Religious Orientation Scale

Abstract

The Religious Orientation Scale (ROS) is a psychological measure developed primarily by Gordon Allport and J. Michael Ross to operationalize Allport’s conceptualization of religious motivation, distinguishing between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations. The scale is a capstone effort following earlier measures by Wilson (1960) and Feagin (1964).

The measure consists of two distinct subscales: the Extrinsic Scale, which assesses the degree to which an individual uses religion for utilitarian goals (such as comfort, protection, or social approval); and the Intrinsic Scale, which measures the extent to which religion serves as a “master motive,” integrating faith into all aspects of life with deep commitment. The items are typically scored using a 5-point or 9-point Likert response format, and researchers generally treat the scales as independent constructs, often classifying respondents into types (e.g., Intrinsics, Extrinsics, Indiscriminately Proreligious) based on median or theoretical midpoint splits.

Keywords

Religious Orientation Scale, Intrinsic religious orientation, Extrinsic religious orientation, Gordon Allport, Religious Motivation, Psychometrics, Religious Maturity, Quest Scale, Ethnocentrism

Authors

Gordon W. Allport, J. Michael Ross

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Orientation Scale (ROS) is to measure the motivational bases underlying an individual’s religious life. It aims to empirically differentiate between those who internalize religion as a guiding philosophy (intrinsic orientation) and those who utilize religion merely as a means to achieve non-religious, mundane goals (extrinsic orientation).

The scale was developed to test the hypothesis, rooted in Allport’s earlier work on “mature” versus “immature” religious sentiment, that the nature of one’s religious commitment determines psychological and social outcomes, such as prejudice and mental health.

Construct

The ROS measures two central dimensions of religious motivation: Extrinsic religious orientation and Intrinsic religious orientation.

• Extrinsic Orientation: This is characterized by a utilitarian or instrumental approach to faith. Religion is peripheral and serves as a means (a servant) to achieve external ends, such as seeking comfort, protection, security, or social status and approval.
• Intrinsic Orientation: This orientation views religion as an ultimate end (a master motive). Faith is highly centralized, comprehensive, and dynamic, guiding the individual’s entire approach to life. It reflects a devout, non-mundane, and sometimes self-denying quality of commitment.

Allport’s original conceptualization (1950) framed this distinction as “mature” versus “immature” religious sentiment, emphasizing six characteristics of maturity (well-differentiated, dynamic, consistent morality, comprehensive, integral, and heuristic). While later discussions focused narrowly on the “master motive” aspect of intrinsic orientation, the underlying construct remains centered on whether religion is “lived” (Intrinsic) or “used” (Extrinsic).

Validity

Evaluating the validity of the ROS is complex due to conceptual shifts in Allport’s work and the inherent value-ladenness of the constructs. Validity is often examined from structural-content and structural-relational standpoints.

From a Structural-Content perspective, the Intrinsic scale demonstrates high internal consistency and supports the “religion as a master motive” conceptualization prevalent in Allport’s later writings. However, critics like Batson (1976) argue that the Intrinsic scale is inadequate as a comprehensive measure of Allport’s original “religious maturity,” as it fails to capture themes like grappling with existential questions or openness to religious change (leading to the development of the Quest Scale).

The Extrinsic scale’s validity is supported by the fact that its items load onto separable factors related to comfort-seeking, status-seeking, and tangentiality, which aligns precisely with Allport and Ross’s conceptualization of utilitarian motivation.

From a Structural-Relational standpoint, Allport and Ross initially expected a strong inverse linear relationship between the two scales, suggesting bipolarity. However, initial findings showed a near-zero linear correlation, leading many researchers to conclude the orientations are independent. Subsequent research by Burris (1994) demonstrated a significant inverse curvilinear relationship: below the Intrinsic midpoint, the correlation is positive (suggesting rejection of both, or irreligiosity); above the Intrinsic midpoint, the correlation is negative (supporting the bipolarity assumption only among highly religious individuals).

Concerning External Standards, the Intrinsic scale positively correlates with measures of religious commitment and general sense of purpose in life. The Extrinsic scale positively correlates with variables suggestive of stress and maladjustment, as well as being linked to ethnocentrism and prejudice. The long-standing implicit heuristic that “Extrinsic is bad, Intrinsic is good” has sometimes complicated objective validity research, particularly regarding potential links between intrinsic orientation and subtle forms of prejudice.

Reliability

The reliability of the ROS is generally acceptable, though the two scales show differential internal consistency.

• Intrinsic Scale: Internal consistencies (measured by Cronbach’s alpha) typically range from adequate to excellent, most commonly in the mid-.80s (Donahue, 1985a).
• Extrinsic Scale: Internal consistencies are invariably lower, with Cronbach’s alphas typically in the low-.70s (Donahue, 1985a). This lower reliability is often attributed to the scale’s design, as it taps multiple, diverse manifestations of extrinsic orientation (e.g., comfort-seeking and status-seeking), suggesting multidimensionality.

