Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1985, Vol. 48, No. 2, 400-419 0022-35I4/85/S00.75

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religiousness: Review and Meta-Analysis

Michael J. Donahue
Brigham Young University

The major findings of this meta-analytic review concerning intrinsic and extrinsic
religiousness are these: (a) Samples consisting of respondents with conservative
theological orientations seem more likely to display a negative correlation between
intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness than do others, (b) Extrinsic religiousness
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

tends to be positively correlated with negatively evaluated characteristics, and

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

uncorrelated with measures of religious belief and commitment, (c) Intrinsic

religiousness tends to be uncorrelated with negatively evaluated characteristics,
and positively correlated with measures of religiousness, (d) A fourfold typology
based on median splits of the two scales is of little use when the dependent
variable is religious in nature, but with various nonreligious variables produces
results that may correspond to findings of curvilinearity observed with other
measures of religiousness. Recommendations concerning the use of the intrinsic
and extrinsic scales in future research are made. The article concludes with a
review of recent conceptual developments by Batson (1976) and Hood (1978).

No approach to religiousness has had McGaw, & Smith, 1981; Hunter, Schmidt, &
greater impact on the empirical psychology Jackson, 1982) to I-E research in an attempt
of religion than Gordon W. Allport's concepts to explain a number of seemingly inconsistent
of intrinsic (7) and extrinsic (E) religiousness findings.
(Meadow & Kahoe, 1984).' Nearly 70 pub-
lished studies have used Allport's Religious Early Conceptual Development
Orientation Scale (ROS), making it one of
Hunt and King (1971) reviewed the early
the most frequently used measures of reli-
giousness. conceptual history of 7 and E. In brief,
Allport distinguished between two types of
Research concerning / and E has been
religious sentiment: Intrinsic religiousness is
reviewed in three current psychology-of-reli-
religion as a meaning-endowing framework
gion textbooks (Batson & Ventis, 1982;
in terms of which all of life is understood; it
Meadow & Kahoe, 1984; Paloutzian, 1983).
is religion as proto-point (Rychlak, 1977).
Although these reviews are useful, they have
Extrinsic religiousness, in contrast, is the
not closely examined a number of relevant
religion of comfort and social convention, a
issues, such as the I-E correlation and the
self-serving, instrumental approach shaped to
I-E interaction. In addition to addressing
suit oneself. Table 1 is a summary of Allport's
these issues, in the present review I seek to
writings on these points.2 7 and E were
apply the techniques of meta-analysis (Glass,
probably best summed up by Allport and
Ross (1967) when they stated that "the ex-

This article is a revision and expansion of a review

that originally appeared in the author's doctoral disser-
tation, submitted at Purdue University. It was also pre-
sented at the meeting of the American Psychological
Association, Anaheim, California, August 1983.
Thanks are due to Richard Gorsuch, Allen Bergin,
Richard Williams, Joseph Rychlak, Alice Eagly, Raymond
Paloutzian, Peter Benson, Kay Deaux. Richard Heslin,
Hariey Bernbach, and an anonymous reviewer for their
comments on earlier drafts.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Michael Don-
ahue, who is now at Search Institute, 122 West Franklin,
Suite 215, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55404.
1
Throughout this review, the term religiosity is avoided.
The reason is etymological: "Religiosity" connotes an
affected, artificial, or exaggerated religious interest; "re-
ligiousness" does not carry that conceptual baggage and
is therefore more appropriate in the present context.
2
Table 1 is similar to a table presented by Hunt and
King (1971). However, Hunt and King examined / and
E in a predominantly sociological light and omitted such
characteristics as maturity from their analysis. They also
omitted Allport's (1961, 1963, 1966a) references, which
stress the mental health aspects of the concepts.

400
 I-E META-ANALYSIS 401

Table 1 ligious (henceforth nonreligious). Although

Concepts Associated with Intrinsic and Extrinsic Allport and Ross (1967) originally developed
Religiousness in Allport's Writings a scoring procedure that excluded the non-
Extrinsic
religious category (on the presumption that
Intrinsic
there would be a no nonreligious respondents
Relates to all of life Compartmentalized in their sample of church members), Hood
(a, b, c, d, f, g, h, j) (a, c, d, h) (1970) proposed classifying the four groups
Unprejudiced; tolerance Prejudiced; exclusionary
on the basis of median splits. This procedure
(a, b, c, h, i) (a, b, c, d, e, h)
Mature (a, d) Immature; dependent; has since been followed by the majority of
comfort; security researchers using the typology.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(a, b, d, f, g, h, i, j)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Integrative; unifying; Instrumental; utilitarian;

Early Conceptual Critiques
meaning-endowing self-serving (a, c, d, e,
(a, c, d, f, g, h, i) f, g, h , i , j )
Regular church attendance Irregular church As the dates in Table 1 indicate, the con-
(e, g, h) attendance (e, g, h, i) cepts of intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness
Makes for mental health Defense or escape underwent a rather long development before
(f, g) mechanism (d, f, g) they were operationalized. When empirical
studies addressing the issues of / and £ began
Note. Letters in parentheses refer to the following refer-
ences: (a) Allport (1950), (b) AUport (1954), (c) Allport to be published, they were quickly followed
(1959), (d) Allport (1961), (e) Allport (1962), (f) Allport by two articles that, on the basis of rather
(1963), (g) Allport (1964), (h) Allport (1966a), (i) Allport meager evidence, offered a preliminary as-
(1966b), (j) Allport & Ross (1967).
sessment of the concepts.
The first, by Hunt and King (1971), con-
tended that E was a useful concept, but that
trinsically motivated person uses his religion, 7 was not because it was too "metaphysical"
whereas the intrinsically motivated lives his (p. 354). The other review, by Dittes (1971),
religion" (p. 434). which appeared in the same issue of the
As the descriptions in Table 1 indicate, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion
these two types of religiousness were originally (JSSR), seems to have been based primarily
considered to be ends of a bipolar continuum. on purist, logical positivist views of science
But from the very beginning of the empirical and ad hominems against Allport. Dittes
research, doubt was cast on the appropriate- stated that the intrinsic-extrinsic concept in-
ness of characterizing / and E in this way. cluded a "heavy contraband load of value
Feagin (1964) reported a factor analysis in judgment that simply will not be sloughed
which items from / and E scales loaded on off" (p. 375). Dittes accused AUport of "ne-
separate, orthogonal factors. Allport (1966b) glecting the purity of conceptualization" (p.
himself began to take note of a group of 380) and accused I-E researchers of "persis-
"muddleheads who refuse to conform to our tently neglect[ing] or resisting]" the devel-
neat religious logic" (p. 6). These individuals opment of multidimensional frameworks (p.
agreed with items on both scales despite 381). The latter was manifestly not the case,
Allport's attempt to construct the scales to because in all three of the ROS studies up to
represent polar opposites. that time, Allport and Ross (1967), Feagin
As a result of these findings, Allport ex- (1964), and Hood (1970) had noted that /
panded his original bipolar approach into a and E were separate dimensions.
fourfold typology. Those who agreed with Dittes (1971) also accused Allport of con-
items on the / scale and disagreed with items ceptual agglutination: that is, creating a new
on the E scale he called intrinsics. Those concept out of a constellation of independent
who disagreed with / items and agreed with concepts. This criticism cannot be evaluated
E items he called extrinsics. Those who agreed at a purely conceptual level, because whether
with items on both scales he called indiscrim- a particular group of concepts does form a
inately proreligious (henceforth indiscrimi- syndrome is an empirical issue. One should
nate) and those who disagreed with items on be free to posit such syndromes, so long as
both scales he called indiscriminately antire- one is willing to proceed further and test
 402 MICHAEL J. DONAHUE
their validity. At the time of Dittes' review,
there was not enough empirical evidence to
address the issue.
Since the publication of these early reviews,
a considerable body ofl-E research has been
produced. The purpose of this review is to
apply those data to the following questions:
1. What is the relation between / and E?
What factors influence the correlation be-
tween them?3
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2. What are the correlates of the two
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
constructs considered individually? What
types of variables do each of the two con-
structs form relations with, and what do these
relations reveal concerning the nature of /
and£?
3. What is the utility of the Allport-Hood
fourfold typology? Does it increase predictive
power over the two unipolar constructs?
4. Have later conceptual developments
shed any further light on / and E?
An Empirical Assessment
Method
Literature Search
The data to be presented here are based on a review
of the literature published in English to the end of 1982.
It was conducted by means of (a) examining all volumes
of JSSR, the Review of Religious Research, and the
Journal of Psychology and Theology for relevant articles;
(b) examining all the articles that the Social Science
Citation Index listed as referencing Allport and Ross
(1967) or Feagin (1964); and (c) the "ancestry" method:
examining the reference lists of the articles obtained by
the two previous methods.
The general form of this review is that of a meta-
analysis (Glass et al., 1981; Hunter etal., 1982), in which
I seek to combine the results of independent studies in
order to make empirical determinations of the issues
generally addressed by literature reviews. In order to
facilitate combining the results of these studies, consid-
eration was given only to studies in which / and E were
defined in terms of either Allport and Ross's (1967) ROS,
or Feagin's (1964) Intrinsic-Extrinsic (l/E) Religiosity
measure, which consists almost exclusively of a subset of
the ROS. Related approaches, such as Allen and Spilka's
(1967) "committed-consensual" dimensions and alter-
native conceptualizations of intrinsic (Hoge, 1972) or
extrinsic (Wilson, 1960) religiousness, were not included.
Analyses
The analyses of these data required a number of
judgment calls (McGrath, Martin, & Kulka, 1982). The
first involved how to calculate mean correlations across
studies. Although Fisher's r to z transformation comes
most quickly to mind, both Glass et al. (1981) and
Hunter et al. (1982) contended that it may not be
appropriate. The procedure adopted and reported here
(consistent with the recommendations of Hunter et al.)
was to weight the untransformed re by their sample size,
sum them, and divide by the sum of the sample sizes.
Weighted z scores were also computed, and though
always greater, never differed by more than .03 from the
means reported here.
A second issue involved the choice of how to calculate
or estimate the product-moment correlation between /
and E when only contingency table data were reported.4
After consultation with several sources (Carroll, 1961;
Glass et al., 1981; Guilford, 1965; Nunnally, 1976;
Taylor, 1972), both tetrachoric and phi coefficients were
calculated. In light of comments by Guilford (1965, p.
300), tetrachoric correlations were computed only on
samples of 200 or more, and, when used in computations,
were weighted by 45% of their sample size. Examination
of the marginal probabilities for the contingency tables
indicated that the corrections for tetrachoric correlations
recommended by Jenkins (1955; see also Fishman, 1956)
were not required. When phi coefficients were used in
calculations, they were weighted by their sample size. In
no case did the mean correlations involving phi coefficients
differ by more than .04 from those involving tetrachorics.
Results
Relations Between I and E
One way to address the relation between /
and E is through factor analysis of the items
of the subscales. All five published reports of
such factor analyses, Carey (1974), Elifson
(1976), Feagin (1964), Patrick (1979), and
Vincenzo, Hendrick, and Murray (1976), re-
port similar findings: Items from the two
subscales tend to load on two separate, or-
thogonal factors with few, if any, cross-load-
ings. (See also Batson & Ventis, 1982,5 in
which / and E tend to load on separate,
orthogonal factors.)
3
Because of the bipolar emphasis in Allport's concep-
tualization, / was originally reverse-scored, so that agree-
ment with the items resulted in a low scale score. For
ease of consideration, the signs of all correlations reported
here have been adjusted so that a higher score indicates
agreement for both scales.
"In one case (Joe, McGee, & Dazey, 1977), exact
reconstruction of the contingency table was based on
reported degrees of freedom for Is in which the four cells
were compared. In two other cases (Alker & Gawin,
1978; Dodrill, Bean, & Bostrom, 1973), information
allowed reconstruction of tables consistent with the data.
'Batson and Ventis (1982) presented 1-E data that
was based on a pooling of several studies. Because this
included otherwise unpublished data, the pooled data,
rather than the individual studies, have been used here.
 l-E META-ANALYSIS 403

Another way to address the nature of the
relation between / and E is to examine the
reported correlations between them. In Table
2 the relevant data are presented, arranged
from the most negative correlation to the
most positive. The mean correlation across
the 34 samples reported here is -.06. This
mean, however, is strongly influenced by four
studies in which either the Feagin I/E scale
or factor-analytically refined versions of the
ROS were used; three of these studies had
rather large sample sizes. For ease of discus-

Table 2
Intrinsic-Extrinsic Correlations for Various Samples
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Source Sample
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Dodrill et al., 1973 -.58' evangelical Protestant students 255

Bolt, 1977 -.57 conservative Protestants 62
Strickland & Shaffer, 1971 -.54 college students 24
Shoemaker & Bolt, 1977 -.45 conservative Protestant students 51
Spilka, 1977 -.41 '"affiliated and active Christians" 106
Batson, 1976 -.41 Princeton Seminary students 67
Paloutzian et al., 1978 -.40 adult Sunday school and nonacademic 177
college staff
Kahoe, 1974a -.37 religiously conservative students 333
Alker & Gawin, 1978 -.33" "religiously active" church members, many 101
denominations
Baker & Gorsuch, 1982 -.32 "religious wilderness camping organization" 52
Hood, 1971 -.31"" Baptist psychology students 83
Stewin & Anderson, 1974 -.29 eleventh-grade students 107
McConahay & Hough, 1973 -.24 Protestant graduate seminarians 159
Kahoe & Dunn, 1975 -.22 Catholics, Methodists, and Baptists 70
Allport & Ross, 1967 -.21 many denominations 309
Minion & Spilka, 1976 -.19 Protestant church members 67
Thompson, 1974 -.18" Catholic mothers 532
Spilka, Stout, Minton, & -.16 respondents personally involved in religion 167
Sizemore, 1977
Spilka et al., 1968 -.16 college students 146
Batson & Ventis, 1982 -.14 "undergraduates with at least a moderate 258
interest in religion"
Paloutzian et al., 1978 -.13 psychology students 84
Thompson, 1974 -.11' Catholic fathers 532
Tate& Miller, 1971 -.11" Methodist laity and clergy 175
Hood, 1971 -.08 Baptist students 83
Thompson, 1974 -.08' Catholic adolescents 532
Hoge & Carroll, 1973 -.04- Methodist and Presbyterians, Southern 343
sample
Elifson, 1976 -.01' Southern Baptist women 452
Hood, 1978 .00 psychology students 147
Hoge & Carroll, 1973 .01 At Methodists and Presbyterians, Northern 515
sample
Joeetal., 1977 .06b psychology students 167
Elifson, 1976 .09* Southern Baptist men 562
Patrick, 1979 .llf Buddhists, Baptists, and Congregationalists 91
Hood, 1970 .18 psychlogy students 89
Stewin, 1976 .21 eleventh-grade students 100
Hunt & King, 197 1« ,24f four denominations 1356

Mean r -.06 N 8271

Mean r for ROS studies -.20 Total ROS N 4952

Note. All studies used Allport ROS except as noted: ' Tetrachoric correlation. b Because of sample size, only phi
coefficient calculated.c Not included in the calculation of the mean; same sample as —.08 correlation below.d Used
Feagin //£".e Correlations based on stratified sample weighted to increase representativeness.f Scales refined through
factor analysis. • I-E correlation reported in Hunt & King, 1971; sample and methodology reported in King & Hunt,
1972.
 404 MICHAEL J. DONAHUE
sion, only the 28 ROS correlations are con-
sidered initially and the remaining studies
later.
Across the ROS studies, the mean corre-
lation is —.20, which is interesting because
of its similarity to the —.21 originally reported
by Allport and Ross (1967). But more im-
portant is the considerable range of the cor-
relations across these studies: from —.58 to
.24. Is this variation due to the operation of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
some moderator variable, or is it simply
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sampling variance? Hunter et al. (1982) pre-
sented equations to address this question.
Applying those equations to the ROS corre-
lations in Table 2, I found that the corrected
(nonsampling) standard deviation for these
data was .15.
The next question is, What moderator
variable is involved? One possibility suggests
itself on examination of the third column in
Table 2: the nature of the samples. The four
studies desribed by the researchers as involv-
ing evangelical or conservative religionists
have a mean of —.44, which is significantly
(p < .001) higher than the mean of the sam-
ples that are not so described (—.16). Simi-
larly, the samples that consist of respondents
described as having some sort of religious
affiliation or interest in religion have a sig-
nificantly (p < .001) more negative mean
I-E correlation (—.23) than those not so de-
scribed (-.10).
The effect of using predominantly religious
respondents on the I-E correlation can be
considered in terms of the fourfold typology.
Conservative, denominational colleges would
seem likely to have disproportionate percent-
ages of intrinsics, because in such environ-
ments, the importance of an intrinsic, per-
sonal religious orientation is constantly being
made salient. Individuals without such a
commitment would be less likely to be at-
tracted to such a setting. One way to test
such a hypothesis is to examine the I and E
means across studies. Because the publishing
of means is rather uncommon, and there
have been several different scoring systems
used, there were only five correlations for
which comparable means or medians were
available. These are presented in Table 3.
The small sample size requires considerable
caution in interpreting these data. It is none-
theless interesting to note that the / and E
means and medians are significantly corre-
lated with the I-E correlation across studies,
and in a way that is consistent with the
hypothesis presented earlier: The more neg-
ative the I-E correlation is, the higher is the
mean / score, r(4) = -80, p < .05, and the
lower is the mean E score, r(4) = -.94, p <
.01. Or, to put it another way, strongly negative
I-E correlations are associated with samples
that are strongly intrinsic in terms of the
theoretical ranges of the scales (9-45 for I;
11-55 for E). This characteristic rapidly de-
creases as the correlation declines. Thus it
seems quite possible that the population value
of the I-E correlation is close to zero, rep-
resenting orthogonal constructs.
This explanation is supported by the more
broadly based samples. Hoge and Carroll
(1973), using the Feagin (1964) //£, obtained
carefully matched samples of Methodist and
Presbyterian churchgoers in Philadelphia and
Atlanta and observed a low I-E correlation,
as did Thompson (1974) with a sample
of Catholics "distributed geographically
throughout the United States and across so-
cioeconomic levels" (p. 473). Thus the I-E
correlation may say as much about the sample
on which it is based as it does about the
relation between the concepts themselves.
The conditions under which the correlation
becomes markedly positive (e.g., King &
Hunt, 1972) are currently unclear.
Correlates of I and E
Measures of religiousness. Perhaps the
most important way to determine the types
of religiousness that / and E are measuring
is to relate them to other measures of reli-
giousness. When correlated with measures of
Glock and Stark's (1966) religious belief scale,
or measures of religious orthodoxy (usually
theologically conservative beliefs), / and E
generally display markedly different relations.
Across six reports (Batson, 1976; Batson &
Ventis, 1982; Dodrill et al., 1973; Hoge &
Carroll, 1973; King & Hunt, 1972; Spilka,
Pelligrini, & Dailey, 1968), intrinsic religious-
ness correlated .39 with such measures,6 and
extrinsic religiousness correlated . 16. Perhaps
6
When Dodrill et al.'s (1973) sample, which consists
of evangelical students, is excluded, the mean correlation
between / and orthodoxy rises to .59.
 l-E META-ANALYSIS
Table 3
Relation Between Intrinsic-Extrinsic Means and Medians and the I-E Correlation
Source
Bolt, 1977
Shoemaker & Boll, 1977
Thompson, 1974"
Thompson, 1974
Thompson, 1974
Hood, 1978b
Correlations across studies
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
* Calculated by reversing the scoring reported in the article.
b
Thompson's and Hood's data are medians.
e
Correlation between / and E means and medians shown here.
d
Correlation between I or E means and medians and the size of the I-E correlation.
more relevant, across four studies (Batson,
1976; Batson & Ventis, 1982; Jackson, 1981;
Spilka et al., 1968), the correlation with the
respondents' ratings of the importance of
religion or religious commitment was .76 for
7 and .03 for E.
Such correlations might, at first glance,
call into question the validity of E as a
measure of religiousness, because it correlates
so poorly with other measures in the same
domain. But remember that E measures not
so much religiousness per se as an attitude
toward religion. The items of the E scale call
for agreement with the treatment of religion
as simply one of many influences on life or
as a source of comfort and social support. It
is therefore not surprising to find it basically
uncorrelated with other measures of both
belief and commitment.
Prejudice. Because the intrinsic-extrinsic
distinction originated in the study of prejudice
(cf. Paloutzian, 1983), it is not surprising to
find that in a number of studies researchers
have addressed their relation with that vari-
able. In Table 4 the available data is sum-
marized.7 The mean correlation across all
measures of prejudice for / is -.05, and .34
for E. Selecting antiblack measures (anti-
Negro, antiblack, racial conservatism, and
symbolic racism) as a single index across all
studies (in order to preserve the statistical
independence of the correlations being con-
sidered), a similar relation is found. These
measures correlated -.09 with / and .28 with
E. Here we find a departure from Airport's
original conceptualization. / is uncorrelated,
rather than negatively correlated, with prej-
405
r I
-.57 36.18" 21.13
-.45 36.51' 21.86
-.18 34.30 29.30
-.11 28.20 29.70
-.08 29.50 36.70
.00 32.00 36.00
-.75C 0.80" -0.94"
udice across most available measures. E is
positively correlated with prejudice, but not
nearly so strongly as Allport's writings might
have predicted.
One difficulty with the data reported in
Table 4 is that all are correlations between
pencil-and-paper scales. The study by Batson,
Naifeh, & Pate (1978) deserves special atten-
tion, however, because / and E were correlated
with the respondent's self-reported willingness
to be interviewed by a black or white inter-
viewer. Although this was still, strictly speak-
ing, a pencil-and-paper measure, it was one
with presumed behavioral consequences. Al-
though the correlations obtained with 7 and
£ were not statistically significant given the
sample size, they were positive, and indicated
an association between 7 and prejudice in a
real-world setting.
However, Brannon (1970) reported an even
more direct test of the behavioral correlates
of 7 and E. In a unique field study of a
naturally occurring experiment, he obtained
ROS scores on a white congregation that had
split in two over the issue of membership for
blacks. Although Brannon unfortunately used
bipolar scoring, his results are relevant none-
theless. Those who stayed in the integrated
congregation were significantly ( p < .001)
more intrinsically oriented than those who
associated themselves with the segregated
7
Gorsuch and McFarland (1972) also present "corre-
lation ratios" that describe the relation between the I
and E scales and prejudice, but these are unsigned and
are not product-moment correlation coefficients, and so
are not included here.
 406 MICHAEL J. DONAHUE

white congregation. Given the strength of the
effect and the continuing personal ramifica-
tions of the decision involved, these findings
strongly support Allport's characterization of
intrinsics as unprejudiced.8
Dogmatism. Allport's approach seems to
imply that / should be related to openmind-
edness and E to closemindedness. In five
studies, Hoge and Carroll (1973), Kahoe
(1974a), Kahoe and Dunn (1975), Paloutzian,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(1960) dogmatism scale. Across these five
studies, the correlation between / and dog-
matism ranges between .22 and .04, and
averages .06. The correlation between E and
dogmatism ranges between .66 and .08, and
averages .36. In short, the same findings are
observed in this area as were observed con-
cerning prejudice: Extrinsic religiousness
shows a correlation in the predicted direction,
but intrinsic religiousness is basically uncor-

Jackson, and Crandall (1978), and Thompson related with the measure.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

(1974) have correlated / and E with Rokeach's A comment concerning these results seems
relevant. The absence of a correlation between
Table 4 / and dogmatism seems to call into question
Relation Between Intrinsic (\) and Extrinsic (E) the assertion by some that the intrinsic ori-
Religiousness and Various Measures of Prejudice entation is consistent with that of a "com-
pulsive, conforming, and unquestioning true
Source and measure / E believer" (Batson, 1976, p. 32). However,
Allport & Ross, 1967
Kahoe (1975, 1977a) examined the relation
(N = 309) between 7 and a concept related to dogma-
Antiblack nr .26 tism, that of authoritarianism (F). Although
Anti-Jewish nr .21 / was uncorrelated (.03) with F as reported
Anti-other" nr .32
by Kahoe (1974a), Kahoe (1977a) examined
CM! nr .44
Batson, 1976 (N = 42)
the relation between / and Krug's (1961)
Antiblack -.22 .24 dimensions of F. He found / uncorrelated
A nti-Jewish -.18 .34 with the subscales of cynicism, aggression,
Anti-other* -.19 .15 projectivity, and good versus bad people, but
CMI .16 .17
associated with conventionalism (.35) and
Batson eta!., 1978 (N = 51)
Antiblack -.36 .17 superstition and stereotypy (.31). Thus it may
Batson etal., 1978^ = 50) be that / is associated with portions of the
Preference for white over dogmatism concept, rather than the entire
black interviewer .19 .15
syndrome.
Feagin, 1964 (A1 = 286)
Ethnocentrism -.01 .35 Fear of death. According to Allport (1963),
Hoge & Carroll,* 1973, extrinsic religiousness "resembles a neurosis"
Northern sample and "is a defense against anxiety," whereas
(N= 515) intrinsic "makes for health" (p. 194). Because
Anti-Jewish .00 .30
fear of death tends to be correlated with
Antiblack -.15 .35
CMI .03 .49 neurotic preoccupations (Lester, 1967), the
Hoge & Carroll,11 1973, straightforward prediction is that E is posi-
Southern sample tively and 7 negatively correlated with fear of
(A' = 343)
death.
Anti-Jewish -.14 .35
Antiblack -.12 .24 The data in Table 5 give only partial
CMI -.06 .49 support to this analysis. The mean correlation
Kahoe, 1977b(A' = 142) between E and negative approaches toward
Racial conservatism .01 .18
McConahay & Hough, 1976
( f f = 153)
Symbolic racism ' Those who score at the intrinsic end of the bipolar
(antiblack) .24 nr continuum are high on the / scale and low on the £ scale,
Means (Total N = 1,891) -.05 .34 and are thus intrinsics as denned in the fourfold typology.
Those who score at the extrinsic end are extrinsics, and
Note, nr = not reported. CMI = Custodial Mental Illness nonreligious and indiscriminate individuals score in the
Ideology Scale. (Gilbert & Levinson, 1956). midrange (as with undifferentiated and androgynous re-
* Anti-other = anti-Oriental and anti-Hispanic. spondents in Bern's 1974 original, bipolar scoring of
" Used Feagin Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religiosity Measure. androgyny).
 I-E META-ANALYSIS 407

death is .27. The mean correlation for /,
however, is —.06. (Signs of correlations with
positive orientations toward death, e.g., after-
life of reward, were reversed to compute this
mean.) Selecting only (a) fear of death and
(b) death as pain and loneliness measures as
a single index across all studies produces
—.06 for / and .30 for E. Examination of
Table 5, however, indicates that the mean /
correlation is due largely to the results of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
considered in light of the fact that it correlated
-.62 with religious orthodoxy. When that
study is excluded from the calculations, the
mean fear of death correlations are -.17 for
/ and .30 for E. There is some evidence,
therefore, that continuing research may in-
dicate that fear of death is negatively corre-
lated with 7 and positively correlated with E.
Sex differences. The consensus of previous
research has consistently been that women

Spilka et al. (1968). Spilka (personal com- are more religious than men; indeed, Argyle
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

munication, April 1983) has commented that and Beit-Hallahmi (1975) referred to this as
the scales used in that study were early the "most important of the statistical com-
versions, different from the similarly named parisons" that they made (p. 71). It therefore
scales used in later research. The fact that might be informative to examine how the
afterlife of reward was so strongly negatively intrinsic-extrinsic literature addresses this
correlated with / in this study is perhaps best question.
Of the 67 I-E studies surveyed for the
present review, only 7 addressed the issue of
sex differences on the / and E scales. In 2,
Table 5
Alker and Gawin (1978), and Paloutzian et
Relation Between Intrinsic (\) and Extrinsic (E)
Religiousness and Various Measures
al. (1978) reported that there were no signif-
of Fear of Death icant sex differences on the scales used in
their research, which included / and E. In 3
Source and measure E other studies, Baither and Saltzberg (1978),
Strickland and Shaffer (1971), and Strickland
Bolt, 1977 (N = 62) and Weddell (1972) scored the I-E scale in
Death anxiety -.14 .29
Kahoe & Dunn, 1975 (N = 70)
a bipolar fashion and found that women were
Fear of death -.28 .10 more likely to score toward the intrinsic end.
Magni, 1972' (N = 53) Baither and Saltzberg also found that women
Negative death attitude -.38 .37 scored higher on the 7 scale, with no difference
Fear of death -.09 .27
on E. Thompson (1974) reported that the
Response latency to death-
related picture -.12 .22 mothers in his sample had significantly higher
Minton & Spilka, 1976 (AT = 67) medians for / than did the fathers, although
Death as pain and loneliness" -.15 .34 there was no difference for E. Spilka et al.
Forsaking dependents .03 .35 (1968) reported correlations with sex of -.26
Death as failure -.17 .41
Afterlife of reward .23 -.37
for / and -.15 for E, which presumably
Patrick, 1979 (N = 91) indicated association with femaleness. Only
Positive death outlook .31 .20 the 7 correlation was significant.
Negative death outlook -.23 .28 In short, there is evidence that women
Fear of death -.02 .33
score higher on 7 than men, but there is no
Spilka et al., 1968 (N = 146)
Death as pain and loneliness" .34 .34 evidence of a sex difference for E.
Forsaking dependents .13 .41 Other correlates. Several other patterns of
Death as failure .28 .40 results are present in the research. Intrinsic
Afterlife of reward -.52 .07 religiousness is negatively correlated, and ex-
Spilka et al, 1977 (N = 167)
Death as pain and loneliness -.26 .36
trinsic religiousness positively correlated, with
Forsaking dependents -.13 .31 trait anxiety (Baker & Gorsuch, 1982; Lovekin
Death as failure -.23 .49 & Malony, 1977). Internal locus of control
Afterlife of reward .37 -.07 correlates positively with 7 (Kahoe, 1974a;
Means (Total JV = 656) -.06 .27
Strickland & Shaffer, 1971; cf. Morris &
8
Used Feagin (1964) Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religiosity Mea- Hood, 1981), as does the related measure of
sure. purpose in life (Crandall & Rasmussen, 1975;
b
Mean of two scales later combined by Spilka et al. (1977). cf. Bolt, 1975). Perceived powerlessness is
 408 MICHAEL J. DONAHUE
positively correlated with E and uncorrelated
with / (Minton & Spilka, 1976; Spilka &
Mullin, 1977). Feminism is apparently neg-
atively correlated with / (Kahoe, 1974b;
McClain, 1979).
Batson et al. (1978) found that / correlated
.36 and E correlated .17 with social desir-
ability. Batson et al. seemed impressed with
this finding, noting that when the correlation
between social desirability and / was partialed
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
out of the relation between prejudice and 7,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
"the negative correlation between intrinsic
religion and prejudice . . . diminished" (p.
31; abstract). They went on to state that "the
burden of proof now falls on anyone wishing
to contend that the relationship between in-
trinsic religion and reduced prejudice is not
an artifact of social desirability" (p. 40).
More recent research evidence, however,
calls Batson et al.'s (1978) conclusions into
question. Consider, for example, three studies
reported by Hunsberger and Ennis (1982). In
the first, students were administered a battery
of religion questions, including the ROS, by
an experimenter dressed either as a priest or
a layman. Despite the fact that 82% of the
sample identified themselves as Roman Cath-
olic, there was only one significant difference
in scores between the two conditions; respon-
dents scored significantly (p < .01) lower on
the / scale in the priest condition than in the
layman condition. There were no significant
effects on the 10 remaining scales. In a
second study that also included the ROS, no
differences were observed on any religiousness
scores as a function of whether the group
sponsoring the questionnaire was Catholic,
Protestant, or secular. In a third study, par-
ticipants were interviewed by either "Reverend
Zeir" or "Professor Zeir." A control group
filled out the same questionnaire without
being interviewed. Although the ROS was
unfortunately not included in the interview
format, several other religiousness measures
were, including a measure of Christian ortho-
doxy (Fullerton & Hunsberger, 1982). The
social desirability scale (Crowne & Marlowe,
1964) was also included. Although there were
differences on the social desirability scale,
with questionnaire participants scoring higher
than interview participants, there were no
differences observed on any of the religious-
ness measures.
Given the powerful manipulation of poten-
tial experimenter effects in these studies, the
null results observed seem rather meaningful
(cf. Greenwald, 1975a). In addition, Stewin
and Anderson (1974) reported a nonsignifi-
cant correlation of —. 17 between 7 and agree-
ment response set, whereas the corresponding
correlation for E was .26. In light of these
findings it seems that the burden of proof
has now shifted back to demonstrating (or
replicating) a relation between social desir-
ability and intrinsic religiousness.
Summary. Considered as unipolar mea-
sures, research indicates that E tends to be
positively correlated with variables such as
prejudice and dogmatism, whereas 7, contrary
to the expectations derived from Airport's
conceptualization, is uncorrelated with such
measures. When the variable of interest is
religious, however, available research indicates
that intrinsic religiousness tends to be posi-
tively correlated, and extrinsic religiousness
uncorrelated.
The AHport-Hood Fourfold Typology and
the I-E Interaction
The treatment of / and E as two separate,
unipolar dimensions of religiousness was a
response to the finding of Allport and Ross
(1967) that the two scales, rather than being
strongly negatively correlated, and thereby
bipolar, were in fact largely uncorrelated.
Those authors suggested, however, an alter-
native approach of considering the two di-
mensions simultaneously in a fourfold clas-
sification system of intrinsics, extrinsics, in-
discnmlnales, and nonreligious, as discussed
earlier.
This approach has been criticized by Kahoe
(1976) on the ground that it deviates
from normally preferred practice in psychology. . . .
While it may be useful at times to classify people into
types on the basis of independent continua, it is concep-
tually sounder and more common to conceive and study
separate traits that vary independently of one another.
. . . Furthermore, while statistical interactions between
intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations might provide
some justification for constructing typologies from reli-
gious orientations there was no published evidence of
such interactions, (pp. 91, 92)
It seems reasonable, then, to examine whether
more recent research addressing the interac-
 I-E META-ANALYSIS
tion between / and E has shed any further
light on this issue.
When ROS respondents are classified into
four groups according to median splits on
the subscales (after the fashion of androgyny
research; e.g., Spence & Helmreich, 1978),
and the dependent variable is a religious
measure, the result is a main effect for /, no
main effect for E, and no interaction. This is
the general pattern of findings reported by
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(a) Hood (1970, 1978), concerning a measure
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
of religious experience9 and the tendency for
individuals to examine books with religious
or nonreligious titles; (b) Dodrill et al. (1973),
concerning measures of religious belief, prac-
tice, and experience; and (c) Tate and Miller
(1971), concerning religious values on the
Rokeach Value Survey.
When, on the other hand, the measure is
nonreligious, a more interesting pattern
emerges. Thompson (1974), for example, us-
ing dogmatism scores, reported a pattern of
intrinsic = nonreligious < extrinsic < indis-
criminate. Joe et al. (1977) reported a one-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA), across the
four groups that indicated that intrinsics were
significantly less likely to devalue a rape
victim than the other three groups. Inspection
of the t values that Joe et al. reported indicates
that the ordering of the means was intrin-
sic < nonreligious < extrinsic = indiscrim-
inate.
Allport and Ross (1976), as noted, used
scoring procedures that produced only intrin-
sic, extrinsic, and indiscriminate categories.
At the level of means, the patterning of racist
prejudice scores was the same as what
Thompson (1974) found for dogmatism
scores. At the level of individual denomina-
tional groups, however, only one showed that
actual pattern. Although the relative order of
the intrinsics and indiscriminates never
changed, in three of the six groups extrinsics
had the highest mean prejudice scores,
whereas in two other groups they had the
lowest. The interaction between religious type
and denomination did not, however, attain
the standard level of statistical significance.
Strickland and Weddell (1972) used the
same scoring procedures as did Allport and
Ross (1967), but found no effect at all for
religious type on prejudice scores; they re-
ported that Baptists were more prejudiced
409
than Unitarians. Looking within the Baptist
sample, however, they found intrinsics signif-
icantly less prejudiced than either indiscrim-
inates or extrinsics. On dogmatism scores,
they found the indiscriminates most dog-
matic, with no difference between extrinsics
and intrinsics.
When intrinsics are compared with extrin-
sics, the intrinsics come out on the healthier
sides of such measures as psychological well-
being (Alker & Gawin, 1978), internal locus
of control, and existential and trait anxiety
(Sturgeon & Hamley, 1979). McClain (1978)
found intrinsics higher than nonreligious re-
spondents on factors labeled Self-Corttrol,
Personal and Social Adequacy, and Stereo-
typed Femininity, and lower on Egocentric
Sexuality and Restlessness (see also Wiebe &
Fleck, 1980).
These generalizations do not apply to all
of the published research. Gibbs and Achter-
berg-Lawlis (1978) reported that "there were
no statistical relationships of import obtained
for religous orientation" (p. 566), when they
used the ROS fourfold typology in a study of
fear of death. Kahoe (1974a) found positive
associations, in the form of main effects,
among /, E, and F.
In sum, for religious variables, intrinsic
and indiscriminate individuals are generally
indistinguishable, and both score higher than
either the extrinsic or nonreligious individuals,
with no I-E interaction. There is an interest-
ing trend, however, among nonreligious vari-
ables for intrinsics to score with nonreligiouses
and for these two groups to score higher than
extrinsics and indiscriminates. The differences
among the four groups occasionally indicate
a pattern of interaction between 7 and E, but
there has yet to be sufficient research using
the entire fourfold typology and 2 X 2 ANOVA
designs to decide whether the variables inter-
act. Thompson (1974), for example, reported
data that display an interaction between /
and E with dogmatism as the dependent
variable. I observed this interaction in a 2 X
2 (High-Low / X High-Low E) ANOVA for
the fathers in his sample, but not for the
'Hood (1972, 1973; Hood & Morris, 1981) reported
similar findings in studies comparing only intrinsics and
extrinsics.
 410 MICHAEL J. DONAHUE

mothers or the adolescents.10 Kahoe (1974a), Indications for Further Research

however, did not observe any interactions,
Joe et al. (1977) may have obtained an inter-
action with derogation of a rape victim as
the dependent variable, in light of the t values
they report, but they performed a one-way
ANOVA, so the issue could not be further
addressed without reanalysis of their original
data.
The importance of the 1-E interaction,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Use of the present scales. The most im-
portant change needed in the present I-E
research involves standardization of proce-
dures to allow greater comparability and rep-
licability of findings. Some of these changes
would be rather minor, such as the abandon-
ment of the discredited (Allport & Ross,
1967; Digenan & Murray, 1975; Hood, 1971)
bipolar scoring procedures, which are still

and of the fourfold typology in general, stems

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

occasionally used (e.g., Brown & Annis, 1978;

from its relation to findings obtained with
Ernsberger & Manaster, 1981).
other measures of religiousness. Several in-
More important would be the standardiza-
vestigators have obtained curvilinear (in-
tion of the median splits used to form the
verted-U) relations between religiousness and
fourfold typology. Although these cutting
other variables such as prejudice (Gorsuch &
Aleshire, 1974), fear of death (Nelson & points have not often been reported, they
have undoubtedly varied from sample to
Cantrell, 1980), obedience in a Milgram
sample (see Table 3), producing inconsistent
(1974) paradigm (Bock & Warren, 1972),
classifications across studies. The best way to
and even unhappiness and physical and men-
address this issue would be for all researchers
tal illness (Shaver, Lenauer, & Sadd, 1980).
to use the theoretical midpoints of the scales
Moreover, these effects seem quite robust.
(27 for /, 33 for E) to classify the respondents
Gorsuch and Aleshire's findings were based
into the four groups. Such an approach is
on a review and were noted in 20 of 25
not without its drawbacks. For example, when
studies in which the published statistics
tested with the theoretical median criteria,
allowed the assessment of curvilinearity,
some samples of students that I obtained at
whereas Shaver et al. sampled from the mas-
Brigham Young University (and, no doubt,
sive data base of a Redbook survey.
samples at other conservative denominational
Simple correlational procedures with the /
colleges, e.g., that of Dodrill et al., 1973)
and E scales used independently would ob-
were 90% intrinsic. Such circumstances result
scure curvilinearity. But when a pattern of
in the loss of the powerful 2 X 2 ANOVA
intrinsic = nonreligious < extrinsic < indis^
design because of empty nonreligious cells,
criminate is observed, as in the case of
and the attendant loss of the ability to ex-
Thompson's (1974) large, broadly based sam-
amine interactions. However, the advantages
ple, this can be considered replication of
of standardization in terms of generalizability
curvilinearity. Both the intrinsics and the
across samples, and the impetus to individual
nonreligious show low dogmatism, with the
researchers to obtain more heterogeneous
occasionally attending extrinsics and the ap-
samples, would result in a net gain for the
parently confused indiscriminates, who rep-
field.
resent intermediate levels of religious com-
Refinement of the present scales. There
mitment, scoring higher.
are four major concerns with the present
It must be emphasized that this interpre-
scales that may call for further refinement.
tation is tentative. So far there has only been
The first is that Hood (1971) reported that
one published study in which the researcher
the Feagin (1964) short versions of the scales
used the fourfold typology, nonreligious de-
are at least as reliable as Allport's forms. The
pendent variables, and an appropriate 2 X 2
Allport and Feagin / scales were quite highly
between-groups ANOVA: Kahoe, 1974a (see
correlated (.90), which was not unexpected,
also Kahoe, 1975, which did not obtain any
because the Feagin scale consists of six of
significant interactions). The interaction find-
ings concerning other variables presented here
have been based on reanalysis of published 10
These findings concerning Thompson's data, as well
data. But the initial results appear promising, as those discussed earlier concerning Hood (1978) and
and it seems appropriate to call for research Dodrill et al. (1973), are based on ANOVAS that I performed
investigating this possibility. on data presented in the relevant articles.
 I-E META-ANALYSIS
Allport's nine items. The E scales, however,
were less well correlated (.61) despite the fact
that Feagin's scale contains five of Allport's
eleven items, plus a sixth that Allport did
not use. This raises the possibility that one
of the two E scales may have greater validity,
a question that should be empirically ad-
dressed. (For further information concerning
scale reliabilities and item-total correlations,
see Robinson & Shaver, 1973.)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The second issue is the question of response
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
set that Kahoe (1974a, 1976) noted. None of
the items on either scale is reverse-keyed,
leading to concerns over acquiescence effects,
at least in the case of indiscriminates. A
revision of the scales that includes some
reverse-scored items seems appropriate.
Third, there is need for the development
of a version of the scales that would allow
easy administration to nonreligious individ-
uals. My experience is that research partici-
pants who have no religious orientation report
difficulty responding to items concerning how
religion functions in their lives. As a result,
they may tend to leave such items blank. The
standard instructions for the ROS indicate
that they should do this "if no choice is
possible," and that these items should be
scored as a neutral response (3 on a 5-point
scale). This procedure may produce invalid
I-E scores in populations with a significant
nonreligious subgroup.
An alternative view on this issue would be
that there really is no need for such a "non-
religious" version of the ROS, because re-
searchers of religious orientation should con-
cern themselves primarily with religious in-
dividuals. For example, Dittes (1969) argued
that "active and committed persons are likely
to make more subtle distinctions" (p. 610)
in research findings. But if the concern is to
examine the relation between religious ori-
entation and various variables of social psy-
chological interest, then limiting consideration
to religious respondents seems to be little
more than embracing range restriction and
thereby diluting potential findings. The effect
of such range restriction can be considerable.
For example, Kahoe and Meadow (1981)
report that "for a state university sample
intrinsic religion and [religious] observance
correlated .48 (significant beyond the .001
level), but for a Baptist college sample the
correlation was .04" (p. 11). For other rami-
411
fications of range restriction in I-E research,
see the following discussion of the quest
research.
A fourth refinement of the scales, which
has already been empirically addressed, is
the development of an "age universal" version
of the ROS. Gorsuch and Venable (1983)
produced such a scale, which should prove a
powerful tool for those who wish to examine
a whole range of fascinating developmental
questions in this area.
Later Conceptual Developments
In addition to measurement issues, there
is considerable need for further conceptual
development concerning / and E. Allport's
approach, as summarized in Table 1, was left
in some disarray when the empirical evidence
did not support his bipolar orientation. His
initial work on a two-dimensional framework
was cut short by his death in 1967. Since
then, there have been two major conceptual
approaches to / and E. One of these, proposed
by Hood (1978), is basically an elaboration
of the original bipolar approach proposed by
Allport. The other however, pursued by Bat-
son and his colleagues, constitutes a major
challenge to the validity of the entire I-E
understanding. If the criticisms offered by
Batson are valid, most of the forgoing discus-
sion becomes moot. It seems reasonable
therefore to consider both Batson's and
Hood's conceptual approaches at some length.
Batson: Different Ways of Being Religious
Batson (1976; Batson & Gray, 1981; Batson
et al., 1978; Batson & Ventis, 1982; Darley
& Batson, 1973) proposed an alternative to
the intrinsic-extrinsic conceptualization.
Batson's major dissatisfaction with the ap-
proach was that he felt that Allport gradually
wandered away from the richness of his orig-
inal distinction between mature and imma-
ture religion, reducing / to simple "single-
mindedness":
Single-mindedness and centratity were pan of Allport's
conception of mature religion, but they were not all.
. . . First, Allport suggested that the mature religious
sentiment is integrative. . . . Second, mature religion
involves a readiness to doubt and to be self-critical: "The
mature religious sentiment is ordinarily fashioned in the
workshop of doubt...." Third, there is an emphasis on
incompleteness and tentativeness. . . . (Batson & Ventis,
1982, p. 149)
 412 MICHAEL J. DONAHUE
In an attempt to address these perceived
shortcomings, Batson constructed the Reli-
gious Life Inventory (RLI; Darley & Batson,
1973) which consists of three subscales: ex-
ternal, which measures the importance of
others (churches, clergy, parents) in one's
religious development; internal, which mea-
sures one's need for religion, and the inter-
actional or guest (Q) scale. Batson presents
the Q scale as an alternative to the / scale;
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
indeed, in the first published reference to the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Q scale (Darley & Batson, 1973) he called it
"the intrinsic scale" of the RLI. This scale is
designed to capture the religious sentiment
of those who, though
not necessarily aligned with any formal religious insti-
tution or creed, . . . are continually raising ultimate
"whys," both about the existing social structure and
about the structure of life itself. While it may seem
strange to call such an individual religious, there is
actually a long history of such a view. It goes at least as
far back in Western thought as the Hebrew prophets and
much further back in Eastern religions. (Batson, 1976,
P. 32)
In its final version, the Q scale consists of six
items emphasizing doubt ("Questions are far
more central to my religious experience than
are answers") and personal development ("My
religious development has emerged out of my
growing sense of personal identity").
In research involving this scale, respondents
are administered the ROS, the RLI, and a
doctrinal orthodoxy scale based on that pre-
sented by Glock and Stark (1966). Scores on
each of these scales are then standardized
and intercorrelated. The resulting intercor-
relation matrix is then factor analyzed. Across
the five Batson studies cited earlier, these
analyses have consistently produced three
factors: a means factor with a primary loading
for E; an end factor with primary loadings
for /, external, internal, and orthodoxy;
and a quest factor defined almost exclusively
byQ.
Batson regularly presented the correlations
of the dependent variable with both the factor
scores and the individual scales. The results
for the means, end, and quest factors have
been virtually the same as those for the E, I,
and Q scales, respectively. In a sample of
seminarians, Batson (1976) found no consis-
tent relation between any of the scales and
either prejudice or willingness to aid an in-
dividual in a "Good Samaritan" paradigm
(Darley & Batson, 1973). With a sample of
college students (Batson et al., 1978), he
found prejudice negatively correlated with
both / and Q. After he applied controls for
social desirability, however, only the Q cor-
relation remained significant. Batson and
Gray (1981) found that Q formed a significant
positive correlation with willingness to help
an individual who stated she needed help,
and a negative relation when the individual
stated she preferred to solve the problems by
herself. The / scale formed no significant
relations in either of the latter two studies,
and only the correlation between E and not
helping was significant. Last, Batson and Ven-
tis (1982) presented data (also published by
Batson & Raynor-Prince, 1983) indicating
that / and E are uncorrelated, and Q is
positively correlated, with complexity of
thoughts about religious concerns. As a result
of these findings, Batson and his colleagues
presented a picture of the quest orientation
as being less dogmatic, less prejudiced, and
more responsive to the true needs of others
than intrinsic religiousness.
It initially appears that Batson did a better
job at operationalizing Allport's concepts than
Allport himself. But this alternative approach,
and the research associated with it, has a
number of difficulties, both conceptual and
methodological.
Conceptual Difficulties
Three difficulties with Q arise from the
"conceptual genealogy" that Batson claims
for his approach. As we have seen, he con-
tended that his approach is consistent with
(a) prior religious tradition, (b) Allport's writ-
ings, and (c) an underlying current in the
nature of religion. Each of these are examined
in turn.
Religious tradition. In the quotation pre-
sented earlier, Batson contended that individ-
uals who have a quest orientation are not
necessarily identified with any particular tra-
dition but are constantly raising "whys" about
the social structure and life. He stated that
this is reflected both in the writings of the
Hebrew prophets and in Eastern religions.
Because the reference to Eastern religions is
vague, it cannot be addressed by reference to
any particular set of writings or commentar-
ies. There seems, however, to be little evidence
 /-£ META-ANALYS1S
to support Batson's contention that the He-
brew prophets would be examples of a quest
orientation to religion, at least as he opera-
tionalized it. The prophets were "necessarily
aligned" with a formal creed; they were pas-
sionate servants of Yahweh. They were less
likely to "raise ultimate 'whys' " about the
social order than to deliver "what fors," con-
demning idolatry, injustice, and reliance on
military might. They did not spend much of
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
their time questing for an answer; answers
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
were central to their message. And perhaps
most to the point is that they did not present
their message as part of their personal devel-
opment, but because they understood them-
selves to be messengers of God (nabi'im).
Their words reflected their direct experience
of the divine (Heschel, 1962). This is a far
cry from the identity-crisis picture that the
Q scale presents.
Allport's writings. Do Allport's writings
in fact support the picture of intrinsic religion
that Batson contended they do? Recall that
Batson criticized the 7 scale as being more
concerned with religion as master motive
than was originally the case in Allport's writ-
ings. But consider the following quote, and
especially the emphasis that Allport (1950)
himself chose to place in it:
I venture to assert that the most important of all distinc-
tions between the immature and the mature religious
sentiment lies in this basic difference in their dynamic
characters. . . . Mature religion is less of a servant, and
more of a master, in the economy of the life. No longer
goaded and steered exclusively by impulse, fear, wish, it
tends rather to control and to direct these motives toward
a goal that is no longer determined by mere self-interest,
(p. 72)
What then has happended to the "workshop
of doubt" in the face of this master motive?
Perhaps this is best explained by the entire
paragraph in which that expression occurs:
We may then say that the mature religious sentiment is
ordinarily fashioned in the workshop of doubt. Though
it has known intimately "the dark night of the soul" it
has decided that theoretical skepticism is not incompatible
with practical absolutism. While it knows all the grounds
for skepticism, it serenely affirms its wager. In so doing,
it finds that the successive acts of commitment, with
their beneficent consequences, slowly strengthen the faith
and cause the moments of doubt gradually to disappear,
(p. 83)"
Thus, unlike the individual operating
within a quest orientation, for whom doubts
are almost a master motive, doubts for the
413
mature religionist are, according to Allport,
simply the fires in which belief is tempered.
Nature of religiousness. All of what has
been said to now does not indicate that Q is
not a measure of religiousness, only that it
seems unlikely that this orientation is actually
supported by some of the sources that Batson
offered. But there is an additional conceptual
difficulty with his approach, in that the con-
struct validity of his measure has never been
empirically demonstrated. The Q scale has
consistently failed to correlate with any mea-
sure of religiousness. Depending on one's
predilection, this might be considered evi-
dence for discriminant validity or a lack of
convergent validity (Campbell & Fiske, 1959);
but until some group of individuals reasonably
identifiable as religious can be demonstrated
to have higher Q scores than another group,
it seems invalid to call this a measure of
religiousness.
What, then, is Q measuring? An exami-
nation of the items of the Q scale, such as
those quoted earlier, indicates that it might
best be characterized as an agnosticism scale,
as suggested by Harley Bernbach (personal
communication, July 1981). Certainly persons
with mature and differentiated religious ori-
entations might agree with such items, but
so might iconoclasts who sophomorically and
reflexively respond "why" to every answer
given. Means, end, and quest are certainly
three separate, orthogonal, replicable dimen-
sions, but they may not all be dimensions of
religiousness.
Methodological Difficulties
Even if one allows Q to be a dimension of
religiousness by defining religiousness as an
existential concern (which is the approach
taken by Batson & Ventis, 1982), the research
methodology that Batson used would require
further caution. Three concerns relate to
sampling. First, the sample size for his studies
has averaged about 50, which is rather meager
when one of the thrusts of the discussion
" Pagination for these quotations come from the 13th
paperback printing (1974) of The Individual and His
Religion: A Psychological Interpretation (pp. 72, 83) by
G. W. Allport, (1950). Copyright 1950 by Macmillan
Publishing Co., Inc., renewed 1978 by Robert B. Allport.
Both quotations adapted by permission.
 414 MICHAEL J. DONAHUE
sections has been an acceptance of null hy-
potheses concerning / (cf. Greenwald, 1975b).
Second, much of his research is done with
college students. Although accusations against
the repesentativeness of "sophomore psychol-
ogy" are too well known to require reference,
the inappropriateness of that particular pop-
ulation to determine the validity of a religion
scale involving existential questioning is at
least worth comment. Researchers addressing
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
religious development have consistently noted
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
the large degree of religious questioning and
disaffection that occurs during the college
years in comparison with the time periods
preceding and following it (see Strommen,
1971). The correlations between religious
questioning and other variables in college
students may not be generalizable to other
age groups.
Third, Batson and his colleagues consis-
tently described their samples as being com-
posed of individuals with "at least a moderate
interest in religion." Batson and Raynor-
Prince (1983) operationalized this criterion
by stating that "interest was assessed by
subjects' reponses to the question, 'How in-
terested in religion are you?' (1 = not at all,
9 = extremely). Only those marking a 4 or
higher were included in the sample" (p. 42).
The problem with such a procedure is that
Gorsuch and McFarland (1972) demonstrated
that / is highly correlated with such single-
item measures of religiousness. By truncating
the distribution of religious interest, Batson
no doubt truncated the range of / scores in
his sample. At the same time, because both
E and Q are largely uncorrelated with /, he
was not truncating their range. His results
were thus influenced by the effects of range
restriction, lowering the resulting correlations.
This may explain why he so rarely reported
significant correlations between 7 and his
dependent variables.
Two other shortcomings relate to the ana-
lytical method applied in Batson's research.
The first is the consistent use of factor scores.
Such scores rely on the intercorrelations
among the variables, which change from
sample to sample, thus reducing the repiica-
bility of the research. This is all the more
curious considering that examination of the
intercorrelation matrices and factor loadings
that Batson has published indicates that
means is basically E, end is basically / and
its intercorrelates, and quest is almost exclu-
sively Q. Why, then, constantly submit the
scales to sophisticated analysis procedures
when it appears that the individual scales are
adequate and much more replicable measures
of the three constructs?
The larger concern over Batson's analyses
is the use of correlational procedures. It was
noted earlier that a number of variables have
been found to form curvilinear relations with
religiousness. The consistent use of correla-
tional analyses in the Q research obscures
such relations. Perhaps the most intriguing
possibility is that Q and / might be curvilin-
early related, but this must await further
research.
All of this having been said, it is necessary
to clarify that Batson has, in fact, made an
important contribution to psychology of re-
ligion through his quest concept. The necessity
for constant spiritual questing and growth is
central to what is best in all religious traditions
and has been the hallmark of such twentieth
century religious luminaries as Thomas Mer-
ton (Furlong, 1980) and others. This ideal of
continuing growth is addressed only tangen-
tially in the present / scale. But although
questioning is central to such growth (as
noted by Allport in the "doubt" quote),
calling such questioning doubt may be an
inappropriate label. This initial version of the
Q scale has raised a central, unaddressed
issue in psychology of religion, and has pro-
duced provocative data. The next step will
involve refining the construct and using an-
alytical methodologies that allow for the ex-
amination of the effects of interaction between
Q, I, and E, and curvilinear relations among
them or with the dependent variables being
studied.
Hood: Managing the Religious Sentiment
Hood's (1970, 1971, 1973, 1978; Hood &
Morris, 1981; Morris & Hood, 1981) pro-
grammatic I-E research has led to an ap-
proach that is more directly related to the
original, bipolar understanding. According to
this approach, one must manage the intrinsic
and extrinsic orientations by accepting reli-
gion as either part of life (extrinsic) or as the
meaning of life (intrinsic). Hood contends
 I-E META-ANALYSIS
that both the indiscriminates and the nonre-
ligious are experiencing difficulty either in
integrating one of these two approaches or in
affirming a nonreligious stand.
As one test of this approach, Hood (1978)
reported data concerning the likelihood that
an individual would display stress while dis-
cussing whether he or she had had a religious
experience. In analyzing these data, he applied
chi-square analyses to the incidence of stress
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
for each of the four groups individually (see
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Table 6). The difficulty with such an analysis
is that the base-rate probability for displaying
stress while discussing religious experiences
is assumed to be .50. In the absence of
previous data concerning this issue, and in
light of the fact that Hood's major concern
is a comparison between the four groups, a
more appropriate analysis might be to test
the differences between the probabilities of
showing stress for each of the four groups. I
performed these tests, and they indicated that
the indiscriminate and nonreligious respon-
dents are alike and they differ from the
intrinsic and extrinsic groups in displaying
stress in such settings. Interestingly, this find-
ing is also more consistent with Hood's (1978)
hypothesis.
Consistent with Hood's finding of greater
stress for indiscriminates in religious contexts
is Vincenzo et al.'s (1976) finding that re-
spondents who scored high on either an /- or
.E-related dimension were less likely to have
reported seeing "the fear-provoking religiously
oriented movie—The Exorcist." Presumably,
those who score high on both factors (the
indiscriminates) would be least likely to have
seen it.
On a more anecdotal level, Tate and Miller
(1971) had some interesting experiences while
administering the Rokeach Value Survey
(Rokeach, 1973) to each of the four groups.
This instrument requires respondents to rank-
order 18 "instrumental values" (e.g., ambi-
tious, forgiving, intellectual, self-controlled)
and 18 "terminal values" (e.g., comfortable
life, freedom, salvation, true friendship) in
terms of their importance in the respondent's
life. They found that two intrinsics
indicated they could not complete the instrument because
they could not separate the values from each other. By
contrast, 12 [indiscriminates] returned their value mea-
sures either incompletely or improperly marked. In several
415
Table 6
Incidence of Stress, Chi-Square Values, and
Stress Probabilities, From Hood (1978)
Incidence Stress
Group N of stress X2 probability
Indiscriminate 46 31 4.89 .674'
Nonreligious 31 18 0.52 .581'
Extrinsic 19 8 12.41 .205"
Intrinsic 31 3 18.58 .097"
Note. Probabilities with different superscripts are signifi-
cantly different (z > 3.2). From "The Usefulness of the
Indiscriminately Pro and Anti Categories of Religious
Orientation" by R. W. Hood, Jr., 1978, Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 17, p. 427. Copyright by the
Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Adapted by
permission.
cases, these individuals marked Salvation number one
and then failed to complete the other rankings, (p. 364)
Such findings support not only the label
indiscriminate applied to such respondents,
but the larger picture of value confusion that
both Hood and Allport associate with this
group.
Conclusions
Intrinsic religiousness serves as an excellent
measure of religious commitment, as distinct
from religious belief, church membership,
liberal-conservative theological orientation,
and related measures (see Wimberley, 1974).
Its lack of doctrinal content and open-ended
definition of religion makes it usable with
virtually any Christian denomination, and
perhaps even with non-Christian religions
(Patrick, 1979). It correlates well with other
measures of religiousness, and even such
behaviors as preference for religious over
nonreligious books (Hood, 1978). But by
itself it seems to correlate with little besides
other measures of religiousness. Aside from
internal locus of control (Kahoe, 1974a),
purpose in life (Crandall & Rasmussen, 1975),
and lack of anxiety (Baker & Gorsuch, 1982),
it has not yet been found to be predictive of
much that is of interest to personality-social
psychologists, although maybe this is because
it has not yet been widely used as a measure
of religiousness in such research. Given the
opportunity, it would probably be a strong
(negative) predictor of such variables as pre-
marital intercourse (Davidson & Leslie, 1977)
 416 MICHAEL J. DONAHUE
and initial drug abuse (Gorsuch & Butler,
1976).
Extrinsic religiousness on the other hand,
does a good job of measuring the sort of
religion that gives religion a bad name. It is
positively correlated with prejudice, dogma-
tism (Hoge & Carroll, 1973), trait anxiety
(Baker & Gorsuch, 1982), and fear of death
(Minton & Spilka, 1976) and is apparently
uncorrelated with altruism (Batson & Gray,
1981; Benson et al., 1980).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Considering these two measures simulta-
neously produces considerably greater ex-
planatory power, however. Such variables as
prejudice (Allport & Ross, 1967), dogmatism
(Thompson, 1974), derogation of an innocent
victim (Joe et al., 1977), and a wide array of
personality characteristics (McClain, 1978;
Wiebe & Fleck, 1980) have been shown to
display strong and meaningful relations when
considered in the context of either the entire
fourfold typology or two or more of its cells.
Such an approach also casts considerable
light on the results obtained in the unipolar
research. Intrinsic religiousness fails to cor-
relate with nonreligious variables because it
confounds two distinct orientations. People
scoring high on / may either be intrinsic (low
in prejudice and dogmatism), or display the
unsettled orientation of the indiscriminate
(high on both characteristics). Those scoring
low on / may be either nonreligious (low in
dogmatism; no data for prejudice) or extrinsic
(second highest on prejudice and dogmatism).
It is not surprising, therefore, that a statistic
with which one attempts to measure a linear
relation between 7 and prejudice or dogma-
tism shows little or no relation. The fourfold
approach also explains the findings observed
with E: High scorers are either extrinsic or
indiscriminate and low scorers are either
intrinsic or nonreligious, hence the positive
correlation with prejudice and dogmatism.
Although, as was noted earlier, this research
is at an initial stage, the findings currently
available bode well for the potential of the /-
E framework as a powerful explanatory tool
in personality-social psychology.
References
Alker, H. A., & Gawin, F. (1978). On the intrapsychic
specificity of happiness. Journal of Personality, 46,
311-322.
Allen, R. O., & Spilka, B. (1967). Committed and
consensual religion: A specification of religion-prejudice
relationships. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli-
gion, 6, 191-206.
Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion: A
psychological interpretation. New York: Macmillan.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Allport, G. W. (1959). Religion and prejudice. Crane
Review, 2, 1-10.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality.
New York: Holt, Rineharl & Winston.
Allport, G. W. (1962). Prejudice: Is it societal or personal?
Journal of Social Issues, 18(2), 120-134.
Allport, G. W. (1963). Behavioral science, religion, and
mental health. Journal of Religion and Health, 2, 187-
197.
Allport, G. W. (1964). Mental health: A generic attitude.
Journal of Religion and Health, 4, 7-21.
Allport, G. W. (1966a). The religious context of prejudice.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 447-
457.
Allport, G. W. (1966b). Traits revisited. American Psy-
chologist, 21, 1-10.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious
orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
Argyle, M., & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1975). The social
psychology of religion. Boston: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Baither, R. C, & Saltzberg, L. (1978). Relationship
between religious attitude and rational thinking. Psy-
chological Reports, 43, 853-854.
Baker, M., & Gorsuch, R. (1982). Trait anxiety and
intrinsic-extrinsic religiousness. Journal for the Sci-
entific Study of Religion, 21, 119-122.
Batson, C. D. (1976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or
double agent? Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli-
gion, 15, 29-45.
Batson, C. D., & Gray, R. A. (1981). Religious orientation
and helping behavior: Responding to one's own or to
the victim's needs? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 40, 511-520.
Batson, C. D., Naifeh, S. J., & Pate, S. (1978). Social
desirability, religious orientation, and racial prejudice.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17, 31-
41.
Batson, C. D., & Raynor-Prince, L. (1983). Religious
orientation and complexity of thought about existential
concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
22, 38-50.
Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The religious
experience: A social-psychological perspective. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological
androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 42, 155-162.
Benson, P. L., Dehority, J., Carman, L., Hanson, E.,
Hochschwender, M., Lebold, C., Rohr, R., & Sullivan,
J. (1980). Intrapersonal correlates of nonspontaneous
helping behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 110,
87-95.
Bock, D. C., & Warren, N. C. (1972). Religious belief as
a factor in obedience to destructive commands. Review
of Religious Research, 13, 185-191.
 I-E META-ANALYSIS
Bolt, M. (1975). Purpose in Life and religious orientation.
Journal of Psychology and Theology. 3, 116-118.
Boh, M. (1977). Religious orientation and death fears.
Review of Religious Research. 19. 73-76.
Brannon, R. C. L. (1970, April). Gimme that old-time
racism. Psychology Today. 42-44.
Brown, D. M., & Annis, L. (1978). Moral development
level and religious behavior. Psychological Reports, 43,
1230.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and
discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56. 81-105.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Carey, R. G. (1974). Emotional adjustment in terminal
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
patients: A quantitative approach. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 21, 433-439.
Carroll, J. B. (1961). The nature of the data, or how to
choose a correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 26,
347-372.
Crandall, J. E., & Rasmussen, R. D. (1975). Purpose in
Life as related to specific values. Journal of Clinical
Psychology. 31, 483-485.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval
motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York:
Wiley.
Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). "From Jerusalem
to Jericho": A study of situational and dispositional
variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 27, 100-108.
Davidson, J. K., & Leslie, G. R. (1977). Premarital
sexual intercourse: An application of axiomatic theory
construction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 39,
15-25.
Digenan, M. A., & Murray, J. B. (1975). Religious beliefs,
religious commitment, and prejudice. Journal of Social
Psychology, 97, 147-148.
Dittes, J. E. (1969). Psychology of religion. In G. Lindsey
& E. Aronson (Eds.). The handbook of social psychology
(2nd ed.): Vol. 5. Applied social psychology (pp. 602-
659). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Dittes, J. E. (1971). Typing the typologies: Some parallels
in the career of church-sect and extrinsic-intrinsic.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 375-
383.
Dodrill, C., Bean, P., & Bostrom, S. (1973). The assess-
ment of religiosity in evangelical college students and
its relationship to prior family religious involvement.
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 1, 52-57.
Elifson, K. W. (1976). Religious behavior among urban
Southern Baptists: A causal inquiry. Sociological Anal-
ysis. 37, 32-44.
Ernsberger, D. J., & Manaster, G. J. (1981). Moral
development, intrinsic/extrinsic religious orientation
and denominational teachings. Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 104, 23-41.
Feagin, J. R. (1964). Prejudice and relegious [sic] types:
A focused study of Southern fundamentalists. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion. 4. 3-13.
Fishman, J. A. (1956). A note on Jenkins' "Improved
method for tetrachoric r." Psychometrika, 21, 305.
Fullerton, J. T, & Hunsberger, B. (1982). A unidimen-
sional measure of Christian orthodoxy. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 21. 317-326.
Furlong, M. (1980). Merton: A biography. San Francisco:
Harper & Row.
Gibbs, H. W., & Achterberg-Lawlis, J. (1978). Spiritual
417
values and death anxiety: Implications for counseling
with terminal cancer patients. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 25, 563-569.
Gilbert, D. C., & Levinson, D. J. (1956). Ideology,
personality, and institutional policy in the mental
hospital. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
53, 263-271.
Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Mela-
analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Clock, C. Y., & Stark, R. (1966). Christian beliefs and
anti-Semitism. New York: Harper & Row.
Gorsuch, R. L., & Aleshire, D. (1974). Christian faith
and ethnic prejudice: A review and interpretation of
research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
13, 281-307.
Gorsuch, R. L., & Butler, M. C. (1976). Initial drug
abuse: A review of predisposing social psychological
factors. Psychological Bulletin, S3, 120-137.
Gorsuch, R. L., & McFarland, S. G. (1972). Single vs.
multiple-item scales for measuring religious values.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11,
53-64.
Gorsuch, R. L., & Venable, G. D. (1983). Development
of an "age universal" I-E scale. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 22, 181-187.
Greenwald, A. G. (1975a). Consequences of prejudice
against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82,
1-20.
Greenwald, A. G. (1975b). Does the Good Samaritan
parable increase helping? A comment on Darley and
Battson's no-effect conclusion. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 32, 578-583.
Guilford, J. P. (1965). Fundamental statistics inpsychology
and education (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Heschel, A. J. (1962). The prophets: Pan II. New York:
Harper & Row.
Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious mo-
tivation scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli-
gion. II, 369-376.
Hoge, D. R., & Carroll, J. W. (1973). Religiosity and
prejudice in Northern and Southern churches. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 181-197.
Hood, R. W., Jr. (1970). Religious orientation and the
report of religious experience. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 9, 285-291.
Hood, R. W., Jr. (1971). A comparison of the Allport
and Feagin scoring procedures for intrinsic/extrinsic
religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study
of Religion. 10, 370-374.
Hood, R. W., Jr. (1972). Normative and motivational
determinants of reported religious experience in two
Baptist samples. Review of Religious Research, 13,
192-196.
Hood, R. W., Jr. (1973). Religious orientation and the
experience of transcendence. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 12, 441-448.
Hood, R. W., Jr. (1978). The usefulness of the indiscrim-
inately pro and anti categories of religious orientation.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17. 419-
431.
Hood, R. W., Jr., & Morris, R. J. (1981). Sensory
isolation and the differential elicitation of religious
imagery in intrinsic and extrinxic [sic] persons. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion. 20, 261-273.
Hunsberger, B. & Ennis, J. (1982). Experimenter effects
 418 MICHAEL J. DONAHUE
in studies of religious attitudes. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 21, 131-137.
Hunt, R. A., & King, M. B. (1971). The intrinsic-
extrinsic concept: A review and evaluation. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 339-356.
Hunter, 3. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982).
Studying organizations: Innovations in metkodobgy:
Vol. 4. Mela-analysis: Cumulating research findings
across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Jackson, S. E. (1981). Measurement of commitment to
role identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 40, 138-146.
Jenkins, W. L. (1955). An improved method for tetra-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
choric r. Psychometrika, 20, 253-258.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Joe, V. C, McGee, S. J., & Dazey, D. (1977). Religiousness
and devaluation of a rape victim. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 33, 64.
Kahoe, R. D. (1974a). Personality and achievement
correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 812-
818.
Kahoe, R. D. (1974b). The psychology and theology of
sexism. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 2, 284-
290.
Kahoe, R. D. (1975). Authoritarianism and religion:
Relationships of F-scale items to intrinsic and extrinsic
religious orientations. JSAS Catalog of Selected Doc-
uments in Psychology, 5, 284-285. (Manuscript No.
1020)
Kahoe, R. D. (1976). Comment on Thompson's "Open-
mindness and indiscriminate antireligious orientation."
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15, 91-
93.
Kahoe, R. D. (19/7a). Intrinsic religion and authoritar-
ianism: A differentiated relationship. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 16. 179-183.
Kahoe, R. D. (1977b). Religious conservatism in a quasi-
longitudinal perspective. Journal of Psychology and
Theology, 5, 40-47.
Kahoe, R. D., & Dunn, R. F. (1975). The fear of death
and religious attitudes and behavior. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 14, 379-382.
Kahoe, R. D., & Meadow, M. J. (1981). A developmental
perspective on religious orientation dimensions. Journal
of Religion and Health, 20, 8-17.
King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1972). Measuring the
religious variable: Replication. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 11, 240-251.
Krug, R. E. (1961). An analysis of the F scale: I. Item
factor analysis. Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 285-
291.
Lester, D. (1967). Experimental and correlational studies
of the fear of death. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 27-36.
Lovekin, A., & Malony, H. N. (1977). Religious glossolalia:
A longitudinal study of personality changes. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 383-393.
Magni, K. G. (1972). The fear of death: An exploratory
study of its nature and its correlates. In A. Godin
(Ed.). Death and presence: The psychology of death
and the afterlife (pp. 125-138). Brussels: Lumen Vitae
Press.
McClain, E. W. (1978). Personality differences between
intrinsically religious and nonreligious students: A
factor analytic study. Journal of Personality Assessment,
42, 159-166.
McClain, E. W. (1979). Religious orientation the key to
psychodynamic differences between feminists and non-
feminists. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
18, 40-45.
McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C., Jr. (1973). Love- and
guilt-oriented dimensions of Christian belief. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 53-64.
McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C., Jr. (1976). Symbolic
racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 23-45.
McGrath, J. E, Martin, J., & Kulka, R. A. (1982).
Studying organizations: Innovations in methodology:
Vol. 2. Judgment calls in research. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Meadow, M. J., & Kahoe, R. D. (1984). Psychology of
religion: Religion in individual lives. New York: Harper
& Row.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experi-
mental view. New York: Harper & Row.
Minton, B., & Spilka, B. (1976). Perspectives on death
in relation to powerlessness and form of personal
religion. Omega, 7, 261-267.
Morris, R. J, & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1981). The generaliz-
ability and specificity of intrinsic/extrinsic orientation.
Review of Religious Research, 22, 245-254.
Nelson, L. D., & Cantrell, C. H. (1980). Religiosity and
death anxiety: A multi-dimensional analysis. Review
of Religious Research, 21, 148-157.
Nunnally, J. C. (1976). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Paloutzian, R. F. (1983). Invitation to the psychology of
religion. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Paloutzian, R. F., Jackson, S. L., & Crandall, J. E. (1978).
Conversion experience, belief system, and personal and
ethical attitudes. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
6, 266-275.
Patrick, J. W. (1979). Personal faith and the fear of death
among divergent religious populations. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, IS, 298-305.
Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1973). Measures of
social psychological attitudes (rev. ed.). Ann Arbor,
MI: Institute for Social Research.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: Inves-
tigations into the nature of belief systems and personality
systems. New \fork: Basic Books.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New
York: The Free Press.
Rychlak, J. F. (1977). The psychology of rigorous human-
ism. New York: Wiley.
Shaver, P., Lenauer, M., & Sadd, S. (1980). Religiousness,
conversion, and subjective well-being: The "healthy-
minded" religion of modern American women. Amer-
ican Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 1563-1568.
Shoemaker, A., & Bolt, M. (1977). The Rokeach Value
Survey and perceived Christian values. Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 5, 139-142.
Spence, J. T, & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity
and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, cor-
relates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Spilka, B. (1977). Utilitarianism and personal faith.
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 5, 226-233.
Spilka, B., & Mullin, M. (1977). Personal religion and
psychological schemata: A research approach to a
theological psychology of religion. Character Potential,
8, 57-66.
 1-E META-ANALYSIS 419

