Death Perspective Scales

Abstract

The Death Perspective Scales (DPS), developed by Spilka, Stout, Minton, and Sizemore in 1977, represent a critical advancement in the measurement of attitudes toward death. Unlike earlier instruments which typically focused solely on death anxiety or fear, the DPS aims to capture the true multidimensional nature of an individual’s feelings regarding mortality. The instrument consists of eight primary subscales, measuring distinct emotional and cognitive reactions to the idea of one’s own death.

The 1977 scales were an improvement upon earlier, less robust instruments (Hooper & Spilka, 1970; Minton & Spilka, 1976). The final version comprises 43 items, organized into eight distinct scales varying from four to six items each. Responses are collected via a 6-point Likert scale, where respondents complete the phrase, “Death as…” While the scales are highly regarded for their theoretical foundation and are frequently cited in the academic literature, their actual use in published research studies has been limited.

Keywords

Death Perspective Scales, Death Attitude, Multidimensional, Death Anxiety, Spilka, Thanatology, Religion, Psychometrics, Afterlife Beliefs.

Authors

Bernard Spilka, Larry Stout, Barbara Minton, Dianne Sizemore

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Death Perspective Scales is to move beyond unidimensional measures of death attitudes, such as those focused on fear, and instead quantify the complex, multidimensional nature of human emotional and cognitive reactions to mortality. The developers posited that feelings about death, much like religious beliefs, are multifaceted and require a nuanced measurement approach.

The scales are specifically designed to measure eight proposed aspects of personal reactions to death, ranging from highly negative views (e.g., pain, failure) to neutral or positive spiritual views (e.g., natural end, afterlife of reward).

Construct

The Death Perspective Scales measure eight distinct constructs related to the personal meaning and emotional reaction to death, particularly one’s own mortality. These constructs are theorized to reflect the idea that both religion and death are multidimensional domains that interact with one another.

The eight measured constructs, based on the final factor structure, are:

• Death as Pain and Loneliness
• Death as an Afterlife of Reward
• Indifference toward Death
• Death as Unknown
• Death as Forsaking Dependents Plus Guilt
• Death as Courage
• Death as Failure
• Death as a Natural End

Validity

The original investigation by Spilka et al. (1977) provided initial evidence of the scales’ independence, examining the intercorrelations among the eight subscales. Out of 28 possible intercorrelations, 13 coefficients were low (below .2), suggesting a good degree of statistical independence between many of the perspectives, while 7 correlations were higher (above .4), indicating some overlap, particularly among related constructs.

Further evidence of construct validity was demonstrated through correlations with established religious orientation scales. Favorable death perspectives, such as Death as Afterlife of Reward and Death as Courage, correlated positively with the Intrinsic and Committed Scales (measuring deep personal faith). Conversely, negative perspectives (e.g., Indifference, Pain and Loneliness, Failure) were associated with the Extrinsic and Consensual Scales (measuring religion used for social or superficial gain). These findings support the theoretical link between religious involvement and specific death attitudes.

Subsequent research by Schoenrade (1989) further explored validity by testing the scales in an experiment involving mortality confrontation. The results showed theoretically consistent differentiation: subjects with high belief in an afterlife who were confronted with their mortality reported the highest Positive death perspective scores. This alignment with religious orientation findings reinforces the scales’ ability to measure meaningful psychological differences in response to death-related stimuli.

Reliability

Internal consistency was assessed using the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (K-R 20) coefficient, which is appropriate for dichotomously scored items or, in this context, measures of homogeneity for the subscales. The reliability coefficients reported by Spilka et al. (1977) indicated acceptable to strong internal consistency across the eight derived scales:

• Death as Afterlife of Reward: K-R 20 = .92 (Excellent)
• Death as Unknown: K-R 20 = .87 (Very Good)
• Death as Pain and Loneliness: K-R 20 = .79 (Good)
• Death as Forsaking Dependents Plus Guilt: K-R 20 = .78 (Acceptable)
• Death as Failure: K-R 20 = .77 (Acceptable)
• Death as Courage: K-R 20 = .72 (Acceptable)
• Indifference toward Death: K-R 20 = .71 (Acceptable)
• Death as a Natural End: K-R 20 = .71 (Acceptable)

These values suggest that the items within each subscale generally measure a consistent underlying dimension of the death perspective construct, indicating solid internal consistency for research use.

Factor Analysis

The development of the Death Perspective Scales was heavily reliant on factor analysis to reduce an initial pool of 60 items (derived from 180 items in Hooper & Spilka, 1970) intended to measure ten theoretical death perspectives. The original standardization sample of 328 subjects completed these 60 items.

Using principal components factor analysis, Spilka et al. (1977) identified a stable eight-factor structure. Crucially, the factor structure deviated slightly from the ten initially proposed perspectives: items designed to measure “death as punishment” failed to form a distinct factor, and items for “death as pain” and “death as loneliness” merged onto a single, common factor, leading to the final eight-scale structure.