Two-week test-retest reliabilities reported by Burris and Tarpley (in press) were .84 for the Intrinsic scale and .78 for the Extrinsic scale (N = 61).

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis has been a point of criticism regarding the ROS, particularly concerning the Extrinsic scale. Pure empirical criticisms often point to the multidimensionality of the Extrinsic Scale, suggesting that its items load onto separable factors (e.g., comfort-seeking, status-seeking, and tangentiality of religion) rather than a single unified dimension (Kirkpatrick, 1989; Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989). While psychometrically problematic for a strictly unidimensional scale, this multidimensionality is conceptually consistent with Allport’s broad understanding of utilitarian religious motivation.

The Intrinsic scale items, when factor-analyzed alongside other religious attitudes, tend to scatter across various factors. However, this scattering can be interpreted not as a lack of coherence, but as evidence of a common underlying construct: centralized religious motivation—the “master motive”—that permeates different religious attitudes and activities.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report scale (Psychometric measure)

Format: Typically a 20-item scale (11 Extrinsic, 9 Intrinsic items in the original Allport & Ross version) utilizing a Likert-type response format.

Language Available: English (Original), with modifications available for non-Christian or sectarian contexts.

Population Group: Adults (primarily those with a Christian background in the original form).

Age Group: Adult populations, though an “age-universal” version exists for children and special adult populations (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983).

Population Details: The original standardization sample (Allport & Ross, 1967) consisted of 309 members from six different Christian churches/denominations in the eastern United States (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist). This sample was explicitly noted as “in no sense representative.”

Test Methodology: Respondents indicate their level of agreement, typically on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), though a 9-point scale is often preferred by other researchers (e.g., Batson, 1976). Separate summation yields scores for the Extrinsic and Intrinsic scales, which are recommended to be reported as means scaled to the response format.

Keywords

Allport-Ross Scale, Religious Prejudice, Extrinsic Motivation, Intrinsic Motivation, Psychometric properties, Quest Scale, Social Desirability, Curvilinearity, Batson

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Not applicable/Not readily available for original authors)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Not applicable/Not readily available)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Address from Allport and Ross, 1967, is not provided in source material)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original conceptualization and scale items were published in 1967 (Allport & Ross, 1967). The ROS itself was not printed directly in the initial publication but was made available upon request to the authors. The scale items are widely published in secondary sources (e.g., Batson et al., 1993; Wulff, 1997).

Reference’s

Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York: MacMillan.

Allport, G. W. (1966). The religious context of prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 447-457.

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 447-457.

Batson, C. D. (1976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or double-agent? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15, 29-45.

Batson, C. D., & Burris, C. T. (1994). Personal religion: Depressant or stimulant of prejudice and discrimination? In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The seventh Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology: The psychology of prejudice (pp. 149-169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Batson, C. D., & Flory, J. D. (1990). Goal-relevant cognitions associated with helping by individuals high on intrinsic, encl religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 346–360.

Batson, C. D., Naifeh, S. J., & Pate, S. (1978). Social desirability, religious orientation, and racial prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17, 31-41.

Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991). Measuring religion as quest: 2. Reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430-447.

Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University, Press.

Burris, C. T. (1994). Curvilinearity and religious types: A second look at intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest relations. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 4, 245-260.

Burris, C. T. (1997, June). Religious orientation and social identity: Towards a theoretical integration. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Burris, C. T., Batson, C. D., Altstaedten, M., & Stephens, K. (1994). “What a friend … “: Loneliness as a motivator of intrinsic religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 326–334.

Burris, C. T., Batson, C. D., & Wagoner, K. C. (1992, November). Effect of esteem threat on intrinsic and extrinsic religion. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Washington, D. C.

Burris, C. T., Jackson, L. M., Tarpley, W. R., & Smith, G. (1996). Religion as quest: The self-directed pursuit of meaning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1068-1076.

Burris, C. T., & Tarpley, W. R. (1998). Religion as being: Preliminary validation of the Immanence scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 55-79.

Donahue, M. J. (1985a). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: The empirical research. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24, 418-423.

Donahue, M. J. (1985b). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419.

Dudley, R. L., & Cruise, R. J. (1990). Measuring religious maturity: A proposed scale. Review of Religious Research, 32, 97-109.

Feagin, J. R. (1964). Prejudice and religious types: A focused study of southern fundamentalists. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 4, 3-13.

Genia, V. (1993). A psychometric evaluation of the Allport-Ross I/E scales in a religiously heterogeneous sample. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 284-290.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1993). Religion and prejudice: Lessons not learned from the past. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 29-31.

Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E Revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348-352.

Gorsuch, R. L., & Venable, G.D. (1983). Development of an “age-universal” I-E scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 181-187.

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, 423-441.

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

Hood, R. W., Jr. (1978). The usefulness of the indiscriminately pro and anti categories of religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17, 419-431.

