ATTITUDE TOWARD THE CHURCH SCALE

Abstract

The Attitude Toward the Church Scale is a seminal instrument developed by L. L. Thurstone and his collaborators, Ernest Chave and C. K. A. Wang, early in the twentieth century. It is considered one of the most widely recognized of the early religiosity scales and was designed to quantify a wide spectrum of favorable and unfavorable attitudes toward the institution of the church. The scale comprises 45 items selected from an initial pool of 130, representing the church alternately as a generalized institution or as a specific site for religious services and social interaction. Crucially, the authors intended the scale to be an unbiased measure, meaning that the resulting scores—whether high or low—carry no inherent judgment regarding the subject’s position.

The development of this scale, alongside others such as the Attitude toward God and Attitude toward the Bible scales, was driven by Thurstone’s interest in applying psychophysical methods to the measurement of complex social attitudes. Scoring involves calculating the mean scale-value (median ranking) of all statements endorsed by the respondent, providing a quantitative assessment of the individual’s attitude along a continuum.

Keywords

Attitude measurement, Thurstone scaling, Church attitude, Religiosity, Psychometrics, Social attitudes, Attitude toward the Church Scale, Psychophysical methods

Authors

L. L. Thurstone, Ernest Chave, C. K. A. Wang

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Attitude Toward the Church Scale is to measure the range and intensity of individuals’ attitudes toward the Christian church institution. The scale is designed to quantify these attitudes along a continuum, moving from positions that are extremely favorable to those that are strongly antagonistic. It serves as an objective tool for assessing social attitudes within the context of religious institutions, differentiating between neutral, moderately favorable, and highly polarized views.

The scale was initially developed for use by religious educators but became highly influential in the field of social psychology, demonstrating the application of rigorous psychophysical methods—specifically the method of equal-appearing intervals—to inherently subjective social constructs.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Attitude Toward the Church. This construct is operationalized through 45 statements that reflect varying degrees of favorableness or unfavorableness. The items are structured to capture two distinct facets of the church: (1) the church as a broad, generalized institution or agency (e.g., its social influence, moral role), and (2) the church as a specific locus of religious services and social relationships (e.g., personal attendance, community involvement).

The scoring methodology, based on the median ranking of endorsed items, assigns a single score that reflects the subject’s overall position on the attitude continuum. The underlying assumption, derived from Thurstone’s scaling methodology, is that attitudes are measurable psychological continua, and the scale successfully places respondents along this spectrum without implying moral judgment about the resulting score.

Validity

Reasonably strong evidence for the scale’s validity was established through several empirical findings reported by Thurstone and Chave (1929). Criterion validity was supported by correlations between scale scores and overt behaviors related to church engagement. Specifically, individuals who reported frequent church attendance or claimed active church membership scored significantly higher (more favorable) on the scale than those who did not.

Furthermore, convergent validity was demonstrated through correlation with self-ratings on a simple Likert-type scale ranging from “strongly favorable” to “strongly against” the church. While this correlation was described as “fairly satisfactory,” Thurstone and Chave observed a tendency for subjects, particularly those with negative attitudes, to slightly inflate their self-ratings, suggesting a potential influence of social pressure or social desirability bias on the single-item rating. Subsequent research, including correlations with other religiosity measures (e.g., Wicker, 1971), has consistently added to the evidence supporting the scale’s validity.

Reliability

The Attitude Toward the Church Scale demonstrated exceptionally high reliability, calculated primarily using the split-half method. To achieve parallel forms for this calculation, the 45 statements were ranked by their scale values, and successive pairs were split, alternating the assignment of the higher-rank item to one of the two forms. An initial sample of 100 subjects yielded a correlation of .89 between the two halves.

When corrected using the Spearman-Brown formula, the estimated reliability for the full 45-item scale reached an impressive .94. A verification study using a second group of 200 university freshmen produced comparable reliability coefficients of .85 (uncorrected) and .92 (corrected), confirming the scale’s internal consistency and stability across different samples.

Factor Analysis

Formal factor analysis, as understood in modern psychometrics (e.g., Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis), was not applied during the initial development of the scale in the late 1920s. However, the scale was constructed using the Thurstone method of equal-appearing intervals, which is inherently designed to create a unidimensional scale where items are carefully selected to represent equidistant points along a single latent attitude continuum. The high internal consistency reported via the split-half reliability method suggests that the scale effectively measures a strong, singular dimension of attitude toward the church.

Instrument

Test Type:

Attitude Scale (Thurstone Type/Method of Equal-Appearing Intervals)

Format:

45 randomly ordered statements; respondents check every statement with which they fully agree (dichotomous endorsement).

Language Available:

English (Original)

Population Group:

General population capable of reading and understanding the statements; primarily used with university students and adults in initial standardization.

Age Group:

Adolescents and Adults (College age and older)

Population Details:

Standardization samples included undergraduate and graduate students at the University of Chicago, divinity students, and attendees of the Chicago Forum.

Test Methodology:

Self-administered questionnaire requiring approximately 15 minutes to complete. Scoring involves calculating the mean scale-value (median ranking) of the endorsed items. Instructions emphasize that altered statements are ignored and that subjects must endorse statements exactly as written. Anonymity may be offered to minimize social pressure.

