CROSS-CULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF RELIGIOSITY

Abstract

The Cross-Cultural Dimensions of Religiosity Scale, developed by DeJong, Faulkner, and Warland (1976), is a revised and modified 38-item instrument intended to measure religious involvement across cultures. The scale assumes a multidimensionality model of religious faith, consistent with the theoretical framework established by Glock and Stark (1966).

The instrument employs various item formats, including Likert-type and forced-choice questions, and was refined using factor analytic techniques from an initial pool of 54 items. It measures six core dimensions of religious life: Belief, Experience, Religious Practices, Religious Knowledge, Individual Moral Consequences, and Social Consequences. Initial testing on American and German university students demonstrated a “strikingly similar dimensional pattern,” suggesting that the structure of religiosity may transcend specific American cultural settings.

Keywords

Religiosity, Cross-Cultural Study, Multidimensionality, Belief, Religious Practice, Social Consequences, Factor Analysis, Glock and Stark

Authors

G. F. DeJong, J. E. Faulkner, R. H. Warland

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Cross-Cultural Dimensions of Religiosity Scale was twofold: first, to refine and validate existing measures of religious involvement originally developed using Guttman scaling techniques (Faulkner & DeJong, 1966); and second, to empirically test the assumption of the multidimensionality of religion in a non-U.S. context.

By employing a sample of American and German students, the authors aimed to determine if the underlying structure of religious dimensions—as articulated by theorists like Glock and Stark—held true in different cultural settings, thereby providing a more generalized model applicable to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Religiosity, which is explicitly conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, arguing against the view that religious commitment can be captured by a single measure. The scale breaks down religious involvement into six specific, empirically derived dimensions, which collectively define the individual’s religious orientation.

The six dimensions are: Belief Dimension (covering theology, immortality, and scripture); Experience Dimension (focused on feelings of divine presence and forgiveness); Religious Practice Dimension (measuring attendance and involvement); Religious Knowledge Dimension (assessing familiarity with biblical and historical figures); Individual Moral Consequences Dimension (evaluating personal ethical stances); and Social Consequences Dimension (gauging concern for social justice issues like poverty and housing).

Validity

The primary validity checks reported by DeJong et al. (1976) focused on assessing the stability and robustness of the internal factor structure, rather than predictive or criterion validity against external measures.

The authors reported performing alternative statistical analyses, including techniques of image analysis and a derived solution based on a varimax rotation. These checks confirmed that the six-factor structure remained consistent regardless of the specific statistical method used, providing support for the construct validity of the instrument as a multidimensional measure.

Reliability

No specific reliability data (e.g., internal consistency coefficients like Cronbach’s Alpha or test-retest correlations) were reported in the original 1976 study by DeJong, Faulkner, and Warland.

Subsequent research, such as the replication conducted by Hilty and Stockman (1986), likely involved calculating reliability metrics for the revised, shorter version of the scale, but these statistics are not included in the original documentation of the DeJong et al. instrument.

Factor Analysis

The scale was developed through an initial oblique factor analysis of a 54-item pool, resulting in a final 38-item instrument comprising six factors. This analysis supported the theoretical position that religiosity is a multidimensional construct.

A replication study by Hilty and Stockman (1986) using American samples (Lutheran adults and students) corroborated five of the six dimensions but found that the Religious Practice dimension did not consistently emerge. Their refined analysis utilized a 32-item, five-factor model, which showed higher degrees of fitness. Regarding second-order factors, DeJong et al. found three, while Hilty and Stockman found only two in one sample and just one overarching factor in the other, leading them to conclude that while multidimensionality is supported, a single dimension focusing on religious ideology might account for much of the variance.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Scale; Self-Report Questionnaire

Format: 38 items utilizing mixed formats, including Likert-type questions, open-ended responses, forced-choice questions, and factual/matching questions.

Language Available: English, German (used in the cross-cultural study).

Population Group: University Students (Primary Sample); American Adults (Replication Sample).

Age Group: Late Adolescence through Adulthood.

Population Details: The initial cross-cultural sample (N = 926) was a purposive nonrandom aggregate sample consisting of 536 students from Pennsylvania State University (USA) and 390 students from the University of Bielefeld (Germany). The replication by Hilty and Stockman (1986) included 503 American Lutheran adults and 385 undergraduate students from Ohio State University.

Test Methodology: The 38 items are designed to be administered in approximately 20 minutes. Scoring involves simple summation to create composite scores for each dimension. Crucially, specific items within the Experience, Religious Practice, and Social Consequences dimensions are marked for reverse scoring to mitigate the effects of a response set.

Keywords

Cross-Cultural Psychology, Guttman Scaling, Judeo-Christian, Social Justice, Religious Experience, Measurement Theory, Behavioral Consequences

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was published in 1976. The source material does not provide explicit information regarding current permissions, usage fees, or licensing requirements. Researchers seeking to utilize the scale should consult the journal Social Forces or contact the original authors.

Reference’s

Clayton, R. R. (1971). 5-D or 1? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 37-40.

Clayton, R. R. (1974). The five dimensions of religiosity: Toward demythologizing a sacred artifact. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13, 135-143.

DeJong, G. F., Faulkner, J. E., & Warland, R. H. (1976). Dimensions of religiosity reconsidered: Evidence from a cross-cultural study. Social Forces, 54(4), 866-889.

Faulkner, J. E., & DeJong, G. (1966). Religiosity in 5-D: An empirical analysis. Social Forces, 45, 246-254.

