "Str,onglyDisagree." Sixteen "how
often" items have "Regularly," "Fairly frequently," "Occasionally," and "Seldom or never" as alternatives. The alternatives to other items are indicated in parentheses.
5. Items which also appear on another scale.
6. Allport-Feagin items (See Feagin, 1964).

REFERENCES
Allport, G. W.
1950 The Individual and His Religion.
New York: Macmillan.
1954 The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge,
Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
1959 "Religion and prejudice." Crane
Review 2: 1-10.
1960 Personality and Social Encounter.
Boston: Beacon.
1966 "The religious context of prejudice." Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion 5: 447-57.
and J. M. Ross
1967 "Personal
orientation
religious
and prejudice." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5: 43243.
Cronbach, L. J.
1970 Essentials of Psychological Testing (Third edition). New York:
Harper and Row.
Crumbaugh,J. C.
1968 "Cross-validation of
purpose-inlife test based on Frankl's concepts."

Journal of Individual Psychology

24 (11): 74-81.
and L.T. Maholick
1964 "An experimental study in existentialism." Journal of Clinical Psychology 20 (2): 200-207.
(n.d.) Purpose in life scale. (Mimeo.,
supplied by authors)
Faulkner, J. E. and G. F. DeJong
1966 "Religiosity in 5-D: An empirical
analysis." Social Forces 45: 246254.
Feagin, J. R.
1964 "Prejudice and religious types:
A focused study of southern fundamentalists." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 4: 3-13.
Fichter, J. H.
1951 Dynamics of a City Church (Southern parish, Vol. I). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1953 "The marginal Catholic: An institutional approach." Social Forces
32: 167-173.

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

MEASURING THE RELIGIOUS VARIABLE

Fanklin, B. J., and S. D. McLemore
1968 "Likert vs. Thurstone attitude scales
as predictors of behavior." Proceedings, Soutnwestern
Sociological
Association: 109-113.
Fukuyama, Y.
1960 The Major Dimensions of Church
Membership.
Ph.D.
dissertation,
Divinity School, University of Chicago.
Glock, C. Y.
1954 Toward a Typology of Religious
Orientation. New York: Bureau ot
Applied Social Research, Columbia
University.
1959 "The religious revival in AmericaT'
Pp. 25-42 in Jane Zahn (ed.), Religion and the Face of America. Berkeley: University Extension, University
of California.
1962 "On the study of religious commitment. Review of recent research
bearing on religious and character
f'ormation." Supplement to Religious
Education (July-August). New York:
Religious Research Association.
and R. Stark
1965 Religion and Society in Tension.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Hunt, R. A.
1970 "A computer procedure for itemscale analysis." Educational and
30
Psychological
Measurement
(1): 133-35.
and M. B. King
1971 "The intrinsic-extrinsic concept."
Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion 10 (4): 339-356.
Keene, J. E.
1967 "Religious behavior and neuroticism,
spontaneity, and world-mindedness."
Sociometry 30: 137-57.
King, M. B.
1967 "Measuring the religious variable:
Nine proposed dimensions." Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion
6 (2): 173-190.
and R. A. Hunt
1969 "Measuring the religious variable:
Amended findings." Journal for the

251
Scientific Study of Religion 8 (2):
321-23.
1972 Measuring Religious Dimensions:
Studies of Congregational Involvement. Dallas: Southern Methodist
University, Studies in Social Science,
No. 1.
Lenski, G. E.
1953 "Social correlates of religious interest." American Sociological Review
18: 533-544.
1961 The Religious Factor. Garden City,
New York: Doubleday.
Luckmann, T.
1967 The Invisible Religion:
The Problem
of Religion in Modern Society.
New York: Macmillan.
Martin, J. G-.,and F. R. Westie
1959 "The tolerant personality." American Sociological Review 24 (4):
521-28.
(n.d.) lntolerance of ambiguity scale.
(Mimeo., supplied by authors)
Nunnally, J. C.
1967 Psychometric Theory. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Pittard, B. B.
1963 The Meaning and Measurement
of Commitment to the Church.
Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University.
1966 "The meaning and measurement
of commitment to the church."
(Research paper No. 13) Atlanta:
Georgia State College.
Rozeboom, W. W.
1966 Foundations of the Theory of Prediction. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey.
Whitam, F. L.
1957 Subdimensions of Religiosity as
Related to Race Prejudice. M.A.
thesis, Indiana University.
1962 "Subdimensions of religiosity and
race prejudice." Review of Religious
Research 3: 166-174.
Wilson, W. C.
1960 "Extrinsic religious values and prejudice." Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology 60: 286-87.

This content downloaded from 147.8.31.43 on Wed, 16 Dec 2015 08:17:12 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions