Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale (RRF)

Abstract

The Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale (RRF) is a concise, 12-item self-report instrument developed by Altemeyer and Hunsberger (2004) to measure religious fundamentalism as a psychological construct. It defines fundamentalism as the belief that one set of religious teachings holds the complete, intrinsic, and infallible truth about life, which must be followed absolutely. The RRF is designed to capture doctrinal certainty and exclusivity across various religious traditions, distinguishing this rigid cognitive style from general religious devotion or commitment.

Keywords

Religious Fundamentalism, RRF, Altemeyer, Hunsberger, Psychology of Religion, Doctrinal Certainty, Authoritarianism, Psychological Assessment, Religious Exclusivity.

Authors

Bob Altemeyer, Bruce Hunsberger

Purpose

The primary purpose of the RRF is to efficiently and reliably assess the degree to which an individual endorses a fundamentalist mindset. This instrument was created to be a psychometrically superior and shorter alternative to previous scales, facilitating its use in large-scale social psychology research.

The scale is instrumental in the field of psychology of religion for examining the relationship between religious rigidity and social attitudes, such as prejudice, political conservatism, and right-wing authoritarianism. It provides a measure focused on the cognitive adherence to absolute truth rather than mere frequency of religious practice.

Construct

The RRF measures religious fundamentalism, which is conceptualized as a cognitive orientation rooted in the belief that an infallible, divine guide exists that provides the definitive answer to all life’s questions. This psychological construct is characterized by three core tenets:

• The belief in an absolute, perfect, and unchangeable truth, typically contained within a sacred text.
• The conviction that this singular truth mandates absolute adherence and excludes all competing beliefs or systems (e.g., science when it conflicts with scripture).
• The view of the world as divided into the righteous (who follow the truth) and the unrighteous (who do not).

This construct is highly distinct from general religiosity, focusing instead on the certainty, exclusivity, and rigidity of religious belief systems.

Validity

The RRF demonstrates robust evidence of **construct validity**. Research consistently shows that scores on the RRF correlate strongly with measures of prejudice (e.g., against sexual minorities and minority groups) and political conservatism, aligning with the theoretical expectation that fundamentalism underpins rigid social attitudes. Its strong correlation with Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) provides substantial support for its conceptual grounding.

The scale also exhibits excellent **discriminant validity**, showing minimal overlap with measures of general religious commitment, intrinsic motivation, or spiritual seeking (Quest orientation). This confirms that the RRF specifically measures the rigid, exclusive dimension of religious belief rather than overall piety or devotion.

Reliability

The RRF is a highly reliable instrument, consistently demonstrating high internal consistency. In published studies, the scale routinely reports Cronbach’s alpha coefficients in the high .80s and often exceeding .90, indicating that the 12 items cohesively measure the single latent trait of religious fundamentalism. This strong internal consistency confirms the scale’s utility for quantitative analysis.

Furthermore, the scale exhibits stable **test-retest reliability** over moderate time intervals, suggesting that the attitudes measured by the RRF represent a stable, enduring personality or cognitive orientation rather than temporary beliefs.

Factor Analysis

Factor analytical studies confirm that the RRF is designed to be a **unidimensional scale**. Principal components analysis and confirmatory factor analysis typically support a single-factor solution, demonstrating that all 12 items load strongly onto one underlying factor: Religious Fundamentalism. This structure simplifies interpretation and scoring, confirming the scale’s focus on doctrinal exclusivity and certainty.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological inventory.

Format: 12 items utilizing an extended Likert scale.

Language Available: Primarily English; various translations used in cross-cultural research.

Population Group: General adult population (Non-clinical samples).

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (typically 18+).

Population Details: Widely used across college student populations and broader community samples in Western contexts (North America and Europe).

Test Methodology: Participants rate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 9-point scale ranging from –4 (very strongly disagree) to +4 (very strongly agree), including a neutral zero point. Responses are summed after reverse-coding six specific items (2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12).

Keywords

Unidimensional, Self-report, Prejudice, Social Attitudes, Likert Scale, Doctrinal Rigidity, Exclusivity, RRF.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source (N/A)

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source (N/A)

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source (N/A)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale was published in 2004. As a standard instrument published in peer-reviewed academic literature, it is generally available for non-commercial academic research use. The instrument can be found on page 36 of the academic thesis, “Religious Anti-Gay Messages’ Effect on Attitudes toward Sexual and Religious Groups,” by Neil Hester (2012), available online. The original PDF can be downloaded here: https://repositories.tdl.org/ttu-ir/handle/2346/45412

Reference’s

• Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale: The short and sweet of it. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 47-54.

• Altemeyer, B. & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.

• Hester, Neil. (2012). Religious Anti-Gay Messages’ Effect on Attitudes toward Sexual and Religious Groups. Texas Tech University Institutional Repository. Available online at: https://repositories.tdl.org/ttu-ir/handle/2346/45412

Items of the Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale (RRF)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

1. God has given humanity, a complete unfailing guide to happiness and salvation, which must be totally followed.

2. No single book of religious teachings contains all the intrinsic, fundamental truths about life. *

3. The basic cause of evil in this world is Satan, who is still constantly and ferociously fighting against God.

4. It is more important to be a good person than to believe in God and the right religion. *

5. There is a particular set of religious teachings in this world that are so true, you can’t go any “deeper” because they are the basic, bedrock message God has given humanity.

6. When you get right down to it, there are basically two kinds of people in the world: the righteous who will be rewarded by God; and the rest who will not.

7. Scriptures may contain general truths, but they should NOT be considered completely, literally true from beginning to end. *

8. To lead the best, most meaningful life, one must belong to the one, fundamentally true religion.

9. “Satan” is just the name people give to their own bad impulses. There is really no such thing as a diabolical “Prince of Darkness” who tempts us. *

10. Whenever science and sacred scripture conflict, science is probably right. *

11. The fundamentals of God’s religion should never be tampered with, or compromised with others’ beliefs.

12. All of the religions in the world have flaws and wrong teachings. There is no perfectly true and right religion. *

Scoring Note: Items marked with an asterisk (*) are reverse-coded. The response scale uses 9 points: –4 (very strongly disagree) to +4 (very strongly agree), with 0 being neutral. This is often recoded to a 1 to 9 scale for analysis (–4 = 1, –3 = 2, –2 = 3, –1 = 4, 0 = 5, +1 = 6, +2 = 7, +3 = 8, +4 = 9).