Committed-Consensual Measures

Abstract

The Committed-Consensual Measures (CCM) are psychological scales developed by Allen and Spilka (1967) to assess distinct cognitive approaches to religious belief across diverse religious traditions, focusing on structure rather than specific theological content. The instrument was initially designed to explore the complex relationship between religiousness and prejudice. It aims to differentiate between two cognitive styles: Committed Religion and Consensual Religion.

The CCM has undergone transformations since its inception. The original 1967 version utilized a structured interview format, eliciting responses based on five cognitive components: content, clarity, complexity, flexibility, and importance. Later versions (Spilka et al., 1968; Spilka & Mullin, 1977) were adapted into a questionnaire utilizing a Likert-like format to improve administrative ease. Conceptually, Committed Religion represents an internalized, abstract, and flexible faith (‘lived faith’), while Consensual Religion represents an external, concrete, ritualistic, and more dogmatic approach (‘used faith’). The questionnaire version consists of 15 Committed items and 13 Consensual items, with some overlap noted between these subscales and the widely used Religious Orientation Scale developed by Allport and Ross (1967).

Keywords

Committed Religion, Consensual Religion, Religiousness, Prejudice, Religious Measurement, Cognitive Structure, intrinsic and extrinsic religion, Religious Orientation Scale, Utilitarianism, Dogmatism

Authors

Allen, R. O., Spilka, B.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Committed-Consensual Measures is to provide a nuanced understanding of how individuals structure their religious beliefs, independent of specific denominational doctrines. The scale was initially developed to test the hypothesis that different forms of religious cognition would predict different levels of racial prejudice.

Specifically, the authors theorized that Consensual Religion, characterized by dogmatic and external adherence, would correlate positively with higher levels of prejudice. Conversely, Committed Religion, defined by flexible, abstract, and deeply internalized principles, was expected to correlate with lower levels of prejudice. A secondary goal was to ensure that these measures of religiousness were not confounded with general psychological pathology or simple religious intensity.

Construct

The Committed-Consensual Measures assess two distinct, though related, dimensions of religious belief structure:

• Committed Religion (Cm): This construct is rooted in abstract, internalized religious principles that possess clear meaning, involve a complex structure of elements, are subject to thoughtful re-examination (flexibility), and hold central importance in the individual’s overall life philosophy. This represents a mature, integrated form of faith often described as ‘lived faith’.

• Consensual Religion (Cn): This construct is characterized by concrete beliefs that often have vague implications, involve a limited number of categories, are closed off to differing opinions, and have a restricted or limited impact on the individual’s daily life. This structure often focuses on the external forms of religion, such as rituals, ceremonies, and institutional security, and is often described as ‘used faith’.

The interview version of the scale assesses these constructs across five specific cognitive structuring components: content, clarity, complexity, flexibility, and importance.

Validity

Validity studies, particularly those conducted by Spilka (1977), established the relationship between the CCM scales and measures of utilitarianism, materialism, and achievement motivation among Christian college students. The findings indicated distinct predictive patterns:

• Committed Religion showed an inverse relationship with measures of materialism and success achievement.

• Consensual Religion showed a direct, positive relationship with status concern and success achievement.

These relationships mirrored those found using the comparable measures of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation (Allport & Ross, 1967; Hoge, 1972), suggesting that the CCM effectively taps into the distinction between internalized, non-utilitarian faith and external, goal-oriented faith. However, the modest relationship consistently observed between Consensual Religion and extrinsic religion suggests that Consensual Religion captures unique aspects of utilitarian faith, particularly concerning the importance of religious rituals and cultural adherence, which may be lost when relying solely on intrinsic/extrinsic measures.

Reliability

The Committed-Consensual Measures demonstrated high levels of reliability across both the original interview format and the later questionnaire format.

For the original interview version (Allen & Spilka, 1967), inter-rater reliability among scorers was assessed after a four-hour training session. Using an analysis of variance technique across the five cognitive elements, the reported coefficient of reliability was .93, indicating strong consistency in scoring participant responses.

For the streamlined questionnaire version, Spilka et al. (1977) reported internal consistency estimates using the Kuder-Richardson 20 (KR-20) formula:

• Reliability estimate for Committed Religion: .93

• Reliability estimate for Consensual Religion: .84

Factor Analysis

Although explicit factor analysis results are not detailed in the source material, the consistent finding that the Committed and Consensual scales show a moderate but positive correlation presents a theoretical challenge. The scales were conceptually designed to represent the endpoints of a bipolar dimension (i.e., negatively correlated or orthogonal). The observed positive correlation (Spilka, 1977) suggests that, empirically, the constructs are not entirely mutually exclusive or opposite poles, but rather two distinct, moderately co-occurring dimensions of religious orientation. This practical consideration highlights a measurement issue where the two forms of faith, while theoretically divergent, may coexist or overlap in practice, particularly concerning the motivations behind religious worship (e.g., cultural versus personal derivation of ritual importance).

