Five-Dimensional Scale of Religiosity (FDSR)

Abstract

The Five-Dimension Scale of Religiosity (FDSR), developed by Faulkner and DeJong, is an instrument designed to measure the multifaceted nature of religiosity based on the seminal typology proposed by Charles Y. Glock (1962). The scale operates on the assumption that religiosity is a crucial multidimensional construct comprising five distinct components: ideological (belief), intellectual (knowledge), ritualistic (religious behavior), experiential (feeling and emotion), and consequential (effect of religion in everyday life).

The FDSR utilizes a Guttman scaling procedure, which results in five individual scores rather than a single summary measure of commitment. The items within each subscale are structured sequentially from stronger to weaker statements of attitude, presuming that agreement with a stronger statement implies agreement with all preceding weaker items. While the authors defend the measure’s ability to tap these separate dimensions, the construct’s multidimensionality has been a persistent topic of debate in subsequent research.

Keywords

Religiosity, Glock’s Dimensions, Faulkner and DeJong, Guttman Scaling, Ideological Commitment, Sociological Scale, Psychological Measurement, Unidimensionality

Authors

J. E. Faulkner, G. DeJong

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Five-Dimension Scale of Religiosity (FDSR) is to provide a standardized, empirically tested measure for the major theoretical dimensions of religious commitment originally outlined by Glock (1962). The scale was designed to differentiate and quantify an individual’s standing across five specific, theoretically separate aspects of religious life, supporting the notion of religiosity as a complex, multidimensional phenomenon.

The instrument was specifically developed for academic research purposes. By utilizing Guttman scaling, the FDSR allows for a detailed analysis of response patterns. A respondent’s score indicates the exact point at which they ceased affirming the traditional religious responses, thereby enabling researchers to theoretically reconstruct their pattern of response for an entire scale.

Construct

The FDSR measures the construct of religiosity, which is theoretically divided into five distinct components, based on Glock’s typology:

• Ideological (Belief): Measures adherence to core religious doctrines and theological tenets (e.g., specific beliefs about God or divine intervention).
• Intellectual (Knowledge): Measures the respondent’s familiarity with the basic tenets, history, and sacred texts of their religion (e.g., knowledge of key biblical figures or books).
• Ritualistic (Religious Behavior): Measures engagement in formal and private religious practices and participation (e.g., frequency of worship attendance or prayer).
• Experiential (Feeling and Emotion): Measures the subjective feelings, emotional connection, and sense of union with the Divine (e.g., feeling “close” to the Divine).
• Consequential (Effect in Everyday Life): Measures the degree to which religious beliefs influence non-religious aspects of life, such as moral behavior, political views, and daily conduct (e.g., views on Sabbath observance or honesty).

Validity

Initial validation studies (Faulkner & DeJong, 1966; Clayton, 1968) confirmed that all five subscales met the minimum criteria for unidimensionality, a requirement of the Guttman scaling procedure. However, the primary challenge to the FDSR’s validity lies in the independence of these dimensions, as intercorrelation and factor analysis results have been subject to intense debate.

Intercorrelation coefficients between the subscales were generally moderate, ranging from a high of .58 (between ideological and intellectual) to a low of .36 (between experience and consequential). The authors interpreted these moderate correlations as empirical support for the multidimensional nature of religiosity. Conversely, critics, particularly those performing factor analysis, argued that the results consistently pointed toward a dominant single factor, suggesting that the FDSR primarily measures ideological commitment.

A further criticism regarding item construction was levied by Weigert and Thomas (1969), who contended that the use of overlapping semantic categories (e.g., “believe,” “view,” “opinion”) across different dimensions (e.g., ideological and intellectual) undermined the claim that the items were faithfully measuring Glock’s separate dimensions. Although Faulkner and DeJong (1969) provided a robust rejoinder, the question of construct validity remains open, limiting the scale’s application exclusively to research rather than clinical assessment.

Reliability

The reliability of the FDSR is established primarily through the coefficient of reproducibility, which measures the strength of unidimensionality inherent in a Guttman-type scale. The generally accepted minimum standard for this coefficient is .90.

Initial testing conducted in 1966 at Pennsylvania State University on 362 undergraduates confirmed that all five subscales met this minimum standard. Subsequent research by Clayton (1968), using a larger sample of 873 undergraduate respondents from a Southern Protestant private university, yielded reproducibility coefficients that were equal to or higher than the original findings. The consistent achievement of this statistical criterion across different samples suggests that the FDSR demonstrates an acceptable level of cumulative reliability for a Guttman scale.

Factor Analysis

Empirical results derived from various factor analysis studies (including both varimax and oblique rotations) have generated a core debate regarding the dimensional structure of the FDSR. While the scale is designed to measure five separate dimensions, factor analytic findings consistently emphasize the dominance of the ideological factor.

