Religious Attitude Inventory

Abstract

The Religious Attitude Inventory (RAI), developed by W. E. Broen, Jr. in 1957, represents an early attempt within psychological research to conceptualize religion as a multidimensional construct. The primary purpose of the 58-item scale is to differentiate between two core dimensions of religious orientation. These dimensions are defined as the “Nearness of God” perspective, which emphasizes the Deity’s loving presence and guidance, and the “Fundamentalism-Humanitarianism” view, which stresses humanity’s sinfulness and the corresponding need for a punishing God. The RAI is noteworthy for its pioneering use of Q-sort methodology in its development, although subsequent research highlighted concerns regarding its psychometric properties and temporal relevance. Gorsuch and Smith (1983) later provided revised editions of the dimensions, aiming to transcend the cultural and theological shifts that occurred in the intervening 25 years.

Keywords

Religious Attitude Inventory, RAI, Religiosity, Nearness of God, Fundamentalism, Humanitarianism, Psychological Scales, Q-sort, Factor analysis, Multidimensional construct, Broen.

Authors

W. E. Broen, Jr., R. L. Gorsuch (for subsequent research/revision), C. S. Smith (for subsequent research/revision).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Attitude Inventory (RAI) was to move beyond simplistic, monolithic views of religious belief and identify specific, relatively independent aspects that compose an individual’s overall religious attitude. Broen sought to demonstrate that religious orientation is not a single variable but a complex structure comprised of differentially weighted components.

Specifically, the RAI was designed to measure and distinguish between two primary attitudinal dimensions: the extent to which an individual feels a loving presence and guidance from the Deity (Nearness of God), and the degree to which they emphasize human depravity and the necessity of divine punishment (Fundamentalism-Humanitarianism).

Construct

The RAI measures religious attitude as a two-factor, multidimensional construct. The two identified factors are:

• Factor 1: Nearness of God. High scores reflect a strong belief in God’s immediate, loving presence and active guidance in life.
• Factor 2: Fundamentalism-Humanitarianism. High scores reflect a traditional, strict view emphasizing humanity’s inherent sinfulness, the need for redemption, and the existence of a wrathful or punishing God.

The original methodology focused on an idiographic approach, aiming to describe how these facets combine uniquely within an individual, rather than relying solely on generalized nomothetic descriptions typical of much psychological research at the time. This focus on individual patterns was considered highly beneficial for describing “real people instead of a mythical average.”

Validity

Cross-validation was attempted using 113 participants drawn from four religious orientations. Validity evidence was presented through eight t tests, which compared summations of “agree” responses for each factor across the different religious groups. These tests indicated that the groups responded differentially to the two factors, with the results remaining significant even after applying a Bonferroni correction to the alpha level.

However, this procedure was criticized for shifting the level of analysis from Broen’s original idiographic approach to a topological (group) comparison. This shift makes it unclear how group differences address the issue of an individual’s unique attitudinal pattern. Moreover, the intentional selection of individuals to compose the distinct groups likely led to an overestimation of the RAI’s discriminatory properties. Further investigation was recommended to clarify the actual factor composition and structural validity.

Reliability

Reliability testing for the RAI appears limited beyond the initial 1957 study, and several issues were identified concerning the robustness of Broen’s factors:

• Factor Loadings: The loadings for Factor 1 (Nearness of God) specifically did not inspire confidence, as 8 of 14 loadings were reported at 0.42 or less. This pattern suggests instability and a need for further exploration using additional independent samples.
• Item Reduction Parameters: The exact methodological parameters used to reduce the initial 133 statements to the final 58 items were not explicitly documented. A subsequent refactoring of the original 133 items was proposed to verify the accuracy and stability of the final item set.
• Scoring Method: An additional reliability concern involves the scoring procedure. Despite the scale utilizing a dichotic choice format (agree/disagree) with both positive and negative statements for the factors, only “agree” responses were used to calculate general religiosity or religious emphasis scores. Given the severe limitation on potential variance imposed by the dichotic choice, it was suggested that reverse scoring the appropriate “disagree” endorsements would be advantageous for improving measurement reliability.

Factor Analysis

The standardization process employed a rigorous methodology rooted in Q-methodology and subsequent inverse (Q) factor analysis. Broen initially hypothesized five discrete religious personality types: those stressing sin, those needing religion to fill a void, those emphasizing moral aspects, those highlighting God’s love, and “spirit-filled” practitioners of glossolalia.

A pool of 133 statements reflecting God’s nature and human relationships with God was identified. Twenty participants—selected to represent the six groups (the five types plus a moderate Catholic/Lutheran group)—Q-sorted the 133 items into nine categories along an agree-disagree continuum, forcing a normal distribution. Inverse (Q) factor analysis was performed on the correlated sort vectors, resulting in the emergence of two primary factors. Four factors were carried into rotation to enhance the stability of subject loadings on the two main factors. The final 58-item RAI was derived from items showing the greatest mean differences and least overlap between high and low loading subjects, leading to the definitions of Factor 1 (Nearness of God) and Factor 2 (Fundamentalism-Humanitarianism).

Instrument

Test Type: Paper and Pencil Questionnaire (Psychological Scale)

Format: 58 items, Dichotic Choice (Agree/Disagree)

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: General population (tested primarily on groups with specific religious orientations in standardization)

Age Group: Adults

Population Details: Initial standardization involved 20 participants (Q-sort) representing five hypothesized religious types and a moderate control group. Cross-validation used 113 participants from four religious orientations.