A later study by Schoenrade (1989), using principal axes factor analysis on the established 43-item scale, suggested a potential three-factor hierarchical structure when considering the relationships between the scales themselves:

• Negative Factor: Included Pain and Loneliness, Unknown, Forsaking Dependents, and Failure.
• Positive Factor: Included Afterlife of Reward and Courage.
• Neutral Factor: Included Natural End.

The Indifference scale, however, did not load highly on any of these three overarching factors, suggesting its unique nature within the death perspective domain.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report psychological inventory/scale

Format: The instrument consists of 43 items across 8 subscales. Responses are collected using a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Each item is presented as a completion of the phrase, “Death as…”

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Generally used with adults, particularly those capable of abstract reasoning about mortality.

Age Group: Late adolescence and adulthood (e.g., College student population and older adults).

Population Details: The standardization sample included 328 Christian participants, predominantly college students, with a subset of 74 members from a Methodist church in Idaho.

Test Methodology: The scale is straightforward to administer and requires minimal instruction. Due to its relatively short length (43 items), it can be completed quickly and easily incorporated as a component within larger research instruments.

Keywords

Death Perspective Scales, Death Attitude, Multidimensional, Death Anxiety, Spilka, Thanatology, Religion, Psychometrics, Afterlife Beliefs.

Authors

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

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

Correspondence Address: N/A (Contact details for B. Spilka were associated with the University of Denver at the time of publication.)

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Test Year: 1977

Permissions and Fee: Information regarding current licensing or fee structure is not provided in the source material. Researchers should contact the original author or the journal publisher for permission to use the scales in new research.

Reference’s

The primary source for the Death Perspective Scales is:

Spilka, B., Stout, L., Minton, B., & Sizemore, D. (1977). Death and personal faith: A psychometric investigation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 169-178.

Other relevant references include:

• Allen, R. 0., & Spilka, B. (1967). Committed and consensual religions: A specification of religion-prejudice relationships. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 6, 191-206.
• Allport, G. W., & Ross, J.M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
• Hooper, T., & Spilka, B. (1970). Some meanings and correlations of future time and death among college students. Omega, 1, 49-56.
• Minton, B., & Spilka, B. (1976). Perspectives on death in relation to powerlessness and form of personal religion. Omega, 7, 261-268.
• Schoenrade, P. A. (1989). When I die … : Belief in afterlife as a response to mortality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15(1 ), 91-100.
• Spilka, B., Spangler, J. D., Rea, M. P., & Nelson, C. (1981). Religion and death: The clerical perspective. Journal of Religion and Health, 20(4), 299-306.

Items of the DEATH PERSPECTIVE SCALES

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

Responses should be made on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree).

Scale l: Death as Pain and Loneliness Death as …

• a last agonizing moment
• the conclusion to a time of isolation
• the final misery
• the fate of falling by the wayside
• the ultimate anguish and torment
• a lonely experience at the time of dying

Scale 2: Death as an Afterlife of Reward Death as …

• entrance to a place of ultimate satisfaction
• leading to a cleansing and rebirth of oneself
• leading to one’s resurrection and reward
• union with God and eternal bliss
• opportunity to give up this life in favor of a better one
• the doorway to heaven and ultimate happiness

Scale 3: Indifference toward Death Death as …

• unimportant in the scheme of things
• of little consequence
• something to be shrugged off and forgotten
• neither feared nor welcomed
• making no difference one way or the other

Scale 4: Death as Unknown Death as …

• the biggest uncertainty of all
• the greatest mystery
• the end of the known and the beginning of the unknown
• something about which one must say “I don’t know”
• a question mark
• the most ambiguous of life’s complexities

Scale 5: Death as Forsaking Dependents Plus Guilt Death as …

• leaving one’s dependents vulnerable to life’s trials
• a forsaking of loved others when one dies
• reason to feel guilty that one may not be adequately providing for future family necessi- ties
• a reason for feeling guilty
• leaving the family to fend for itself

Scale 6: Death as Courage Death as …

• a chance to show that one has stood for something during life
• an occasion to show how one can meet this last test of life
• a great moment of truth for oneself
• an opportunity for great accomplishment
• a time to refuse humiliation or defeat
• a test of commitment to one’s life values

Scale 7: Death as Failure Death as …

• an event that prevents the realization of one’s potential
• the end to one’s hopes
• the final failure of one’s search for the meaning of life
• the destruction of any chance to realize oneself to the fullest
• defeat in the struggle to succeed and achieve

Scale 8: Death as a Natural End Death as …

• an experience which comes to each of us because of the normal passage of time
• the final act in harmony with existence
• a natural aspect of life
• part of the cycle of life