Keywords

Psychological measurement, Attitude scaling, Thurstone method, Split-half reliability, Church membership, Social desirability, Attitude assessment

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier:

Not applicable (Historical scale)

Affiliation Email addresses:

Not applicable (Historical scale)

Correspondence Address:

L. L. Thurstone and E. J. Chave were affiliated with the University of Chicago at the time of publication.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

Permissions: The scale is historical and was published by the University of Chicago Press. Current permissions status for academic use should be verified, though many older Thurstone scales are often treated as being in the public domain for non-commercial research purposes due to their age.

Fee: Not generally associated with a fee for research use, but required materials (e.g., the original book) must be obtained.

Test Year: 1929 (Original publication)

Reference’s

• Chave, E. J. (1939). Measure religion: Fifty-two experimental forms. Chicago: The University of Chicago Bookstore.

• Heber, S. (1996). Dimensionen der religiositiit: Ska/en, messomodelle und ergebnisse einer em­pirisch orientiernten religionspsychlolgie. Freiburg (Switzerland): Universitatsverlag.

• Jones, V. (1970). Attitudes of college students and their changes: A 37-year study. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 81, 3-80.

• Meredith, G. M. (1968). Personality correlates to religious belief systems. Psychological Reports, 23, 1039-1042.

• Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J.M. (1967). Scales for the measurement of attitudes (pp. 97-99). New York: McGraw-Hill.

• Siegman, A. W. (1962). A cross-cultural investigation of the relationship between religiosity, ethnic prejudice and authoritarianism. Psychological Reports, 11, 419-424.

• Struening, E., & Spilka, B. (1952). A study of certain social and religious attitudes of university faculty members. Psychological Newsletter, 43, 1-17.

• Thurstone, L. L. (Ed.) (1931). The measurement of social attitudes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [a collection of separately printed questionnaires and instructions]

• Thurstone, L. L., & Chave, E. J. (1929). The measurement of attitude: A psychophysical method and some experiments with a scale for measuring attitude toward the church. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• Wicker, A. W. (1971). An examination of the “other variables” explanation of attitude-behavior inconsistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 18-30.

Items of the ATTITUDE TOWARD THE CHURCH SCALE

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

Respondents are asked to check every statement with which they fully agree.

1. I think the church is a divine institution, and it commands my highest loyalty and respect.
2. I am neither for nor against the church, but I do not believe that churchgoing will do anyone any harm.
3. I feel the good done by the church is not worth the money and energy spent on it.
4. I regard the church as a monument to human ignorance.
5. I believe that the church is losing ground as education advances.
6. I feel the church is trying to adjust itself to a scientific world and deserves support.
7. The teaching of the church is altogether too superficial to be of interest to me.
8. I feel the church is the greatest agency for the uplift of the world.
9. I think the church has a most important influence in the development of moral habits and attitudes.
10. I believe that the church is necessary, but, like all other human institutions, it has its faults.
11. I regard the church as a harmful institution, breeding narrow-mindedness, fanaticism, and intolerance.
12. The church is too conservative for me, and so I stay away.
13. I believe in the ideals of my church, but I am tired of its denominationalism.
14. I believe that the church furnishes the stimulus for the best leadership of our country.
15. I’m not much against the church, but when I cannot agree with its leaders I stay away.
16. I regard the church as hopelessly allied with reactionary forces.
17. I believe that the church practices the Golden Rule fairly well and has a consequent good influence.
18. I am interested only to the extent of attending church occasionally.
19. I feel the church is ridiculous, for it cannot give examples of what it preaches.
20. Sometimes I feel the church is worthwhile, and sometimes I doubt it.
21. My church is the primary guiding influence in my life.
22. I like the spiritual uplift I get from the church, but I do not agree with its theology.
23. My attitude toward the church is one of neglect due to lack of interest.
24. I believe the church is bound hand and foot with monied interests and does not practice its ideals.
25. I am sympathetic toward the church, but I am not active in its work.
26. I regard the church as a parasite on society.
27. I know too little about any church to express an opinion.
28. I regard the church as the most important institution in the world outside of the home.
29. I am slightly prejudiced against the church and attend only on special occasions.
30. I do not think a man can be honest in his thinking and indorse [sic] what the church teaches.
31. There is much wrong in my church, but I feel it is so important that it is my duty to help improve it.
32. I feel that the church promotes a fine brotherly relationship between people and nations.
33. I think the church is unreservedly stupid and futile.
34. I feel that church attendance is a good index of the nation’s morality.
35. I feel the church is petty, easily disturbed by matters of little importance.
36. In the church I find my best companions and express my best self.
37. I believe the church is nonscientific, depending for its influence on fear of God and hell.
38. I am loyal to the church, but I believe its influence is on the decline.
39. It seems absurd to me for a thinking man to be interested in the church.
40. My attitude toward the church is best described as indifference.
41. I believe that anyone who will work in a modem church will appreciate its indispensable value.
42. The church deals in platitudes and is afraid to follow the logic of truth.
43. My attitude toward the church is passive, with a slight tendency to disfavor it.
44. I have a casual interest in the church.
45. I have nothing but contempt for the church.