Test Methodology: Self-report; requires approximately 10–15 minutes to complete. The scale uses a dichotic choice instrument (agree or disagree). Note that certain items related to cultural practices (“Dancing is a sin,” “All public places of amusement should be closed on Sunday”) developed in 1957 may reflect significant temporal bias.

Keywords

Psychology of religion, Religious beliefs, W. E. Broen Jr., Psychometric scale, Idiographic measurement, Nomothetic, Dichotic scale, 1957, Factor loadings, Q-method.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Information not provided in source)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1957 (Original publication).

Permissions/Fees: Information regarding current usage permissions and fees is not provided. The item key for Factor 1 was originally documented via the American Documentation Institute, Auxiliary Publications Project, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C., Document 5066.

Reference’s

• Broen, W. E., Jr. (1957a). A factor-analytic study of religious attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, (2), 176-179.
• Broen, W. E., Jr. (1957b). Factor I key: Religious attitude inventory. American Documentation Institute, Auxiliary Publications Project, Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D. C., Document 5066.
• Gorsuch, R. L., & Smith, C. S. (1983). Attributions of responsibility to God: An interaction of religious beliefs and outcomes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 340-352.
• Guertin, W. H., & Bailey, J.P., Jr. (1970). Introduction to modern factor analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: Edwards Brothers.
• Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Items of the RELIGIOUS ATTITUDE INVENTORY

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

Instructions: Circle the A if you agree with a statement; circle the D if you disagree with the statement. Make a choice for each statement. Do not spend too much time on any one statement. A person who does not believe in the existence of a God may have difficulty in answering a statement such as “God watches over us.” (Disagree might be interpreted as meaning ”There is a God who does not watch over us.”) If you do not believe in the existence of a God, show your disagreement with the concept by circling the disagree when you come to such a statement.

A D 1. God is constantly with us.

A D 2. Christ died for sinners.

A D 3. The Ten Commandments were good for people of olden times but are really not applicable to modem life.

AD 4. There is really no such place as Hell.

AD 5. Miracles are performed by the power of God even today.

AD 6. It is through the righteousness of Jesus Christ and not because of our own works that we are made righteous before God.

AD 7. Dancing is a sin.

AD 8. Christ’s simple message of concern for your fellow man has been twisted by the superstitious mysticism of such men as Paul.

AD 9. God can be approached directly by all believers.

AD 10. The death of Christ on the cross was necessary to blot out man’s sin and make him acceptable in the eyes of God.

AD 11. It was too bad that Christ died so young or He could have been a greater power for good.

A D 12. “God” is an abstract concept roughly equivalent to the concept “nature.”

A D 13. God exists in all of us.

A D 14. Man is born in sin.

A D 15. The wearing of fashionable dress and worldly adornment should be discontinued because it tends to gratify and encourage pride.

A D 16. Man’s essential nature is good.

A D 17. I am sometimes very conscious of the presence of God.

A D 18. Man is by nature sinful and unclean.

A D 19. All public places of amusement should be closed on Sunday.

AD 20. The stories of miracles in the Bible are like the parables in that they have some deeper meaning or moral but are not to be taken literally.

AD 21. God is very real to me.

AD 22. The Bible is the word of God and must be believed in its entirety.

AD 23. I believe in God but I am not sure what I believe about Him.

AD 24. Man has a spark of the divine in him which must be made to blossom more fully.

AD 25. When in doubt it’s best to stop and ask God what to do.

AD 26. Sin brings forth the wrath of God.

AD 27. A person should follow his own conscience in deciding right and wrong.

AD 28. The most important idea in religion is the golden rule.

AD 29. God should be asked about all important matters.

AD 30. The wrath of God is a terrible thing.

AD 31. It is more important to love your neighbor than to keep the Ten Commandments.

AD 32. The Scriptures should be interpreted with the constant exercise of reason.

AD 33. Because of His presence we can know that God exists.

AD 34. Everyone will be called before God at the judgment day to answer for his sins.

AD 35. Man’s idea of God is quite vague.

AD 36. Reason is not depraved and untrustworthy for then the natural foundations of religion which rest upon it, would fall.

AD 37. Miracles are sometimes performed by persons in close communion with God.

AD 38. Everyone has sinned and deserves punishment for his sins.

AD 39. The church is important because it is an effective agency for organizing the social life of a community.

AD 40. My faith in God is complete, for “though He slay me yet will I trust Him.”

AD 41. No one should question the authority of the Bible.

AD 42. The content of various doctrines is unimportant. What really matters is that they help those who believe in them to lead better lives.

AD 43. When the Scriptures are interpreted with reason, they will be found to be consistent with themselves and with nature.

AD 44. Because of his terrible sinfulness, man has been eternally damned unless he accepts Christ as his savior.

AD 45. Religion is a search for understanding, truth, love and beauty in human life.

AD 46. True love of God is shown in obedience to His moral laws.

AD 47. Every person born into this world deserves God’s wrath and damnation.

AD 48. If we live as pure lives as we can, God will forgive our sins.

AD 49. The world is full of condemned sinners.

AD 50. Persons who are in close contact with the Holy Spirit can and do at times speak in unknown tongues.

AD 51. The Devil can enter a man’s body and take control.

AD 52. The people of the world must repent before it is too late and they find themselves in Hell.

AD 53. No one who has experienced God like I have could doubt His existence.

AD 54. The Christian must lead a strict life, away from worldly amusements.

AD 55. In his natural state of sin, man is too evil to communicate with God.

AD 56. Christ was not divine but his teachings and the example set by his life are invaluable.

AD 57. The question of Christ’s divinity is unimportant; it is his teachings that matter.

AD 58. God is the final judge of our behavior, but I do not believe that he is as punishing as some seem to say He is.