FUNDAMENTALISM SCALE-REVISED

Abstract

The Fundamentalism Scale-Revised is a 33-item psychological measure developed by R. L. Gorsuch and colleagues, derived from the original 58-item Religious Attitude Inventory created by William E. Broen (1957a). The revision process involved retaining only those items that the reviewers unanimously agreed possessed strong face validity and relevance to the religious trait of fundamentalism.

This instrument is designed to assess the degree to which an individual subscribes to orthodox tenets of the Christian faith, particularly focusing on the literal interpretation of the Bible, the inherent sinfulness of man, and the rightful fear of a punishing God. Respondents utilize a simple dichotomous agree/disagree response format.

Keywords

Fundamentalism, Religious Attitudes, Christian Faith, Literal Interpretation, Broen, Gorsuch, Psychological Scale, Orthodoxy, Religious Trait, Sinfulness.

Authors

R. L. Gorsuch, C. S. Smith, William E. Broen (original scale developer).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Fundamentalism Scale-Revised is to quantify the theological position of an individual concerning Christian fundamentalism. It seeks to measure the extent of adherence to core conservative doctrines, contrasting these views with more liberal or humanistic interpretations of scripture and the human condition.

The scale is particularly useful for differentiating between individuals who embrace a strict, traditional interpretation of Christianity—characterized by belief in specific punitive and literal doctrines—and those who adopt a more modern, humanistic perspective where individuals can realize their potential independent of strict divine oversight.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of religious fundamentalism, specifically within a Christian context. This construct is defined by several interrelated orthodox tenets:

• Strong emphasis on the literal interpretation of the Bible as the infallible word of God.
• Belief in the essential sinfulness and depravity of man.
• Recognition of the need for and the rightful fear of a punishing God and eternal damnation.

Individuals scoring low on this scale typically endorse a more liberal theology, viewing God and the human condition through a humanistic lens, often emphasizing human goodness and the ability to achieve fulfillment through personal effort rather than divine salvation.

Validity

Specific validity coefficients are currently unavailable for the Gorsuch and Smith (1983) 33-item revision of the Fundamentalism Scale. However, indications of construct validity were explored using the antecedent measure, Broen’s original Religious Attitude Inventory.

In an unpublished study by Lawrence Wrightman, scores on Broen’s Fundamentalism items among college students (at institutions including Central Michigan University and Wheaton College) were correlated with the Dimensions of the Philosophies of Human Nature Scale. For male students at Central Michigan University, Fundamentalism scores showed significant correlations with viewing human nature negatively (r = 0.32), viewing persons as less than altruistic (r = 0.31), and viewing persons as less than independent agents (r = 0.36). These positive correlations support the theoretical expectation that fundamentalist beliefs align with a pessimistic view of inherent human goodness and autonomy.

Reliability

Formal reliability coefficients for the final Gorsuch and Smith (1983) 33-item Fundamentalism Scale are unreported. Nevertheless, data collected during the scale’s development phase provides an estimate of its internal consistency.

In an unpublished study conducted by Gorsuch at Texas Christian University (N=50), the interitem consistency coefficient for the Fundamentalism items extracted from Broen’s Religious Attitude Inventory was found to be 0.76, calculated using the Kuder-Richardson formula. This value suggests that the items used to measure the construct generally hold a satisfactory level of internal consistency, which is likely reflective of the consistency found in the revised 33-item version.

Factor Analysis

The source material does not report a formal factor analysis performed on the revised 33-item scale. The revision methodology was based on a consensus approach: Gorsuch and his graduate students reviewed Broen’s original 58 items and retained only the 33 items upon which they could unanimously agree concerning their unambiguous face validity and relevance to the religious trait of fundamentalism.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report inventory

Format: 33 items using a dichotomous (Agree/Disagree) format.

Language Available: English (implied by administration locations).

Population Group: Individuals with a Christian orientation, suitable for both religious and nonreligious groups.

Age Group: Primarily college and undergraduate students (Adults).

Population Details: Standardization samples included 50 students at Texas Christian University (Mean=15.34, SD=5.12) and 164 undergraduate students at a small Christian college (Mean=23.94, SD=5.29) taking social science, nursing, and religion courses.

