The Lamb Scales

Abstract

The LAM Scales, developed by Robert A. Hunt (1972a), are a psychological scale designed to measure an individual’s characteristic interpretive style regarding biblical or theological assertions. Hunt’s primary motivation for the scale was to address what he viewed as a fundamentalist bias in existing measures of religiosity, which often equated religious commitment solely with the literal acceptance of theological statements.

The LAM acronym represents the three distinct interpretive styles measured: L (Literal) Style, characterized by straightforward, face-value endorsement; A (Antiliteral) Style, involving straightforward, face-value rejection; and M (Mythological) Style, defined by the reinterpretation of the assertion in nonliteral, symbolic, or metaphorical terms, reflecting a position that is neither simple acceptance nor rejection.

Keywords

LAM Scales, Religious Commitment, Interpretive Style, Literalism, Antiliteralism, Mythological Style, Symbolic Interpretation, Religiosity, Theological Language, Psychological Measurement.

Authors

Robert A. Hunt

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the LAM Scales is to quantify the diversity of ways individuals interpret religious language, particularly concerning Christian theological claims. Hunt (1972a) sought to overcome the inherent bias he identified in traditional religiosity measures, which often failed to capture sophisticated or symbolic forms of religious commitment.

By including the third, or Mythological (M), style alongside the conventional Literal (L) and Antiliteral (A) styles, the instrument aimed to provide a more nuanced assessment. This structure allows religious individuals who interpret theological statements symbolically to express their commitment without being misclassified as “non-religious” simply because they reject literalism.

Construct

The LAM Scales measure an individual’s characteristic religious interpretive style, conceptualized across three distinct dimensions based on their approach to theological statements:

• Literal (L): Interpreting statements as factual or historically accurate, requiring straightforward acceptance and endorsement.

• Antiliteral (A): Rejecting statements outright, often based on rational, scientific, or empirical grounds.

• Mythological (M): Engaging in symbolic reinterpretation, viewing the statements as conveying deeper existential or spiritual truths rather than literal facts. Hunt (1972a) hypothesized this style might represent a more “mature” form of religious understanding.

A significant theoretical discussion concerns the dimensionality of the construct. Hunt initially aimed to separate the “literal-symbolic” dimension from the “conservative-liberal” dimension, which he believed were confounded in traditional measures. However, the resulting three scales (L, A, M) are scored ipsatively, meaning their scores are statistically interdependent. Northover, Montoro-Gonzalez, and Hunt (1993) later suggested that L and A might represent endpoints of a single bipolar dimension, with the M style representing a neutral or noncommittal position, raising questions about whether the M style truly measures an independent dimension.

Validity

Initial validation efforts focused on convergent and predictive evidence, though limitations regarding dimensionality and the nature of the M scale persist.

Convergent Validity: Hunt (1972a) found that the L and A scales correlated strongly (positively and negatively, respectively) with McLean’s (1952) Religious Worldviews Scale. While this offered some evidence of convergent validity, the relationship was expected since the LAM scale items were derived from McLean’s instrument. Importantly, the M scale was found to be unrelated to McLean’s scale, supporting Hunt’s claim that the Mythological style taps an interpretive dimension not captured by traditional religious measures.

Orlowski (1979) supported the convergent validity of L and M scores in a Franciscan sample, where self-ratings correlated positively with peer-observers’ ratings. However, the A scale ratings were unreliable, possibly due to the restrictive religious social environment suppressing the behavioral expression of antiliteral tendencies.

Predictive Validity: Vander Lans (1991) found support for predictive validity, demonstrating that extreme L scorers approached religious language concretely, while M scorers (labeled “metaphorical”) approached it with greater flexibility. A final validity concern is the cultural specificity and humanistic, liberal Protestant tone of the M scale responses (Greeley, 1972), which limits the representativeness of symbolic reinterpretation captured by the scale.

Reliability

Reliability estimates for the LAM Scales are generally adequate, though the Mythological (M) scale consistently yields lower coefficients than the Literal (L) and Antiliteral (A) scales.

• Hunt (1972a) reported internal consistency coefficients using Gullikson’s variance-covariance procedure: .87 (L), .92 (A), and .77 (M).

• Poythress (1975) utilized a modified Likert-type format and reported Spearman-Brown corrected split-half reliability coefficients of .94 (L), .95 (A), and .76 (M).

• Orlowski (1979) reported slightly lower, but still acceptable, coefficients using the same split-half method: .83 (L), .71 (A), and .67 (M).

The persistent lower reliability of the M scale compared to L and A is a noted concern, attributed partly to the narrow, specialized nature of its response alternatives, which may cause inconsistent responding among individuals whose symbolic interpretive style falls outside the scale’s specific liberal Protestant framing.