Glock, C., & Stark, R. (1966). Christian beliefs and anti-semitism. New York: Harper & Row.

Hilty, D. M., Morgan, R., & Burns, J. (1984). King and Hunt revisited: Dimensions of religious involvement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 23(3), 252-266.

Hilty, D. M., & Morgan, R. (1985) Construct validation for the Religious Involvement Inventory: Replication. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24(1), 75-85.

Hilty, D. M., & Stockman, S. J. (1986). A covariance structure analysis of the DeJong, Faulkner and Warland Religious Involvement Model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 25(4), 483-493.

Roof, W. C. (1979). Concepts and indicators of religious commitment: A critical review. In R. Wuthnow (Ed.), The religious dimension: New directions in quantitative research. New York: Academic Press.

Weigert, A. J., & Thomas, D. L. (1969). Religiosity in 5-D: A critical note. Social Forces, 48, 260-262.

Items of the CROSS-CULTURAL DIMENSIONS OF RELIGIOSITY

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

Belief Dimension

• 1. I do not believe in immortality in any sense.
• 2. I believe in reincarnation.
• 3. I believe immortality is the continued influence of a person’s life on family or society.
• 4. While its meaning is somewhat imprecise, I believe in the continued existence of the personality as a part of a universal spiritual principle.
• 5. I believe in the resurrection of one’s being and life after death.

• 1. Simply stop existing.
• 2. Reincarnation.
• 3. I have no idea.
• 4. Uncertain.
• 5. My “spirit” will have some continuation in the universe.
• 6. Depending on the will of God, I will go to heaven or hell.

• l. I don’t believe in God.
• 2. I don’t know whether there is a God and there probably is not a way to find out.
• 3. God is a “spirit” within us.
• 4. I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a higher power of some kind.
• 5. I feel that I do believe in God even though I am not able to explain fully who or what God is.
• 6. I know God really exists and I have no doubts about it.

• 1. Frankly, I am not sure the historical Jesus existed.
• 2. I think Jesus was only a man.
• 3. I think Jesus was only a man, although an extraordinary one.
• 4. I feel that Jesus was a great religious prophet, but I don’t feel He was the Son of God any more than all of us are the children of God.
• 5. Jesus is best understood as a symbol of goodness; whether he existed or not is unim­portant.
• 6. I feel basically that Jesus is Divine, but I have some problems understanding the con­ cept of His Divinity.
• 7. Jesus is the Divine Son of God and I have no doubts about it.

• I. There is no evidence of any intervention of “God” in human history.
• 2. People who have believed in God have influenced history.
• 3. I believe the unfolding history of man has been within a natural order established by a higher power.
• 4. While I am unable to explain fully who or what God is, I believe he has an influence in the history of man.
• 5. I believe God has and continues to intervene directly and indirectly in the history of man.

• I. “Prayer” is not a meaningful term to me.
• 2. Prayer is self-evaluation and working out one’s problems.
• 3. Prayer is meditation in which thought is directed toward beauty, goodness, comfort, etc.
• 4. Prayer is directing one’s thoughts toward a higher power.
• 5. Prayer is speaking to God.

• I . I do not believe in “sin.”
• 2. I believe people err but do not “sin.”
• 3. Sin is behavior which goes against my own personal principles.
• 4. Sin is behavior which harms others.
• 5. Sin is behavior which goes against accepted social and ethical principles.
• 6. Sin is failure to live up to the highest spiritual ideals I know.
• 7. Sin is the individual’s rejection of God’s will for his life.

• 1. The Bible is a collection of myths and fantasies.
• 2. The Bible is a collection of literary and historical writings.
• 3. The Bible contains some of man’s significant moral and ethical thinking.
• 4. The Bible was written by inspired men and contains valuable spiritual teachings.
• 5. The Bible is God’s Word.

Experience Dimension

• 1. I have never had what I would call a religious experience.
• 2. I can’t recall that I have had what I would call a religious experience.
• 3. I have had moments of unusual appreciation of truth, beauty, goodness, etc.
• 4. At some time I have had an awareness of the divine.
• 5. I have had an experience (or experiences) when I felt a mutual encounter between my­ self and God.

• 1. Strongly agree
• 2. Agree
• 3. Uncertain
• 4. Disagree
• 5. Strongly disagree

Religious Practice Dimension

• l. Every week.
• 2. About twice a month.
• 3. About once a month.
• 4. A few times a year.
• 5. Never.

• l. Yes.
• 2. No.

• l. Never.
• 2. Pays church tax (German students).
• 3. Sometimes.
• 4. Regularly.

• l. I read the Bible regularly for devotional purposes.
• 2. I read the Bible, somewhat irregularly, primarily for devotional purposes.
• 3. I read the Bible occasionally for its ethical and moral teachings.
• 4. I read the Bible occasionally for literary or historical purposes.
• 5. I read the Bible for diverse purposes.
• 6. I seldom, if ever, read the Bible.
• 7. I never read the Bible.

• 0. None
• l. One
• 2. Two
• 3. Three
• 4. Four
• 5. Five or more

Individual Moral Consequences Dimension

• 1. Strongly agree
• 2. Agree
• 3. Uncertain
• 4. Disagree
• 5. Strongly disagree

Religious Knowledge Dimension

Social Consequences Dimension

• I. Strongly agree
• 2. Agree
• 3. Uncertain
• 4. Disagree
• 5. Strongly disagree

*Item is reversed scored