Test Methodology: The instrument is straightforward and easily administered. Scoring involves summing the number of fundamentalism items with which the respondent agrees. Reverse-worded items (denoted by an asterisk) increment the total score by one upon disagreement.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Scale Development, Religious Orthodoxy, Biblical Literalism, Human Depravity, College Students, Attitude Measurement, Kuder-Richardson Formula, Construct Validation.

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 its revised form by Gorsuch and Smith in 1983. Permissions are required from the authors for usage, as the items were reprinted with permission. Fee information is not provided in the source material.

Reference’s

Broen, W. E. (1957a). A factor analytic study of religious attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 176-179.

Broen, W. E. (1957b). Religious Attitude Inventory: The original correlation matrix, the unrotated factor matrix, and the Religious Attitude Inventory with keys for scoring (Document No. 5066). American Documentation Institute: Auxiliary Publications Project, Photoduplication Service. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress. This reference describes a document available through the Library of Congress.

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.

Lee, R. R. (1965). Theological belief as a dimension of personality (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1965). Dissertation Abstracts International, 26-06, 3510.

Smith, C. S. (1983). Sanctioning and causal attributions to God: A function of theological position and actors’ characteristics (Doctoral dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, Professional School of Psychology, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44-06B, 2016.

Items of the FUNDAMENTALISM SCALE-REVISED

Directions: Circle the A if you agree with a statement, and 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. We realize the difficulty a person who does not believe in the existence of a God might have in answering a statement such as “God watches over us.” (Disagree might be interpreted as meaning that “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. Christ died for sinners.
• A D 2. There is really no such a place as Hell.*
• A D 3. It is through the righteousness of Jesus Christ and not because of our own works that we are made righteous before God.
• A D 4. Christ’s simple message of concern for your fellow man has been twisted by the superstitious mysticism of such men as Paul.*
• A D 5. The death of Christ on the cross was necessary to blot out man’s sin and make him acceptable in the eyes of God.
• A D 6. “God” is an abstract concept roughly equivalent to the concept “Nature.”*
• A D 7. Man is born in sin.
• A D 8. Man’s essential nature is good.*
• A D 9. Man is by nature sinful and unclean.
• A D l0. 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.*
• A D 11. The Bible is the word of God and must be believed in its entirety.
• A D 12. Man has a spark of the divine in him which must be made to blossom more fully.*
• A D 13. Sin brings forth the wrath of God.
• A D 14. A person should follow his own conscience in deciding right and wrong.*
• A D 15. The most important idea on religion is the Golden Rule.*
• A D 16. The wrath of God is a terrible thing.
• A D 17. The Scriptures should be interpreted with the constant exercise of reason.*
• A D 18. Everyone will be called before God at the judgment day to answer for his sins.
• A D 19. Everyone has sinned and deserves punishment for his sins.
• A D 20. The church is important because it is an effective agency for organizing the social life of a community.*
• A D 21. No one should question the authority of the Bible.
• A D 22. The content of various doctrines is unimportant. What really matters is that they help those who believe in them to lead better lives.*
• A D 23. Because of his terrible sinfulness, man has been eternally damned unless he accepts Christ as his savior.
• A D 24. Religion is a search for understanding, truth, love, and beauty in human life.*
• A D 25. Every person born into this world deserves God’s wrath and damnation.
• A D 26. The world is full of condemned sinners.
• A D 27. The Devil can enter a man’s body and take control.
• A D 28. The people of the world must repent before it is too late and they find them- selves in Hell.
• A D 29. The Christian must lead a strict life, away from worldly amusements.
• A D 30. In his natural state of sin, man is too evil to communicate with God.
• A D 31. Christ was not divine, but his teachings and the example set by his life are in- valuable.*
• A D 32. The question of Christ’s divinity is unimportant; it is his teachings that mat- ter.*
• A D 33. God is the final judge of our behavior, but I do not believe that He is as pun- ishing as some seem to say He is.*

*Denotes reverse-scored items. Reprinted with permission of authors.