Factor Analysis

Formal factor analysis results are not the standard reporting method for the LAM Scales due to their design. The scale employs an ipsative scoring methodology, meaning that scores across the three subscales are mathematically dependent (not independent). This interdependence complicates standard statistical procedures, such as factor analysis and the interpretation of inter-scale correlation coefficients.

The underlying dimensionality remains theoretically contentious. While Hunt aimed to measure three styles, the ipsative structure and subsequent theoretical models (e.g., Northover et al., 1993) suggest that the L and A styles may define a continuum of adherence/rejection of fundamentalism, with the M style representing a complex, non-polar position rather than a simple third factor.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychological Scale measuring religious interpretive style.

Format: Typically paper-and-pencil format, utilizing forced-choice ranking (ipsative) or a modified Likert-type scale.

Language Available: Original English. Referenced research indicates usage or adaptation in other languages, such as Polish and Dutch.

Population Group: Individuals with a relatively high reading level and sophistication regarding a specialized (liberal Protestant) theological tradition.

Age Group: Primarily used with undergraduates and adults.

Population Details: The original standardization sample consisted of 173 undergraduates (88 female, 85 male) at Southern Methodist University. Subsequent research has utilized diverse groups, including members of a Roman Catholic religious order.

Test Methodology: The scale consists of 17 theological statements (reduced from an original 25). For each statement, respondents rank 3 (or 4) interpretive responses, each keyed as L, A, or M. Scoring methods include the ipsative “2-1-0” method (ranking 1st, 2nd, 3rd) or the preferred “1-0-0” method (assigning 1 point only to the top-ranked response). Classification is based on the highest total score among L, A, or M. Non-ipsative scoring using a Likert-type format (-2 to +2) has also been implemented.

Keywords

Ipsative Scoring, Fundamentalist Bias, Theological Interpretation, Symbolic Thought, Religious Psychology, Robert A. Hunt, L-A-M, Measurement Bias, Literal-Symbolic Dimension, Cognitive Style.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1972 (Original publication: Hunt, R. A., 1972a).

Permissions/Source: The original publication is Hunt, R. A. (1972). Mythological-symbolic religious commitment: The LAM scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 42-52. The scale items are provided in the appendix of the review, suggesting accessibility for research, though formal permission should be sought from the journal or author for specific uses.

Fee: Not specified.

Items of the THE LAM SCALES

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

Please rank each set of alternatives according to the extent that alternative expresses your personal opinion. Place a “l” next to the alternative that best matches your opinion, a “2” next to the alternative that next best matches your opinion, etc.

• I believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

1. L 1. Agree, since available evidence proves God made everything.
2. A 2. Disagree, since available evidence suggests some type of spontaneous creation for which it is unnecessary to assume a God to create.
3. M 3. Agree, but only in the sense that this is an anthropomorphic way of talking about whatever Process, Being, or Ultimate Concern stands behind the creative process.

• I believe that men working and thinking together can build a just society without super­ natural help.

1. L 1. Disagree, since man without God’s help can do very little that is good.
2. A 2. Agree, since men have and are increasing the ability and technical knowledge to improve society if they will apply this knowledge to the problems of society.
3. M 3. Disagree, although men’s ability and technical knowledge is increasing, they must build on the ultimate power within oneself [sic] to understand and accomplish the full implications of justice and a good society.

• The writings of such commentators on human life as Plato, Aristotle, Dante, and Shake­ speare are as much inspired as are the writings of Moses and Paul.

1. L l. Disagree, because the writings of Moses and Paul contain a special inspiration from God which other human writings do not have.
2. A 2. Agree, since there is really little difference in these writings. In fact, Plato and
3. Aristotle may be even more important for us than Moses or Paul.
4. M 3. Disagree, although any writing may be inspired, the writings of Moses and Paul are especially significant because they form part of the revelation of God in history.

• All miracles in the Bible are true.

1. L 1. Agree, because the Bible cannot contain any false report of God’s work.
2. A 2. Disagree, since “miracles” can be explained by our modem understanding of the principles by which nature and human society operate.
3. M 3. Agree, but only in the sense that “miracles” are a dramatic report and interpretation of a natural process, with the literary purpose of pointing to the sovereignty of God. They are probably not factually accurate.
4. M 4. Perhaps, since there is considerable evidence for extra-physical power used by a few persons in every major cultural tradition, though there is no clear scientific proof.

• Jesus was born of a virgin in a manner different from human beings.

1. A 1. Disagree, although most religions claim a virgin birth for their founder, we know that such an event is physically impossible.
2. M 2. Agree, but only in the sense that this is an ancient mythological way of talking about the Ultimate Reality as manifested in Jesus.
3. L 3. Agree, since God conceived Jesus in Mary’s womb before she had sexual relationship with her Joseph, her husband.

