FAITH DEVELOPMENT INTERVIEW GUIDE

Abstract

The Faith Development Interview Guide (FDIG) is a sophisticated, semi-directive assessment tool designed to measure an individual’s global level of faith development, based on the structural-developmental theory proposed by James W. Fowler (1981). Following the tradition of structural-developmental theorists such as Piaget, Kohlberg, and Erikson, Fowler’s theory posits that the human task of meaning construction progresses through identifiable stages. Faith, in this context, is defined as the process by which a person builds a cohesive and meaningful personal framework for the world, focusing on the structure and maintenance of this framework rather than its specific religious content. The FDIG assesses six core stages of faith development (plus one inferred stage) by analyzing responses across seven key aspects of faith, requiring considerable clinical skill for administration and specialized training for accurate scoring.

Keywords

Faith Development Theory, James Fowler, Structural-Developmental Psychology, Meaning Construction, Semi-directive Interview, Stages of Faith, Religious Psychology, Moral Development, Ego Development

Authors

James W. Fowler

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Faith Development Interview Guide is to provide an outline for a semi-directive interview intended to determine the individual’s global stage of faith development. This assessment aims to place the interviewee within the sequential, hierarchical stages postulated by Fowler’s theory, thereby identifying the complexity and structural maturity of their meaning-making system.

The guide is explicitly designed as a starting point, recognizing that mechanical application of the questions is insufficient. A successful assessment requires the interviewer to possess considerable clinical acumen and deep familiarity with the underlying theory to probe responses effectively, attending to both the manifest content and the underlying process of meaning construction.

Construct

The FDIG measures Faith Development, which Fowler defines as the process of constructing a personal framework for achieving coherence and meaning in life. This construct is characterized by stages that are invariant, sequential, and hierarchical. Individuals must progress through these stages in a fixed order, assimilating but not obliterating prior stages.

Fowler hypothesized seven stages of faith, although the FDIG is designed to measure six (Stages 1 through 6). Scoring involves assigning a stage score for seven specific, measurable aspects of faith, which are then averaged to yield a global faith development stage score (including transitional scores, e.g., 4/5):

• Form of Logic: The characteristic decision rules used in reasoning about faith and meaning.
• Perspective Taking: The capacity for seeing oneself from an interpersonal other or third-party standpoint.
• Form of Moral Judgment: The foundation upon which an individual bases their ethics.
• Bounds of Social Awareness: The degree to which diverse experiences are incorporated into meaning construction.
• Locus of Authority: The primary source of guidance, approval, or validation.
• Form of World Coherence: The awareness of the subjectivity and internal consistency of one’s assumptions.
• Symbolic Functioning: The depth, flexibility, and malleability of meanings associated with core symbols.

Validity

Fair empirical support exists for the validity of the FDIG. Fowler’s original (1981) cross-sectional sample demonstrated a positive, albeit weak, relationship between chronological age and faith stage, supporting the contention that advancing age is a necessary but not sufficient condition for advanced faith development. Notably, no Stage 5 individuals were found below the 31-40 age group.

Further construct validity evidence was provided by Snarey (1991), who studied a sample of atheistic current or former Israeli kibbutz dwellers. This research demonstrated that the faith stage distribution was similar to that of comparable theistic samples, suggesting the framework is not inherently biased toward traditional religion. Additionally, faith stage scores were found to be moderately positively correlated with both moral development and ego development scores, suggesting related but non-redundant constructs. Higher faith stages were also correlated with a more flexible, abstract use of symbolic functioning (e.g., subtle vs. obvious symbols of Jewish identity in dwellings).

However, findings that higher faith stages correlate positively with variables like level of education and social class raise concerns about potential intellectualist and classist biases inherent in the assessment framework. These criticisms are common in stage theories that posit an idealized endpoint, such as those related to Moral judgment development.

Reliability

The reliability of the FDIG, particularly given the complexity of the scoring procedure, is considered impressive. Snarey (1991) reported an interrater reliability coefficient of .88, which is considered typical for the measure. This high level of agreement between independent raters is crucial because the interview responses require subjective interpretation against the seven aspects of faith.

Internal consistency, based on the scores across the seven aspects of faith, was reported at .93. While Snarey cautioned that this figure might be slightly inflated due to raters’ unconscious desire for self-consistency, the overall reliability indicators suggest the FDIG provides consistent measurement of the construct.

Factor Analysis

Formal factor analysis is not the primary psychometric method used to validate the FDIG’s structure, as the instrument is qualitative and developmental in nature. Instead of relying on psychometric factors, the structure of the scale is based on structural-developmental theory, where the seven scoring aspects (e.g., Form of Logic, Locus of Authority) act as distinct, theoretically derived dimensions that characterize the overall stage structure. An individual’s stage score is derived by averaging the scores assigned across these seven conceptual components, rather than through factor loading techniques.

Instrument

Test Type: Semi-directive interview (Qualitative/Developmental)

Format: Structured interview guide used to elicit narrative responses, followed by transcription and detailed content analysis against the scoring manual.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population, cross-cultural studies have been conducted (e.g., Israeli kibbutz dwellers).

Age Group: Children through older adults (Ages 4 to 84 in the original sample).

Population Details: Fowler’s original sample (1981) consisted of 359 predominantly White women and men. The religious composition was nearly half Protestant, slightly over one-third Catholic, and the balance comprised of Jewish and “other” respondents.

Test Methodology: Administration requires 1-3 hours of contact time per interview (less for children). Transcription of taped interviews is strongly recommended. Scoring is highly labor-intensive, requiring thorough familiarity with the specialized scoring manual (Moseley, Jarvis, & Fowler, 1993). Fowler (1981) recommended at least three reads of a transcript before assigning scores, and a co-rater is required to ensure accuracy and establish interrater reliability.