Hunt, R. A., & King, M. (1971). The extrinsic-intrinsic concept: A review and evaluation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 339-356.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1989). A psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin measures of intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. In M. L. Lynn & D. 0. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the social scientific study of religion (Vol. I, pp. 1-31). Greenwich, CT: JAi Press.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993). Fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, and intrinsic religious orientation as predictors of discriminatory attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 256–268.

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1990). Intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation: The boon or bane of contemporary psychology of religion? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 442-462.

Leak, G. K., & Fish, S. (1989). Religious orientation, impression management, and self-deception: Toward a clarification of the link between religiosity and social desirability. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 355-359.

Masters, K. S. (1991). Of boons, banes, babies, and bathwater: A reply to the Kirkpatrick and Hood discussion of intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 312-317.

McFarland, S. G., Warren, J.C., Jr. (1992). Religious orientation and selective exposure among fundamentalist Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31, 163-174.

Pargament, K. I. (1992). Of means and ends: Religion and the search for significance. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 201-229.

Richards, P. S. (1994). Religious devoutness, impression management, and personality functioning in college students. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 14-26.

Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., Foster, J. E., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (1986). Religiosity and social desirability. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 25, 215-232.

Wilson, W. C. (1960). Extrinsic religious values and prejudice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 286-288.

Wulff, D. M. (1997). Psychology of religion: Classic and contemporary. New York: Wiley.

Items of the RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION SCALE

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each item below by using the following rating scale:*

Extrinsic ( sub )scale**

1. Although I believe in my religion, I feel there are many more important things in my life.
2. It doesn’t matter so much what I believe so long as I lead a moral life.
3. The primary purpose of prayer is to gain relief and protection.
4. The church is most important as a place to formulate good social relationships.
5. What religion offers me most is comfort when sorrows and misfortune strike.
6. I pray chiefly because I have been taught to pray.
7. Although I am a religious person I refuse to let religious considerations influence my everyday affairs.
8. A primary reason for my interest in religion is that my church is a congenial social activity.
9. Occasionally I find it necessary to compromise my religious beliefs in order to protect my social and economic well-being.
10. One reason for my being a church member is that such membership helps to establish a person in the community.
11. l The purpose of prayer is to secure a happy and peaceful life.
12. *** Religion helps to keep my life balanced and steady in exactly the same way as my citizenship, friendships, and other memberships do.

*Many researchers have used a 9-point response format.

**The ordering of all 20 items should be scrambled.

***Indicates an additional Extrinsic item used by Feagin (1964) but not by Allport and Allport and Ross (1967).

Intrinsic ( sub )scale**

1. I. It is important for me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and meditation.
2. If not prevented by unavoidable circumstances, I attend church.
3. I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life.
4. The prayers I say when I am alone carry as much meaning and personal emotion as those said by me during services.
5. Quite often I have been keenly aware of the presence of God or the Divine Being.
6. I read literature about my faith (or church).
7. If I were to join a church group I would prefer to join a Bible study group rather than a social fellowship.
8. My religious beliefs are really what lie behind my whole approach to life.
9. Religion is especially important because it answers many questions about the meaning of life.

Batson’s Supplementary “End Dimension” Scales

Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each item below by using the following rating scale:*

Internal scale

1. My religious development is a natural response to our innate need for devotion to God.
2. God’s will should shape my life.
3. It is necessary for me to have a religious belief.
4. When it comes to religious questions, I feel driven to know the truth.
5. (-) Religion is something I have never felt personally compelled to consider.
6. (-) Whether I tum out to be religious or not doesn’t make much difference to me.
7. I have found it essential to have faith.
8. I find it impossible to conceive of myself not being religious.
9. (-) For me, religion has not been a “must.”

External scale

1. The church has been very important for my religious development.
2. My minister (or youth director, camp counselor, etc.) has had a profound influence on my personal religious development.
3. A major factor in my religious development has been the importance of religion for my parents.
4. My religion serves to satisfy needs for fellowship and security.
5. Certain people have served as “models” for my religious development.
6. (-) Outside forces (other persons, church, etc.) have been relatively unimportant in my religious development.

Doctrinal Orthodoxy scale

1. I believe in the existence of a just and merciful personal God.
2. I believe God created the universe.
3. I believe God has a plan for the universe.
4. I believe Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God.
5. I believe Jesus Christ was resurrected (raised from the dead).
6. I believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament.
7. I believe one must accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to be saved from sin.
8. I believe in the “second coming” (that Jesus Christ will one day return to judge and rule the world).
9. I believe in “original sin” (we are all born sinners).
10. I believe in life after death.
11. I believe there is a transcendent realm (an “other” world, not just this world in which we live).
12. I believe the Bible is the unique authority for God’s will.

Note.(-) indicates a reverse-scored item. For additional unscored buffer items, as well as details regarding scoring procedures, see Batson et al. (1993).