Religious Problem-Solving Scale

Abstract

The Religious Problem-Solving Scale (RPS) is a widely used psychological instrument designed to quantify the role of religion in an individual’s problem-solving process. It measures three distinct religiously-based problem-solving orientations: Self-Directing, Collaborative, and Deferring. Developed based on the core hypothesis that specific religious coping styles are significantly associated with mental health and psychosocial competence, the RPS utilizes these subscales to differentiate the degree of responsibility and initiative assigned to either the individual (self) or God when facing life problems. The scale’s theoretical foundation draws partly from Erich Fromm’s concepts of humanistic and authoritarian religion. The full scale comprises 36 items, scored on a five-point Likert continuum.

Keywords

Religious Problem-Solving Scale, RPS, religious coping, problem-solving, Self-Directing, Collaborative, Deferring, psychosocial competence, spirituality, mental health.

Authors

Pargament, K. I., Kennell, J., Hathaway, W., Grevengoed, N., Newman, J., Jones, W.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Problem-Solving Scale (RPS) is to systematically explore how individuals utilize their religious beliefs and relationship with God when confronted with life problems. The scale aims to identify and measure specific, definable styles of religious engagement during periods of stress or difficulty, moving beyond simple measures of religious devotion to assess active coping strategies.

Fundamentally, the RPS was developed to test the hypothesis that an individual’s characteristic religious problem-solving style—defined by where they assign responsibility and initiative—is causally or correlatively linked to their overall mental health and psychological adjustment. By distinguishing between active self-reliance, partnership with God, and passive submission, the scale provides a framework for understanding the psychological consequences of different religious orientations to coping.

Construct

The RPS measures three distinct, yet related, constructs of religious coping styles, conceptualized as orientations toward responsibility and initiative in the face of adversity. These styles were theoretically grounded in existing psychological and religious literature, notably the work of Erich Fromm (1960), and are hypothesized to be associated with greater mental health.

• Self-Directing (S): This style aligns with Fromm’s concept of humanistic religion, where the individual assumes full responsibility for problem-solving, viewing themselves as the primary agent who deals with difficulties and emotions without reliance on divine assistance.
• Collaborative (C): This orientation views the individual and God as co-partners. Responsibility is shared, and they work together interactively to define, generate, and implement solutions to life’s problems, reflecting a notion of active partnership.
• Deferring (D): Derived from Fromm’s concept of authoritarian religion, this style emphasizes passive submission. The individual cedes responsibility and initiative entirely to an omnipotent God, stressing trust and waiting for divine intervention or direction to resolve difficulties.

The RPS design is also structured around the established phases of the general problem-solving process—including problem definition, solution generation, selection and implementation, and re-definition—with items drafted specifically to address each phase within the context of religious involvement.

Validity

The RPS demonstrated significant construct and predictive validity, supporting the differentiation of the three styles and their unique associations with psychological outcomes and religious practices. The authors successfully predicted that the three problem-solving styles would be differentially linked to measures of religiousness and psychosocial competence.

• Deferring Style: This style was consistently and negatively associated with key indicators of competence, including personal control, self-esteem, and tolerance of ambiguity. Religiously, it was associated with high external religious involvement and reliance on rigid external rules.
• Self-Directing Style: This orientation was positively associated with measures of personal control and self-esteem. It showed a lack of association with traditional religious interest and practices, instead favoring a quest orientation to religion.
• Collaborative Style: Linked to an internalized form of religiousness based on an intimate, interactive, and highly involved relationship with God. Furthermore, when the effects of the Deferring and Self-Directing styles were statistically removed, the Collaborative style was also found to be positively associated with personal control and self-esteem.

Reliability

The RPS exhibits high levels of both internal consistency and test-retest reliability across all subscales for both the full and short forms, indicating stable and consistent measurement.

For the full 36-item scale, internal consistency, measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, was strong:

• Self-Directing: 0.91
• Collaborative: 0.93
• Deferring: 0.89

Test-retest reliability, analyzed over a one-week interval among a sample of 97 college students, also yielded high reliability estimates:

• Collaborative: 0.93
• Self-Directing: 0.94
• Deferring: 0.87

The short form (18 items) also maintained high reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients demonstrating strong internal consistency (Collaborative = 0.93; Self-Directing = 0.91; Deferring = 0.89). Additionally, the short form correlated highly with the full form across all subscales (Collaborative r = 0.97; Self-Directing r = 0.98; Deferring r = 0.97).

Factor Analysis

A confirmatory factor analysis performed on the full 36 items of the RPS strongly supported the hypothesized theoretical structure of the scale. The analysis resulted in a clear three-factor solution, which conformed precisely to the three intended subscales: Self-Directing, Collaborative, and Deferring.

This empirical confirmation lends robust support to the hypothesis that individuals employ these distinct religious problem-solving styles in their relationship with God. This finding, combined with the evidence linking the Deferring style to poor psychosocial competence and the Self-Directing/Collaborative styles to higher competence, collectively supports the overall validity and structural integrity of the measure.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-administered paper-and-pencil measure (Psychological scale of religious coping)

Format: Full form: 36 items (12 per subscale). Short form: 18 items. Scored on a 5-point Likert continuum ranging from “Never” to “Always.” Completion time is approximately 20 minutes for the long form.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Adults (Standardized primarily on Christian church members)

Age Group: Adult

Population Details: Initial standardization sample consisted of 197 members drawn from one Presbyterian church and one Missouri Synod Lutheran Church in the Midwest. The sample was 57% female and 69% married. The lack of racial diversity in the initial sample limits the generalizability of the norms among racially diverse populations.