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Scale (Measuring Religious Orientation/Cognitive Structure)

Format: Interview format (Original, 1967) and Questionnaire format (Later versions, Likert-like scale)

Language Available: English (Original research context)

Population Group: General population (used across a wide range of participants); specifically tested on Christian college students.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults

Population Details: The scale is intentionally designed to be non-denominational within the broad Judeo-Christian tradition, avoiding references to figures like Jesus Christ to maximize applicability across different religious groups.

Test Methodology: The questionnaire version uses a 6-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree to 6=Strongly Agree) for most items, along with a few forced-choice or frequency items.

Keywords

Psychology of Religion, Religious Scale, Allen and Spilka, Committed-Consensual Measures, Religious Prejudice, Dogmatic Faith, Ritualism, Psychometrics, Internal Consistency

Authors

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

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

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

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: Original publication 1967 (Allen & Spilka). Subsequent versions published in 1968 and 1977.

Permissions/Manual: There is no published manual for the instrument, and norms have not been formally published. Researchers must typically rely on the original journal articles for implementation and scoring details.

Fee: N/A (Likely available for academic research without fee, but specific licensing is unknown due to lack of manual.)

Reference’s

Allen, R. 0., & Spilka, B. (1967). Committed and consensual religion: A specification of religion-prejudice relationships. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 6, 191-206.

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J.M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-433.

Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 369-376.

Raschke, V. (1973). Dogmatism and committed and consensual religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 339-344.

Spilka, B. (1976). The complete person: Some theoretical views and research findings for a theological-psychology of religion. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 4, 15-24.

Spilka, B. (1977). Utilitarianism and personal faith. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 5, 226-223.

Spilka, B., & Mullin, M. (1977). Personal religion and psychosocial schemata: A research approach to a theological psychology of religion. Character Potential, 8, 57-66.

Spilka, B., Minton, B., Sizemore, D., & Stout, L. (1977). Death and personal faith: A psychometric investigation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 169-178.

Spilka, B., Read, S., Allen, R. 0., & Dailey, K. A. (1968 December). Specificity vs. generality: The criterion problem in religious measurement. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dallas, TX.

Items of the COMMITTED-CONSENSUAL MEASURES

Indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree to each statemen below by using the following scale.

• 1 = Strongly Disagree
• 2 = Moderatley Disagree
• 3 = Slightly Disagree
• 4 = Slightly Agree
• 5 = Moderatley Agree
• 6 = Strongly Agree

1. One of the most important aspects of religion is the religious ceremonies. (Cn)
2. I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life. (Cm)
3. My ideas about religion are one of the most important parts of my philosophy of life. (Cm)
4. Religion is most real to me during my attendance at public church or religious services. (Cn)
5. I do not think that the sequences of prayers, songs, etc., is very important in religious services. (Cn)
6. Quite often I have been keenly aware of the presence of God or the Divine Being. (Cm)
7. Every person needs to have the feeling of security given by a church. (Cn)
8. Tender concern for others is a means of finding joy in one’s religion. (Cm)
9. The more a religious service is ritualized the more it has meaning for me. (Cn)
10. The purpose of prayer is to secure a happy and peaceful life. (Cn)
11. The truly religious person believes honestly and wholeheartedly in the doctrines of his church. (Cn)
12. My interest in and real commitment to religion is greater now than when I first joined the church. (Cm)
13. Religion is a subject in which I am not particularly interested. (Cm – reverse scored)
14. It is important to me to spend periods of time in private thought and meditation. (Cm)
15. The ritual of worship is a very important part of religion. (Cn)
16. My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life. (Cm)
17. I like to think that people all over are going through nearly the same ritual in their religious worship. (Cn)
18. I think that the placement and treatment of the various articles of worship is very important in a worship service. (Cn)
19. I often think about matters relating to religion. (Cm)
20. Believing as I do about religion is very important to being the kind of person I want to be. (Cm)
21. The precision and orderliness with which religious ceremonies are performed is important. (Cn).
22. Religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life. (Cm)
23. It is important to me that religious services be standardized. (Cn)
24. If my ideas about religion were different, I believe that my way of life would be very different. (Cm)
25. The aim of missionaries should be to establish church buildings where religious services and ceremonies can be conducted. (Cn)
26. I read literature about my faith or church. (Cm)
    1. yes (b) no
27. If I were joining a church group, I would prefer to join (l) a Bible study group or (2) a social fellowship. (Cm)I would prefer to join ( l)I probably would prefer to join ( l)I probably would prefer to join (2)
    I would prefer to join (2)
28. How much time during the week would you say you spend reading the Bible and other religious literature? (Cm)

• one hour or more
• one-half hour
• none

Cm-item measures Committed form of personal religion Cn-item measures Consensual form of personal religion