Clayton and Gladden (1974) provided strong evidence for a single-factor interpretation, reporting that the ideological commitment factor accounted for 78 percent to 83 percent of the common variance in their samples. Their second-order factor analysis extracted only one general factor, leading them to conclude that religiosity is fundamentally a single-dimension phenomenon centered on ideological belief, with other factors being manifestations of that core commitment.

The developers, DeJong, Faulkner, and Warland (1976), acknowledged the strong ideological component but maintained that their findings supported multidimensionality, arguing that the observed debates over the number of dimensions are a function of the level of abstraction used in defining the religious variable. They did, however, concede that the consequential dimension might function more effectively as a dependent variable rather than an independent component of religiosity.

Instrument

Test Type: Research instrument for measuring sociological/psychological dimensions of religious commitment.

Format: Five distinct Guttman-type scales, totaling 23 items, with two to six options per item.

Language Available: English (Original development language).

Population Group: Designed for use in general research on religious populations, initially validated on undergraduate university students.

Age Group: Adolescents/Adults (College age and older).

Population Details: Initial samples included 362 undergraduates at Pennsylvania State University (1966) and 873 undergraduates at a Southern Protestant private university (1968).

Test Methodology: Self-report questionnaire, requiring less than 10 minutes to complete. Scoring involves identifying the keyed positive responses (marked by an asterisk). The procedure assumes specialized knowledge of Guttman scaling for proper interpretation, where the score (0 through 5 for a five-item scale) reflects the total number of items indicating a traditional religious response.

Keywords

Ideological dimension, Experiential dimension, Consequential dimension, Ritualistic dimension, Intellectual dimension, Glock’s typology, Sociological measurement

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source content.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source content.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source content.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Five-Dimension Scale of Religiosity (FDSR) was first published in 1966 in the journal Social Forces. Since the scale was developed exclusively for academic research purposes, no official manual is provided for administration, scoring, or interpretation, nor is the instrument recommended for clinical use. The scales are typically available through citation of the original academic publications.

Reference’s

Clayton, R. R. (1968). Religiosity in 5-D: A southern test. Social Forces, 47, 80-83.

Clayton, R. R., & Gladden J. W. (1974). The five dimensions of religiosity: Toward de-mythologizing a sacred artifact. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 13, 135-144.

DeJong, G., Faulkner, J. E., & Warland, R. (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.

Faulkner, J.E., & DeJong, G. (1969). On measuring the religious Variable: Rejoinder to Weigert and Thomas. Social Forces, 48(2), 263-267.

Ford, R. N. (1950). A rapid scoring procedure for scaling attitude questions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 14, 507-532.

Glock, D. (1962). On the study of religious commitment. Religious Education: Research Supplement, 42, 98-110.

Weigert, A. J., & Thomas, D. L. (1969). Religiosity in 5-D: A critical note. Social Forces, 48(2), 260-263.

Subsequent Research

Cole, G. E. (1982). Relationships among measures of mental health, stress, and religiosity (Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43-05, 1433A.

Courtenay, 8. C., Poon, L., Martin, P., & Clayton, G. (1992). Religiosity and adaptation in the oldest-old. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 34(1), 47-56.

Domino, G., & Miller, K. (1992). Religiosity and attitudes toward suicide. Omega-Journal of Death & Dying, 25(4), 271-282.

Lenes, M. S., & Hart, E. J. (1975). The influence of pornography and violence on attitudes and guilt. Journal of School Health, 45(8), 447 51.

Ruppel, H. J. (I 970). Religiosity and premarital sexual permissiveness: A response to the Reiss Heltsley and Broderick debate. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 32(4), 647-655.

Items of the Five-Dimension Scale of Re­ligiosity (FDSR)

The exact wording of items included in the religiosity scales is shown below, with an asterisk (*) marking the response defined as indicating a traditional religious response.

Ideological Scale

l. Do you believe that the world will come to an end according to the will of God?

• *l. Yes, I believe this.
• 2. I am uncertain about this.
• 3. No, I do not believe this.

2. Which of the following statements most clearly describes your idea about the Deity?

• *l. I believe in a Divine God, creator of the Universe, who knows my innermost thoughts and feelings, and to whom one day I shall be accountable.
• 2. I believe in a power greater than myself, which some people call God and some people call Nature.
• 3. I believe in the worth of humanity but not in a God or a Supreme Being.
• 4. The so-called universal mysteries are ultimately knowable according to the scientific method based on natural laws.
• 5. I am not quite sure what I believe.
• 6. I am an atheist.

3. Do you believe that it is necessary for a person to repent before God will forgive his sins?

• *I. Yes, God’s forgiveness comes only after repentance.
• 2. No, God does not demand repentance.
• 3. I am not in need of repentance.

