INDISCRIMINATE PRORELIGIOUSNESS SCALE

Abstract

The Indiscriminate Proreligiousness Scale (IPRO) is a psychometric instrument developed to quantify an individual’s tendency toward simultaneous endorsement of both intrinsic religiousness and extrinsic religiousness at personal and congregational levels. Developed by Pargament and colleagues, the scale addresses the conceptual challenge raised by individuals who score high on both subscales of the Allport and Ross (1967) Religious Orientation Scale, suggesting that high scores on both orientations are not necessarily inconsistent.

The IPRO is structured around two subscales: the Congregational Form (PRO-C) and the Personal Form (PRO-P). The PRO-C assesses attitudes toward church life, including leadership, activities, and policies. The PRO-P focuses on an individual’s private religious life, covering devotional, ritual, and ideological practices. Both subscales employ a true-false format designed to distinguish between a highly idealized, often implausible, proreligious position and a more discriminating viewpoint. PRO-C contains 16 items (8 reverse-scored), and PRO-P contains 12 items (5 reverse-scored).

Keywords

Indiscriminate Proreligiousness, IPRO, Religious Orientation, PRO-C, PRO-P, Religious Measurement, Intrinsic Religiousness, Extrinsic Religiousness, Psychology of Religion, Social Desirability.

Authors

Kenneth I. Pargament, Michael T. Brannick, Helen Adamakos, David S. Ensing, Martha L. Kelemen, Richard K. Warren, Kathy Falgout, Pamela Cook, & Judy Myers.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the IPRO scale is to provide a specific and reliable measure for indiscriminate proreligiousness. This construct was introduced by Pargament to explain the phenomenon where individuals exhibit a strong, generalized positive response to religious material, even when statements describe an unrealistically perfect religious life or community.

The scale was developed following the observation that scoring high on both intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations—a pattern often criticized as illogical—may instead reflect a genuine commitment in which individuals both “live” (sincerely internalize) and “use” (utilize for personal or social gain) their faith. The IPRO operationalizes this tendency by presenting items where the proreligious position lacks plausibility, forcing the respondent to choose between idealism and realism.

Construct

The core psychological construct measured is Indiscriminate Proreligiousness, which is characterized by a pervasive tendency to endorse religious affirmations positively, irrespective of whether those affirmations are realistic or logically sustainable. This tendency is assessed across two primary dimensions:

• Congregational Proreligiousness (PRO-C): This subscale measures the degree to which an individual holds an overly idealized, unquestioning view of their religious institution. Items cover areas such as the absence of conflict among members, the perfection of leaders, and the flawless execution of church activities.
• Personal Proreligiousness (PRO-P): This subscale measures the degree to which an individual holds an overly idealized view of their own religious behavior and commitment. Items relate to the absolute consistency of personal faith, devotion, prayer effectiveness, and adherence to religious teachings in all aspects of daily life.

Validity

The validity of the IPRO scale was extensively examined, focusing on content and construct validity. Content validity was established through a factor analysis, which supported the two-factor structure (PRO-C and PRO-P).

Construct validity was supported by five key findings demonstrating the scale’s theoretical coherence and generalizability across church and student populations. First, the correlation between IPRO subscales and the Crowne-Marlowe measure of social desirability was only moderate (.29 to .52 across samples and subscales), indicating that the IPRO measures a distinct religious orientation rather than pure response bias. Second, the moderate correlation between PRO-P and PRO-C (.40 to .44) confirmed they assess related but non-identical domains of indiscriminate proreligiousness.

Third, PRO-C demonstrated higher median correlations (.43) with measures of congregational satisfaction and climate than PRO-P (.22). Fourth, PRO-P showed higher median correlations (.30) with various traditional religious variables (e.g., intrinsic motivation, orthodoxy, prayer frequency) than PRO-C (.10). This differential pattern of correlation provides strong evidence of construct distinction. Fifth, a modest relationship was confirmed between PRO-P scores and indiscriminate proreligiousness as classified by the Allport and Ross Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale typology.

Reliability

Internal consistency reliability was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha across two independent samples. For the church sample (N=261), the reliability estimates were strong and acceptable: Cronbach’s alpha was .78 for the PRO-C scale and .75 for the PRO-P scale.

For the student sample (N=305), the PRO-C scale maintained high reliability at .82. However, the PRO-P scale showed a lower internal consistency estimate of .59. Researchers hypothesized that this lower PRO-P reliability in the student group was likely due to the low rate of endorsement for several dichotomous items, which statistically limits the correlation potential. Alternatively, it might reflect a lower level of religious commitment and integration among students, a hypothesis supported by the fact that the student sample scored significantly lower than the church sample on the Hoge (1972) Intrinsic scale.

