Religious Attitude Inventory

Abstract

The Religious Attitude Inventory (RAI) is a 50-item psychometric instrument designed to quantify the intensity and extremeness of an individual’s religious attitude. It is intentionally non-specific to any single religious denomination, allowing for broad application. Respondents use a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree).

The scale balances 25 orthodox (positive) and 25 nonconformist (negative) statements, which are randomly alternated to mitigate response sets. Nonconformist items are reverse scored. Scoring ranges from 50 (extremely nonconformist attitude) to 250 (extremely orthodox attitude), with higher scores reflecting a more positive or traditional religious orientation. The inclusion of a neutral midpoint (3, neither agree nor disagree) further enhances the scale’s sensitivity to moderate views.

Keywords

Religious attitudes, orthodoxy, nonconformity, ego involvement, psychometric scale, Likert-type scale, religious doctrine, church.

Authors

David P. Ausubel, S. H. Schpoont.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Attitude Inventory (RAI) is to measure the intensity or extremeness of an individual’s religious attitude, distinguishing between extremely orthodox and extremely nonconformist views. It aims to quantify where an individual falls along this continuum, rather than simply measuring general religiosity.

The instrument is specifically designed to assess attitude intensity across four core theological and institutional issues: God, immortality, religious doctrine, and the church. By including a neutral midpoint and alternating item polarity, the scale seeks to provide a nuanced measure of attitude strength.

Construct

The RAI measures religious attitude intensity, a construct assumed by the developers to correlate strongly with the concept of ego involvement. Attitudes that possess high ego involvement are considered central to the individual’s self-image and personality structure, leading to deeply held, often extreme, positions.

The scale defines two opposing poles of the construct: Orthodox attitudes reflect positive alignment with traditional religious doctrines, God, immortality, and the church. Conversely, Nonconformist attitudes reflect negative or skeptical views toward these same traditional ideals. The inventory is designed to capture the entire spectrum of intensity between these two extremes.

Validity

Initial validation was established by Ausubel and Schpoont (1957) using the original sample of 95 students. Participants were grouped into orthodox, neutral, and nonconformist categories based on their scores. Significance tests demonstrated high statistical significance (p < .01) in the differences between the mean scores of all three groups, confirming the RAI’s ability to successfully discriminate between individuals holding extreme religious attitudes.

Further validity evidence was provided by Foy, Lowe, Hildman, and Jacobs (1976). In one study involving 88 undergraduates, the RAI scores were correlated with scores from a separate 5-item questionnaire assessing religious background and current religious practices. A strong correlation coefficient of .73 was obtained, supporting the concurrent validity of the scale.

A second study by Foy et al. (1976) involving 195 community residents found significant gender differences (p < .001), consistent with prior religious measures (cf. Lenski, 1953), where females reported more orthodox attitudes than males, further bolstering the scale’s external validity in reflecting known demographic patterns in religious belief.

Reliability

The reliability of the Religious Attitude Inventory was assessed using the split-half coefficient of equivalence. This method involved correlating the total scores of odd-numbered items with the total scores of even-numbered items, and then correcting the resulting coefficient using the Spearman-Brown formula.

Ausubel and Schpoont (1957) reported an “unusually high internal consistency,” achieving a correlation coefficient of .97. This finding was corroborated by independent research conducted by Foy et al. (1976), who reported a similar split-half reliability coefficient of .96. The high coefficients suggest exceptional internal consistency within the 50-item scale. Test-retest reliability data, however, was not reported in the foundational studies.

Factor Analysis

While the study by Foy, Lowe, Hildman, and Jacobs (1976) explicitly included a factor analysis of the Religious Attitude Inventory (RAI) in their investigation, the specific details regarding the resulting factor structure were not provided in the source documentation. A factor analysis would typically aim to confirm whether the 50 items cluster according to the scale’s theoretical dimensions, such as attitudes toward God, immortality, religious doctrine, and the church institution.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-administered psychometric scale.

Format: Paper-and-pencil measure; 50 statements utilizing a 5-point Likert-type scale.

Language Available: English (Original development).

Population Group: Widely applicable to members of diverse religious backgrounds, as the scale is not specific to any one religious affiliation.

Age Group: Developed and standardized primarily on young adult university students (mean age 20.5 years).

Population Details: Initial standardization involved 38 education graduate students and a final sample of 95 undergraduate students (82 female, 13 male) at the University of Illinois.

Test Methodology: The measure takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete. Scoring involves reversing the responses for the 25 nonconformist items (marked with an asterisk) to yield a final score ranging from 50 (nonconformist) to 250 (orthodox).

Keywords

Attitude measurement, psychological assessment, D. P. Ausubel, religious beliefs, scale development, internal consistency.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not specified in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Religious Attitude Inventory was first published and documented in 1957 by David P. Ausubel and S. H. Schpoont in The Journal of Social Psychology. The scale was later reproduced in key academic collections, such as Shaw & Wright’s Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes (1967). Information regarding current usage permissions or associated fees is not provided in the original source documents.

