RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM SCALE

Abstract

The Religious Fundamentalism (RF) Scale is a 20-item psychometric instrument designed to quantify the dispositional style of holding and expressing religious beliefs, independent of specific doctrinal content. Unlike earlier measures that confounded belief content with the psychological process of holding those beliefs, the RF Scale utilizes statements applicable across diverse faiths, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. This allows researchers to assess the degree of fundamentalist adherence in a nonsectarian manner.

The measure is scored using a 9-point Likert scale, resulting in total scores ranging from 20 to 180. Empirically, the RF Scale demonstrates robust correlations with established constructs such as Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Dogmatism, affirming its role in tapping a distinct dimension of rigid, traditional religious orientation (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992).

Keywords

Religious Fundamentalism, RF Scale, Fundamentalism, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Dogmatism, Religiosity, Psychological Measurement, Nonsectarian

Authors

Bob Altemeyer, Bruce Hunsberger

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Fundamentalism (RF) Scale is to quantify the intensity of a fundamentalist orientation towards religious belief. This orientation is defined not by adherence to specific articles of faith (doctrinal content), but rather by the style and rigidity with which those beliefs are held.

The scale aims to be universally applicable across different religious traditions—such as Christian, Muslim, or Jewish faiths—allowing for cross-cultural psychological comparisons of religious fundamentalism. The authors defined this construct as: “The belief that there is one set of religious teachings that clearly contains the fundamental, basic, intrinsic, essential, inerrant truth about humanity and deity; that this essential truth is fundamentally opposed by forces of evil which must be vigorously fought; that this truth must be followed today according to the fundamental, unchangeable practices of the past; and that those who believe and follow these fundamental teachings have a special relationship with the deity” (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992, p. 118).

Construct

The central psychological construct measured by the RF Scale is Religious Fundamentalism, understood as a cognitive and behavioral style of processing religious information. Crucially, this construct is deliberately formulated to be non-doctrinal, focusing on the mental process—the belief in an absolute, inerrant truth that must be rigidly defended and followed—rather than the specific content of the religion itself.

The measure demonstrates strong theoretical and empirical links to other constructs within social and personality psychology. It is significantly associated with overall Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), correlating positively with its subcomponents: conventionalism, submission to authority, and authoritarian aggression. Furthermore, it is correlated with Altemeyer’s Dogmatism Scale and measures of Christian orthodoxy, suggesting that rigid adherence is often coupled with traditional beliefs, although the RF Scale taps a distinct, separate dimension.

Validity

The validity of the RF Scale has been supported through both content examination and extensive correlational studies (criterion and convergent validity). Content validity is established by ensuring the scale items accurately reflect the authors’ conceptual definition of fundamentalism as a belief style characterized by inerrancy, opposition to evil forces, and adherence to unchangeable practices.

In terms of convergent validity, the RF Scale consistently correlates strongly with measures of related constructs. Across various samples, the RF Scale demonstrated correlations ranging from .66 to .75 with the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (Altemeyer, 1988), and from .60 to .75 with the Christian Orthodoxy Scale. Other significant correlations include .57 with the Dogmatism Scale, .30 with general measures of prejudice, and .41 with anti-homosexuality scales. Notably, it showed a strong negative correlation (-.79) with measures of religion as a quest, demonstrating discriminant validity.

The scale’s robustness was further tested across non-Christian groups. Studies involving Hindu, Muslim, and Jewish samples in Toronto found correlations between the RF Scale and anti-homosexual attitudes ranging from .42 to .65 (Hunsberger, 1996), confirming its utility beyond specific Christian contexts and reinforcing its strong overall validity profile.

Reliability

The Religious Fundamentalism Scale exhibits very high levels of internal consistency reliability across diverse populations. For the initial student samples, interitem correlations ranged robustly between .41 and .48, with the indices of internal consistency (typically Cronbach’s Alpha) being exceptional, ranging from .93 to .95.

Similar high reliability was observed in the parent sample, where the mean interitem correlation was .37, and the index of internal consistency was .92. Furthermore, cross-cultural data collected from non-Christian samples (Hindus, Muslims, and Jews) in Toronto yielded comparable statistical results (Hunsberger, 1996). These consistent statistics confirm that the RF Scale reliably measures a single, cohesive construct across different religious and demographic groups.

Factor Analysis

While the initial publications primarily emphasized internal consistency and correlational evidence, the consistently high interitem correlations (ranging from .37 to .48) and the exceptionally high internal consistency coefficients (Alpha typically exceeding .92 across all samples) strongly imply that the Religious Fundamentalism Scale operates as a unidimensional measure.

The development methodology, which focused on creating a non-doctrinal measure of a single psychological orientation (the style of holding beliefs), supports the interpretation that the 20 items converge onto a single underlying factor representing the degree of religious fundamentalism present in the respondent.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire; standardized psychological scale.

