RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM SCALE

Abstract

The Religious Fundamentalism Scale (RFS), developed by Martin and Westie (1959), is a nine-item instrument initially constructed to measure beliefs associated with religious fundamentalism, primarily to assess its relationship with tolerance. The scale utilizes a 5-point Likert scale format. The authors built the scale using the technique of internal consistency, influenced by research on The Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950). Critically, subsequent analysis suggests the RFS is mislabeled; it measures religious conservatism, stressing dogma and supernaturalism, and functions more accurately as a measure of Christian orthodoxy, as six of its items are derived from the Apostle’s Creed. It is a rapid, paper-and-pencil measure focusing almost exclusively on beliefs rather than attitudes or behaviors.

Keywords

Religious Fundamentalism, Religious Conservatism, Christian Orthodoxy, Dogma, Supernaturalism, Attitude Scale, Martin and Westie, Likert Scale, Tolerance.

Authors

J. G. Martin, F. R. Westie.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The original purpose of the scale, as presented by Martin and Westie (1959), was to quantify a “fundamentalistic, doctrinaire, and conservative outlook” within a population sample. This measurement was then used to test the hypothesis that this religious outlook would be negatively correlated with the personality variable of tolerance.

In modern application, the scale is primarily viewed as a measure of orthodox Christian belief, rather than fundamentalism in a broad socio-political sense. Researchers like Robinson and Shaver (1973) and Hill (1995) suggest its utility is restricted to assessing adherence to core doctrinal beliefs, particularly those rooted in the Apostle’s Creed, making it suitable for studies focusing on specific religious dogma.

Construct

The construct measured by the RFS is most accurately described as Religious Orthodoxy or Religious Conservatism, characterized by strong adherence to specific Christian dogma and belief in supernatural elements. The scale focuses heavily on ontological beliefs (e.g., Christ’s divinity, the Bible’s inspiration, life after death) and contains only one item measuring a social attitude.

It is crucial to understand that the RFS does not assess behaviors, religious experiences, or the broader social characteristics often associated with Religious Fundamentalism, such as intolerance, social concern, or optimism. Therefore, individuals from various conservative Christian groups (e.g., evangelicals, Roman Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox believers) who do not identify as fundamentalists may still score highly, limiting its specificity to the fundamentalist demographic.

Validity

The original authors did not undertake formal validation procedures. Initial findings suggested the scale possessed criterion validity by discriminating between tolerant and prejudiced respondents at the .001 level. However, a subsequent reanalysis highlighted significant methodological concerns regarding the validity of this difference.

The reanalysis revealed a lack of homogeneity of variance between the two groups, severely skewing the distribution of scores for the tolerant group. This meant that the lower mean score for the tolerant group was primarily due to a small minority of individuals with extremely low scores, while the majority of tolerant subjects scored similarly to the prejudiced group. Furthermore, significant convergent validity was only established for the tolerant sample, where RFS scores correlated significantly with measures of authoritarianism (.56), nationalism (.41), and child rearing attitudes (.48). The scale’s limited scope (measuring only belief and one attitude item) restricts its overall value for the scientific study of religion, though it retains strong historical significance and potential value for measuring orthodox Christian belief.

Reliability

No reliability assessment (e.g., internal consistency or test-retest reliability) was reported by Martin and Westie (1959) during the scale’s initial development or validation phase. Due to this absence of data, researchers are strongly cautioned to determine the reliability of the RFS for their specific population and context prior to its utilization to ensure the consistency of the measurement.

Factor Analysis

The scale was constructed using the “technique of internal consistency” but no formal factor analysis was reported in the source material. Therefore, the underlying dimensionality or factor structure of the nine items remains empirically undocumented by the original developers.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Attitude/Belief Inventory

Format: Nine statements rated on a 5-point Likert scale (SA, A, U, D, SD).

Language Available: English.

Population Group: General adult population (specifically intended for studying religious attitudes in relation to personality traits).

Age Group: Adults.

Population Details: Initial normative data was collected from two small, unrepresentative samples (N=100) of all-Caucasian residents living on specific city blocks in Indianapolis during the late 1950s. The samples were stratified based on pre-assessed levels of tolerance/prejudice.

Test Methodology: A straightforward paper-and-pencil instrument, capable of being completed in less than five minutes. It can be administered individually or in a group setting. Scoring involves assigning numerical weights from +2 (Strongly Agree) down to -2 (Strongly Disagree). Items 2, 3, 5, and 7 are reverse-scored to ensure high scores reflect high levels of fundamentalism/orthodoxy. Researchers should add explicit instructions as none were provided with the original scale.

Keywords

Orthodoxy, Dogmatic Belief, Religious Conservatism, Martin and Westie, Summated Differences Scales, Tolerance, Prejudice, Internal Consistency.

[quads id=5]

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 scale was developed and published in 1959. While the scale items are widely accessible through major scale compendiums like Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes (Robinson & Shaver, 1973), researchers should consult the original authors’ publications or the Institute for Social Research (ISR) for specific permissions regarding commercial use or large-scale administration. No fee information is provided in the source material.

Reference’s

• Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
• Ammerman, N. T. (1982). Operationalizing evangelicalism: An amendment. Sociological Analysis, 43, 170-172.
• Brown, L. B. (1981). Another test of Yinger’s measure of nondoctrinal religion. Journal of Psychology, 107, 3-5.
• Hill, P. C. (1995). Fundamentalism and Christianity: A psychological perspective. Paper presented in the symposium Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism at the 103rd meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York City.
• Leitner, L. M., & Cado, S. (1982). Personal constructs and homosexual stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 869-872.
• Martin, J. G., & Westie, F. R. (1959). The tolerant personality. American Sociological Review, 24, 521-528.
• Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1973). Measures of social psychological attitudes. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
• Sethi, S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). Optimism and fundamentalism. Psychological Science, 4, 256-259.
• Westie, F. R. (1953). A technique for the measurement of race attitudes. American Sociological Review, 18, 73-78.

[quads id=5]

Items of the RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM SCALE

1. SA A u D SD The Bible is the inspired word of God.
2. SA A u D SD The religious idea of heaven is not much more than superstition.
3. SA A u D SD Christ was a mortal, historical person, but not a supernatural or di- vine being.
4. SA A u D SD Christ is a divine being, the Son of God.
5. SA A u D SD The stories in the Bible about Christ healing sick and lame persons by His touch are fictitious and mythical.
6. SA A u D SD Someday Christ will return.
7. SA A u D SD The idea of life after death is simply a myth.
8. SA A u D SD If more of the people in this country would tum to Christ we would have a lot less crime and corruption.
9. SA A u D SD Since Christ brought the dead to life, He gave eternal life to all who have faith.

Note: Items 1, 4, 6, 8, and 9 are “positive” for scoring purposes, whereas 2, 3, 5, and 7 are “negative” items. Suggested scoring procedure: +2, +1, 0, -1, -2.