Factor Analysis

The structural integrity of the IPRO was confirmed through a factor analysis employing a promax rotation technique. This analysis was crucial in establishing the content validity and confirming that the scale effectively measures two distinct, yet related, constructs: congregational and personal proreligiousness.

Results showed that all items achieved factor loadings of at least .20 on their designated factor. Furthermore, the analysis demonstrated appropriate discriminant validity, as items generally did not cross-load onto the opposing factor, with the exception of only two PRO-C items. The inclusion of negatively worded (reverse-scored) items across both subscales was specifically designed to minimize the influence of a general agreement response set, thereby enhancing the cleanness of the factor structure and the reliability of the measurement.

Instrument

Test Type: Measure of Religious Orientation and Idealized Belief Systems.

Format: Dichotomous True/False response format.

Language Available: English (Original version).

Population Group: Church members and church-attending students.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (Standardization samples ranged from a median age of 19 to 43).

Population Details: Standardization involved a church sample (N=261, Lutheran and Presbyterian, 41% male, median age 43) and a student sample (N=305, 27% male, median age 19, diverse Christian affiliations). Norms provided include mean scores and standard deviations for both PRO-C and PRO-P in both samples.

Test Methodology: Simple to administer and score. Proreligious responses are scored 1 (accounting for reverse scoring) and non-proreligious responses are scored 0. Total scores are calculated by summing the proreligious responses. Theoretical midpoints (PRO-C: 8; PRO-P: 6) are recommended for use when classifying orientation as a categorical variable.

Keywords

PRO-P, PRO-C, Religious Commitment, Psychometric Scale, Social Desirability, Allport and Ross, Intrinsic Religion, Extrinsic Religion, Religious Experience, Measurement of Faith.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Refer to the original publication (Pargament et al., 1987) in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion for correspondence details.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was first published in 1987. For permissions regarding academic or clinical use, researchers should contact the primary author, Kenneth I. Pargament, or the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Specific fee information is not provided in the source documentation.

Reference’s

• Allport, G. W., & Ross, J.M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
• Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New York: Wiley.
• Hathaway, W. L., & Pargament, K. I. (1990). Intrinsic religiousness, religious coping, and psychosocial competence: A covariance structure analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29(4), 423-441.
• Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 369-376.
• Pargament, K. I., Brannick, M. T., Adamakos, H., Ensing, D. S., Kelemen, M. L., Warren, R. K., Falgout, K., Cook, P., & Myers, J. (1987). Indiscriminate proreligiousness: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26, 182-200.
• Pargament, K. I., Ensing, D. S., Falgout, K., Olsen, H., Reilly, B., Van Haitsma, K., & Warren, R. (1990). God help me (I): Religious coping efforts as predictors of the outcomes to significant life events. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(6), 793-824.
• Pargament, K. I., Olsen, H., Reilly, B., Falgout, K., Ensing, D. S., & Van Haitsma, K. (1992). God help me (II): The relationship of religious orientations to religious coping with negative life events. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31(4), 504-513.

Items of the INDISCRIMINATE PRORELIGIOUSNESS SCALE

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way. (R) indicates that the item is reverse scored.

Congregational Form (PRO-C)

1. Tensions do not exist among members of this church.
2. Differences of opinion are always welcome in this church.
3. Members of the church share all of their joys and sorrows with each other.
4. Some members complain about aspects of the church. (R)
5. Church members never gossip about one another.
6. Sometimes there is a problem about getting volunteers for activities in this church. (R)
7. Sometimes church leaders don’t know members’ opinions on important issues. (R)
8. Church leaders are sometimes insensitive to members’ needs. (R)
9. Some church activities are boring. (R)
10. Members always know about all church activities.
11. It is sometimes hard for members to get involved in church activities. (R)
12. This church has programs to meet the needs of all the members.
13. There are no cliques in this church.
14. The ministers are sometimes unable to help solve members’ problems. (R)
15. The members know all the church policies and rules.
16. Our ministers do not give their full attention to some of the members. (R)

Personal Form (PRO-P)

1. Religious services always give me new insight into my religious beliefs.
2. I am always inspired by the sermon topics.
3. Sometimes I daydream during services. (R)
4. I always try to use the message of the weekly sermon in my daily life.
5. There have been times when I doubted the existence of God. (R)
6. I always live by my religious beliefs.
7. My religious beliefs guide me in every one of my daily actions.
8. There are times when I do not feel like going to church. (R)
9. Praying always brings me inner peace.
10. Sometimes I feel that the teachings of my religion ask too much of me. (R)
11. I never disobey the teachings of my faith.
12. When things are going well for me, I sometimes forget to thank God. (R)