Format: The RF Scale consists of 20 items, half of which are reverse-scored (con-trait items) to mitigate response-set bias. Responses are captured on a 9-point Likert scale, ranging from -4 (“very strongly disagree”) to +4 (“very strongly agree”), with a neutral option of 0.

Language Available: English (original).

Population Group: Nonsectarian, designed for use across multiple religious groups (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, etc.).

Age Group: Adolescents (university students) and Adults.

Population Details: Initial standardization samples included 698 Canadian university students (Wilfred Laurier University and University of Manitoba) and 491 parents, predominantly raised in Christian faiths. Subsequent validation included smaller samples of non-Christian groups (Hindus, Muslims, Jews) in Toronto, confirming its applicability across diverse religious backgrounds.

Test Methodology: Administration requires approximately 10 minutes. Scoring involves reversing the scores for the 10 con-trait items, adding a constant of five to eliminate negative values, and summing the raw scores. Final total scores can range from a minimum of 20 to a maximum of 180, with a theoretical midpoint of 100. Higher scores indicate greater religious fundamentalism.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Likert scale, Religious Beliefs, Conventionalism, Submission to Authority, Prejudice, Internal consistency, Non-doctrinal measurement

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Not provided in source material)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A (Not provided in source material)

Correspondence Address: N/A (Not provided in source material)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1992 (First published by Altemeyer & Hunsberger).

Permissions and Fee: Information regarding current usage fees or formal permissions is not provided in the source material. Researchers should consult the original authors or the publisher, The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, for usage rights.

Reference’s

• Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.
• Fullerton, J. T., & Hunsberger, B. (1982). A unidimensional measure of Christian orthodoxy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 317-326.
• Genia, V. (1996). I, E, quest, and fundamentalism as predictors of psychological and spiritual well-being. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 56-64.
• Hunsberger, B. (1996). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism and hostility toward homosexuals in non-Christian religious groups. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6, 39-49.
• Hunsberger, B., Pancer, M. S., Pratt, M., & Alisat, S. (1996). The transition to university: Is religion related to adjustment? In M. Lynn & D. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion (Vol. 7, pp. 181-199). Greenwich, CT: JAi Press.
• Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (1994). Religious fundamentalism and integrative complexity of thought: A relationship for existential content only? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 335-346.
• Pancer, S. M., Jackson, L. M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M. W., & Lea, J. (1995). Religious orthodoxy and the complexity of thought about religious and nonreligious issues. Journal of Personality, 63, 213-232.

Items of the RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM SCALE

This survey includes a number of statements about general religious opinions. You will probably find that you agree with some of the statements and disagree with others, to varying extents. Please indicate your reaction to each of the statements by marking your opinion to the left of each statement, according to the following scale:

Mark a –

• 4 if you very strongly disagree with the statement.
• 3 if you strongly disagree with the statement.
• 2 if you moderately disagree with the statement.
• 1 if you slightly disagree with the statement.

Mark a

• + 1 if you slightly agree with the statement.
• + 2 if you moderately agree with the statement.
• + 3 if you strongly agree with the statement.
• + 4 if you very strongly agree with the statement.

If you feel exactly and precisely neutral about a statement, mark a “O” next to it.

1. God has given mankind a complete, unfailing guide to happiness and salvation, which must be totally followed.
2. All of the religions in the world have flaws and wrong teachings.*
3. Of all the people on this earth, one group has a special relationship with God because it believes the most in his revealed truths and tries the hardest to follow his laws.
4. The long-established traditions in religion show the best way to honour and serve God, and should never be compromised.
5. Religion must admit all its past failings and adapt to modern life if it is to benefit humanity.*
6. When you get right down to it, there are only two kinds of people in the world: the Righteous, who will be rewarded by God and the rest, who will not.
7. Different religions and philosophies• have different versions of the truth and may be equally right in their own way.*
8. The basic cause of evil in this world is Satan, who is still constantly and ferociously fighting against God.
9. It is more important to be a good person than to believe in God and the right religion.*
10. No one religion is especially close to God, nor does God favor any particular group of believers.*
11. God will punish most severely those who abandon his true religion.
12. No single book of religious writings contains all the important truths about life.*
13. It is silly to think people can be divided into “the Good” and “the Evil.” Everyone does some good, and some bad, things.*
14. God’s true followers must remember that he requires them to constantly fight Satan and Satan’s allies on this earth.
15. Parents should encourage their children to study all religions without bias, then make up their own minds about what to believe.*
16. There is a religion on this earth that teaches, without error, God’s truth.
17. “Satan” is just the name people give to their own bad impulses. There really is no such thing as a diabolical “Prince of Darkness” who tempts us.*
18. Whenever science and sacred scripture conflict, science must be wrong.
19. There is no body of teachings, or set of scriptures, which is completely without error.*
20. To lead the best, most meaningful life, one must belong to the one, true religion.

Note: The higher the score, the more fundamentalist the response. * = con-trait item, for which the –4 to +4 scoring key is reversed.