Reference’s

Ausubel, D. P., & Schpoont, S. H. (1957). Prediction of group opinion as a function of extremeness of predictor attitudes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 19-29.

Dolby, J. R., Hanson, C., & Strayer, R. (1968). Personality factors and religious attitude change. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 7, 283.

Foy, D., Lowe, J. D., Hildman, L. K., & Jacobs, K. W. (1976). Reliability, validity, and factor analysis of the Religious Attitude Inventory. Southern Journal of Educational Research, 10, 235-241.

Lenski, G. (1953). Social correlates of religious interest. American Sociological Review, 18, 533-544.

Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J.M. (1967). Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Wyatt, C. S., & Johnson, R. W. (1990). The influence of counselors’ religious values on clients’ perceptions of the counselor. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 18, 158-165.

Items of the RELIGIOUS ATTITUDE INVENTORY

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

Respond to each of these items on a 1 to 5 scale:

• Means that you strongly agree with a given statement.
• Means that you tend to agree more than disagree with a given statement.
• Means that you neither agree nor disagree with a given statement.
• Means that you tend to disagree more than agree with a given statement.
• Means that you strongly disagree with a given statement.

1. God made everything-the stars, the animals, and the flowers.
2. The gift of immortality has been revealed by prophets and religious teachers.
3. * The church has acted as an obstruction to the development of social justice.
4. There are many events which cannot be explained except on the basis of divine or supernatural intervention.
5. * The church is a monument to human ignorance.
6. * The idea of God is useless.
7. God hears and answers one’s prayers.
8. * The soul is mere suppositions, having no better standing than a myth.
9. * The universe is merely a machine. Man and nature are creatures of cause and effect. All notions of Deity as intelligent Being or as a “spiritual force” are fictions, and prayer is a useless superstition.
10. It is by means of the church that peace and good-will may replace hatred and strife throughout the world.
11. God created man separate and distinct from the animals.
12. * The church is a harmful institution, breeding narrow-mindedness, fanaticism, and intolerance.
13. Christ, as the Gospels state, should be regarded as divine, as the human incarnation of God.
14. * There is no evidence in modem science that the natural universe of human destiny is affected by faith or prayer.
15. * The notion of retribution in a future life is due to wishful thinking.
16. * The good done by the church is not worth the money and energy spent on it.
17. The orderliness of the universe is the result of a divine plan.
18. * The church is a stronghold of much that is unwholesome and dangerous to human welfare. It fosters intolerance, bigotry, and ignorance.
19. The existence of God is proven because He revealed Himself directly to the prophets described in the Old Testament.
20. The church is the greatest influence for good government and right living.
21. * God is only a figment of one’s imagination.
22. Man is a creature of faith and to live without faith in some Supreme Power is to suffer a homesickness of the soul.
23. God will, depending on how we behave on earth, reward or punish us in the world to come.
24. * People who advocate Sunday observance are religious fanatics.
25. * It is simple-minded to picture any God in control of the universe.
26. The church is the greatest agency for the uplift of the world.
27. * The idea of God is mere superstition.
28. The world was created in six solar days.
29. * The idea of God is unnecessary in our enlightened age.
30. God has good reason for everything that happens to us, even though we cannot understand it sometimes.
31. The soul lives on after the body dies.
32. The existence of God is shown by the fortunate results through approaching Him in prayer.
33. * The country would be better off if the churches were closed and the ministers were set to some useful work.
34. * The so-called spiritual experience of men cannot be distinguished from the mental and emotional, and thus there can be no transference from this world to a so-called spiritual one.
35. The first writing of the Bible was done under the guidance of God.
36. * The church is hundreds of years behind the times and can not make a dent on modem life.
37. Belief in God makes life on earth worthwhile.
38. God cares whether we repent or not.
39. * Man cannot be honest in his thinking and endorse what the church teaches.
40. * There is no life after death.
41. Since Christ brought the dead to life, He can give eternal life to all who have faith.
42. * The church represents shallowness, hypocrisy, and prejudice.
43. There is an infinitely wise, omnipotent creator of the universe, whose protection and favor may be supplicated through worship and prayer.
44. * The paternal and benevolent attitude of the church is quite distasteful to a mature person.
45. * The church deals in platitudes and is afraid to follow the logic of truth.
46. God protects from harm all those who really trust Him.
47. Immortality is certain because of Christ’s sacrifice for all mankind.
48. * There is a far better way of explaining the working of the world than to assume any God.
49. * It seems absurd for a thinking man to be interested in the church.
50. The idea of God is the best explanation for our wonderful world.

*These items are negative, and the weights for their alternatives must be reversed for purposes of scoring (e.g., a response of 4 should be converted to a 2 and vice versa).