Spilka, B., Pelligrini, R. J., & Dailey, K. (1968). Religion,
American values & death perspectives. Sociological
Symposium. 1, 57-66.
Spilka, B., Stout, L., Minton, B., & Sizemore, D. (1977).
Death and personal faith: A psychometric investigation.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 169-
178.
Stewin, L. L. (1976). Integrative complexity: Structure
and correlates. Alberta Journal of Educational Research,
22, 226-236.
Stewin, L., & Anderson, C. C. (1974). Cognitive com-
plexity as a determinant of information processing.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Tate, E. D., & Miller, G. R. (1971). Differences in value
systems of persons with varying religious orientations.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 357-
365.
Taylor, P. A. (1972). An introduction to statistical methods.
Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.
Thompson, A. D. (1974). Open-mindedness and indis-
crimination [sic) antireligious orientation. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 13. 471-477.
Vincenzo, J., Hendrick, C, & Murray, E. J. (1976). The
relationship between religious beliefs and attending the
fear-provoking religiously oriented movie—"The Ex-

Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 20, 233- orcist." Omega, 7, 137-143.

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

243. Wiebe, K. F., & Fleck, J. R. (1980). Personality correlates

Strickland, B. R., & Shaffer, S. (1971). I-E, I-E, & F.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 366-
369.
Strickland, B. R., & Weddell, S. C. (1972). Religious
orientation, racial prejudice, and dogmatism: A study
of Baptists and Unitarians. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 11. 395-399.
Strommen, M. P. (Ed.) (1971). Research on religious
development: A comprehensive handbook. New York:
Hawthorne Books.
Sturgeon, R. S., & Hamley, R. W. (1979). Religiosity and
anxiety. Journal of Social Psychology, 108, 137-138.
of intrinsic, extrinsic, and nonreligious orientations.
Journal of Psychology. 105, 181-187.
Wilson, W. C. (1960). Extrinsic religious values and
prejudice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
60, 286-288.
Wimberley, R. C. (1974). Toward the measurement of
commitment strength. Sociological Analysis, 15, 211-
215.
Received April 5, 1983
Revision received August 8, 1983

Correction to Swingle

In the article "Temporal Measures of Vocalization: Some Methodological Con-

siderations," by Paul G. Swingle (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1984, Vol. 47, No. 6, pp. 1263-1280), the copyright notice was inadvertently
omitted. The notice that should have appeared on the first page of this article is
as follows:
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1984, Vol. 47, No. 6, 1263-1280
Copyright 1984 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.