4. Which one of the following best expresses your opinion of God acting in history?

• *1. God has and continues to act in the history of mankind.
• 2. God acted in previous periods but is not active at the present time.
• 3. God does not act in human history.

5. Which of the following best expresses your view of the Bible?

• *1. The Bible is God’s Word and all it says is true.
• *2. The Bible was written by men inspired by God, and its basic moral and religious teachings are true, but because writers were men, it contains some human errors.
• 3. The Bible is a valuable book because it was written by wise and good men, but God had nothing to do with it.
• 4. The Bible was written by men who lived so long ago that it is of little value today.

Intellectual Scale

1. How do you personally view the story of creation as recorded in Genesis?

• *1. Literally true history.
• 2. A symbolic account which is no better or worse than any other account of the beginning.
• 3. Not a valid account of creation.

2. Which of the following best expresses your opinion concerning miracles?

• *1. I believe the report of the miracles in the Bible; that is, they occurred through a setting aside of natural laws by a higher power.
• 2. I do not believe in the so-called miracles of the Bible. Either such events did not occur at all, or, if they did, the report is inaccurate, and they could be explained upon scientific grounds if we had the actual facts.
• 3. I neither believe nor disbelieve the so-called miracles of the Bible. No evidence which I have considered seems to prove conclusively that they did or did not happen as recorded.

3. What is your view of the following statement: Religious truth is higher than any other form of truth.

• *I. Strongly agree
• *2. Agree
• 3. Disagree
• 4. Strongly disagree

4. Would you write the names of the four Gospels? What are the first five books of the Old Testament?

(The second question was used for Jewish respondents.)

*Three or more books correctly identified.

Ritualistic Scale

1. Do you feel it is possible for an individual to develop a well-rounded religious life apart from the institutional church?

• *I. No
• 2. Uncertain
• 3. Yes

2. How much time during a week would you say you spend reading the Bible and other religious literature?

• *1. One hour or more
• *2. One-half hour
• 3. None

3. How many of the past four Sabbath worship services have you attended?

• * l. Three or more
• *2. Two
• 3. One
• 4. None

4. Which of the following best describes your participation in the act of prayer?

• *1. Prayer is a regular part of my behavior.
• *2. I pray primarily in times of stress and/or need, but not much otherwise.
• 3. Prayer is restricted pretty much to formal worship services.
• 4. Prayer is only incidental to my life.
• 5. I never pray.

5. Do you believe that for your marriage the ceremony should be performed by:

• *1. A religious official.
• 2. Either a religious official or a civil authority.
• 3. A civil authority.

Experiential Scale

1. Would you say that one’s religious commitment gives life a certain purpose which it could not otherwise have?

• *1. Strongly agree
• 2. Agree
• 3. Disagree

2. All religions stress that belief normally includes some experience of “union” with the Divine. Are there particular moments when you feel “close” to the Divine?

• *I. Frequently
• *2. Occasionally
• 3. Rarely
• 4. Never

3. Would you say that religion offers a sense of security in the face of death which is not otherwise possible?

• *l. Agree
• 2. Uncertain
• 3. Disagree

4. How would you respond to the statement: “Religion provides the individual with an interpretation of his existence which could not be discovered by reason alone.”

• *1. Strongly agree
• *2. Agree
• 3. Disagree

5. Faith, meaning putting full confidence in the things we hope for and being certain of things we cannot see, is essential to one’s religious life.

• *l. Agree
• 2. Uncertain
• 3. Disagree

Consequential Scale

I. What is your feeling about the operation of nonessential businesses on the Sabbath?

• *I. They should not be open.
• 2. I am uncertain about this.
• 3. They have a legitimate right to be open.

2. A boy and a girl, both of whom attend church frequently, regularly date one another and have entered into sexual relations with each other. Do you feel that people who give at least partial support to the church by attending its worship services should behave in this manner? Which of the following statements expresses your opinion concerning this matter?

• *1. People who identify themselves with the church to the extent that they participate in its worship services should uphold its moral teachings as well.
• 2. Sexual intercourse prior to marriage is a matter of individual responsibility.

3. Two candidates are seeking the same political office. One is a member and a strong participant in a church. The other candidate is indifferent, but not hostile, to religious organizations. Other factors being equal, do you think the candidate identified with the church would be a better public servant than the one who has no interest in religion?

• *I. He definitely would.
• *2. He probably would.
• 3. Uncertain.
• 4. He probably would not.
• 5. He definitely would not.

4. Suppose you are living next door to a person who confides in you that each year he puts down on his income tax a $50.00 contribution to the church in “loose change,” even though he knows that while he does contribute some money to the church in “loose change” each year, the total sum is far below that amount. Do you feel that a person’s religious orientation should be reflected in all phases of his life so that such behavior is morally wrong-that it is a form of lying?

• *l. Yes
• 2. Uncertain
• 3. No