• The attempt to believe in a supernatural being is a sign of a person’s failure to accept responsibility for his own life.

1. A 1. Agree, since belief in God is usually an escape from the problems of everyday life. Such belief does nothing to help solve one’s problem.
2. L 2. Disagree, because belief in God is really the only way in which man can be saved and make his life worthwhile.
3. M 3. Disagree, since belief in God is basically man’s way of talking about his full acceptance of personal responsibility in the face of ultimate and sometimes uncertain reality.

• I believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

1. L I. Agree, since God has said that he will be with us always. Prayer thus is an effective way of listening to God’s guidance.
2. A 2. Disagree, since the supernatural, if it exists at all, is in no way directly involved in telling man what to do.
3. M 3. Agree, because this is one way of describing the involvement of God with his creation and man.

• The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever.

1. L I. Agree, since God created man and expects man to do God’s will at all times.
2. A 2. Disagree, since man must find his own purposes in life. There are probably no purposes for man which are apparent in nature.
3. M 3. Agree, because the essential purpose of God is that man achieve his own maximum fulfillment through personal development and service to others.
4. M 4. Agree, since the individual who enjoys God’s creation and serves his fellow man is at the same time glorifying God.

• I believe Hell is a form of existence in a future life.

1. M I. Disagree, since Hell is not a future life existence, but rather a present state in this life which occurs when man disregards his own code of ethics and/or rights of other individuals.
2. A 2. Disagree, since there is little, if any, evidence for any type of existence after this life.
3. L 3. Agree, since there is ample evidence in the Bible and other authoritative sources for Hell as a form of future existence.

• The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, contain some legendary materials.

1. A I. Agree, since most of the material in the gospels cannot be supported by other historical sources or is not relevant to life in today’s world.
2. L 2. Disagree, since nothing in the four gospels could be legendary or in error, because these are part of the Bible and therefore infallible.
3. M 3. Agree, but this does not deny the basic purpose of the gospels, which is to use written language (however inadequate) to announce God’s revelation of himself to man.

• We are made for fellowship with God and our hearts are restless until they rest in him.

1. M I. Agree, although this is merely a way of talking about the ultimate nature of man’s activities as being in some way related to God’s purposes.
2. A 2. Disagree, since man’s restlessness results from his inability to identify with a group of persons and enjoy people about him, not in a supposed relation to some God.
3. L 3. Agree, since God’s basic purpose in creating man is so that man can be a companion to God.

• Man is saved by the free gift of God’s grace.

1. L I. Agree, since the Bible clearly states that salvation is by man’s faith in God and his grace.
2. A 2. Disagree, since whatever salvation there is must come through man’s work in the world about him.
3. M 3. Agree, since this is a traditional expression which really refers to the unconditional nature of God’s grace toward man.

• The biblical writers were endowed with a divine wisdom which enabled them to foretell specific events in the distant future.

1. M l. Disagree, since the basic purpose of prophecy in the Bible was to announce God’s judgment of the ways in which that present generation failed to act in harmony with God’s purposes for man.
2. L 2. Agree, since many of these prophecies either came true in earlier history, in the Bible, or are coming true in the world today.
3. A 3. Disagree, since biblical writers had no greater wisdom than other men of their day. Any prophecies which may have come true were the result of a knowledge of cause and effect which any man could achieve.

• Man is ultimately responsible to God.

1. A l. Disagree, because man is finally responsible only to himself and his society.
2. M 2. Agree, because this is a way of describing the basic assumption upon which all other concepts of responsibility depend.
3. L 3. Agree, because God has created man in his image and expects man to do God’s will.

• God is only a symbol of man’s ideals.

1. M l. Disagree, although man’s experiences may be symbolized in the image of God, the reality of God always transcends man’s symbols for that reality.
2. A 2. Agree, since religious men tend to ascribe to God their own highest ideals.
3. L 3. Disagree, since there is clear evidence for a real God who is much more than just the result of man’s rational powers.

• Jesus walked on water and raised the dead.

1. A 1. Disagree, since these are probably exaggerated reports of events which could be explained through our knowledge of nature.
2. L 2. Agree, since there are several accounts in which Jesus actually brought a physically dead person back to life. These accounts provide evidence for God’s power over nature.
3. M 3. Agree, but only in the sense that these are figurative ways of describing man’s awareness of the meaning of life in relation to the revelation of God.

• The biblical story of creation is probably based on one of the early Babylonian myths.

1. M 1. Agree, but the basic purpose of the creation story is to symbolize God’s creative and redemptive relation to the universe and to man.
2. L 2. Disagree, since the biblical story of creation has not been duplicated in any way at any time. It refers to God’s creation of the world and man.
3. A 3. Agree, since most religions provide such a creation story. Modem scientific theories of the origin of the universe have replaced these ancient accounts.