Test Methodology: The measure is self-administered, requiring respondents to state how often each statement applies to them. No specialized examiner skills are required for scoring or interpretation.

Keywords

Psychometrics, scale development, religious orientation, coping styles, Self-Directing, Collaborative, Deferring, Cronbach’s alpha, religious involvement.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1988

Permissions and Fees: Information regarding current usage permissions and fees is not provided in the original source material. Users should contact the primary author, Kenneth I. Pargament, for usage authorization.

Reference’s

• Abelson, J. (1969). The immanence of God in rabbinical literature. New York: Hermon Press.
• Friedel, L. A., & Pargament, K. I. (1995). Religion and coping with crises in the work environment. Paper presented at the 103rd annual convention of the American Psychological Association, New York, NY.
• Fromm, E. (1960). Psychoanalysis and religion. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
• Hart, A. D. (1984). Coping with depression in the ministry and other helping professions. Waco: Word Books.
• Hathaway, W. & Pargament, K. I. (1990). Intrinsic religiousness, religious coping, and psychosocial competence: A covariance structure analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 448-461.
• Pargament, K. I., Kennell, J., Hathaway, W., Grevengoed, N., Newman, J., & Jones, W. (1988). Religion and the problem-solving process: Three styles of coping. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27, 90-104. (Original Publication)
• Schaefer, C. A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1991). Psychological adjustment and religiousness: The multivariate belief-motivation theory of religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 136-147.
• Schaefer, C. A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1993). Situational and personal variations in religious coping. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 136-147.
• Stiehler, N. (1991). Attitude and personality characteristics of conservative and mainline/liberal church congregations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, MI.

Items of the RELIGIOUS PROBLEM-SOLVING SCALE

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

Following are the items included in the Religious Problem-Solving Scale. Items from the three subscales (Collaborative, Self-Directive, and Deferring) were mixed together to form a single questionnaire. All items were scored on the same 5-point Likert continuum ranging from “never” to “always.” The short form of this measure consists of the first 18 of the 36 items listed below.

1. [C] When I have a problem, I talk to God about it and together we decide what it means.
2. [D] Rather than trying to come up with the right solution to a problem myself, I let God decide how to deal with it.
3. [S] When faced with trouble, I deal with my feelings without God’s help.
4. [D] When a situation makes me anxious, I wait for God to take those feelings away.
5. [C] Together, God and I put my plans into action.
6. [C] When it comes to deciding how to solve a problem, God and I work together as partners.
7. [S] I act to solve my problems without God’s help.
8. [S] When I have difficulty, I decide what it means by myself without help from God.
9. [D] I don’t spend much time thinking about troubles I’ve had; God makes sense of them for me.
10. [C] When considering a difficult situation, God and I work together to think of possible solutions.
11. [D] When a troublesome issue arises, I leave it up to God to decide what it means for me.
12. [S] When thinking about a difficulty, I try to come up with possible solutions without God’s help.
13. [C] After solving a problem, I work with God to make sense of it.
14. [S] When deciding on a solution, I make a choice independent of God’s input.
15. [D] In carrying out the solutions to my problems, I wait for God to take control and know somehow He’ll work it out.
16. [D] I do not think about different solutions to my problems because God provides them for me.
17. [S] After I’ve gone through a rough time, I try to make sense of it without relying on God.
18. [C] When I feel nervous or anxious about a problem, I work together with God to find a way to relieve my worries.
19. [C] When I’m upset, I try to soothe myself, and also share the unpleasantness with God so He can comfort me.
20. [S] When faced with a decision, I make the best choice I can without God’s involvement.
21. [D] God solves problems for me without my doing anything.
22. [D] When I have a problem, I try not to think about it and wait for God to tell me what it means.
23. [C] In carrying out solutions, I work hard at them knowing God is working right along with me.
24. [S] When a difficult period is over, I make sense of what happened on my own without involvement from God.
25. [C] When faced with a question, I work together with God to figure it out.
26. [S] When I feel nervous or anxious, I calm myself without relying on God.
27. [S] God doesn’t put solutions to my problems into action; I carry them out myself.
28. [D] I don’t worry too much about learning from difficult situations, since God will make me grow in the right direction.
29. [S] When I am trying to come up with different solutions to troubles I am facing, I do not get them from God but think of them myself.
30. [C] When a hard time has passed, God works with me to help me learn from it.
31. [C] God and I talk together and decide upon the best answer to my question.
32. [D] When faced with a decision, I wait for God to make the best choice for me.
33. [D] I do not become upset or nervous because God solves my problems for me.
34. [D] When I run into trouble, I simply trust in God knowing that He will show me the possible solutions.
35. [S] When I run into a difficult situation, I make sense out of it on my own without divine assistance.
36. [C] The Lord works with me to help me see a number of different ways that a problem can be solved.

• [C] Collaborative
• [S] Self-Directing
• [D] Deferring