Keywords

Fowler Stages, Meaning-Making, Psychology of Religion, Developmental Stages, Clinical Acumen, Interview Scoring, Transcendence, Symbolic Functioning, Primal Faith

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (James W. Fowler)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A (Original work published while Fowler was at Emory University)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The original conceptualization and interview guide were published in 1981. The detailed scoring procedure is contained in the 1993 Manual for Faith Development Research (Moseley, Jarvis, & Fowler). Due to the complexity and proprietary nature of the scoring manual and the requirement for specialized rater training, permissions for research use must typically be sought from the relevant academic bodies or Fowler’s estate/affiliated research centers.

Reference’s

Barnes, M., Doyle, D., & Johnson, B. (1989). The formation of a Fowler scale: An empirical assessment among Catholics. Review of Religious Research, 30, 412-420.

Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. San Francisco: Harper & Row.

Fowler, J. W. (1994). Moral stages and the development of faith. In W. Pupa (Ed.), Moral Development, Volume 2: Fundamental research in moral development (pp. 130-160). New York: Garland.

Fowler, J. W. (1996). Pluralism and oneness in religious experience: William James, faith-development theory, and clinical practice. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 165-186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Green, C. W., & Hoffman, C. L. (1989). Stages of faith and perceptions of similar and dissimilar others. Review of Religious Research, 30, 246-254.

Leak, G. K., & Randall, B. A. (1995). Clarification of the link between right-wing authoritarianism and religiousness: The role of religious maturity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34, 245-252.

Moseley, R., Jarvis, D., & Fowler, J. W. (1993). 1993 Manual for faith development research. (Rev. Karen B. DeNicola.) Atlanta, GA: Center for Research in Faith and Moral Development, Emory University. The scoring manual can be found in this reference.

Snarey, J. (1991). Faith development, moral development, and nontheistic Judaism: A construct validity study. In W. M. Kurtines and J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbok of moral behavior and development, Volume 2: Research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

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

[quads id=5]

Items of the FAITH DEVELOPMENT INTERVIEW GUIDE

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

Part I: Life Review

1. Factual Data: Date and place of birth? Number and ages of siblings? Occupation of providing parent or parents? Ethnic, racial, and religious identifications? Characterization of social class-family of origin and now?
2. Divide life into chapters: (major) segments created by changes or experiences-“tuming points” or general circumstances.
3. In order for me to understand the flow or movement in your life and your way of feeling and thinking about it, what other persons and experiences would be important for me to know about?
4. Thinking about yourself at present: What gives your life meaning? What makes life worth living for you?

Part II: Life-Shaping Experiences and Relationships

1. At present, what relationships seem most important for your life? (E.g., intimate, familial, or work relationships.)
2. You did/did not mention your father in your mentioning of significant relationships. When you think of your father as he was during the time you were a child, what stands out? What was his work? What were his special interests? Was he a religious person? Explain.
3. When you think of your mother…[same questions as previous]?
4. Have your perceptions of your parents changed since you were a childHow?
5. Are there other persons who at earlier times or in the present have been significant in the shaping of your outlook on life?
6. Have you experienced losses, crises or suffering that have changed or “colored” your life in special ways?
7. Have you had moments of joy, ecstasy, peak experience, or breakthrough that have shaped or changed your life? (e.g., in nature, in sexual experience or in the presence of inspiring beauty or communication?)
8. What were the taboos in your early lifeHow have you lived with or out of those taboos? Can you indicate how the taboos in your life have changed? What are the taboos now?
9. What experiences have affirmed your sense of meaning in life? What experiences have shaken or disturbed your sense of meaning?

Part Ill: Present Values and Commitments

1. Can you describe the beliefs and values or attitudes that are most important in guiding your own life?
2. What is the purpose of human life?
3. Do you feel that some approaches to life are more “true” or right than others? Are there some beliefs that all or most people ought to hold and act on?
4. Are there symbols or images or rituals that are important to you?
5. What relationships or groups are most important as support for your values and beliefs?
6. You have described some beliefs and values that have become important to you. How important are they? In what ways do these beliefs and values find expression in your life? Can you give some specific examples of how and when they have had effect? (e.g., times of crisis, decisions, groups affiliated with, causes invested in, risks and costs of commitment.)
7. When you have an important decision to make regarding your life, how do you go about deciding? Example?
8. Is there a “plan” for human lives? Are we-individually or as a species–deterrnined or affected in our lives by power beyond human control?
9. When life seems most discouraging and hopeless, what holds you up or renews your hope? Example?
10. When you think about the future, what makes you feel most anxious or uneasy (for your- self and those you love; for society or institutions; for the world)?
11. What does death mean to you? What becomes of us when we die?
12. Why do some persons and groups suffer more than others?
13. Some people believe that we will always have poor people among us, and that in general life rewards people according to their efforts. What are your feelings about this?
14. Do you feel that human life on this planet will go on indefinitely, or do you think it is about to end?

Part IV: Religion

1. Do you have or have you had important religious experiences?
2. What feelings do you have when you think about God?
3. Do you consider yourself a religious person?
4. If you pray, what do you feel is going on when you pray?
5. Do you feel that your religious outlook is “true”? In what sense? Are religious traditions other than your own “true”?
6. What is sin (or sins)How have your feelings about this changedHow did you feel or think about sin as a child, an adolescent, and so on?
7. Some people believe that without religion morality breaks down. What do you feel about this?
8. Where do you feel that you are changing, growing, struggling or wrestling with doubt in your life at the present time? Where is your growing edge?
9. What is your image (or idea) of mature faith?