ADJECTIVE RATINGS OF GOD

Abstract

The Adjective Ratings of God (ARG) Scale is a specialized psychological scale designed to measure specific, differentiated perceptions of the deity, moving beyond simple binary belief questions (e.g., “Do you believe in God?”). Developed primarily by R. L. Gorsuch (1968), the scale builds upon earlier theoretical frameworks concerning the conceptualization of God.

It integrates concepts from anthropomorphic characterizations (Spilka, Armatas, & Nussbaum, 1964) and linguistic properties studied under the Semantic Differential approach (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957). The resulting instrument comprises five primary factors—Traditional Christian, Deisticness, Wrathfulness, Omni-ness, and Irrelevancy—which reliably capture an individual’s specific image of God (e.g., kindly, wrathful, impersonal). The scales are designed to be easily extractable and readily related to other psychological constructs, such as intrinsic-extrinsic religiosity.

Keywords

Adjective Ratings of God, God concept, religious psychology, anthropomorphism, Semantic Differential, Gorsuch, deity perception, factor analysis, Traditional Christian, Wrathfulness.

Authors

Rodney L. Gorsuch, Bernard Spilka, Philip Armatas, Jon Nussbaum, Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci, Percy H. Tannenbaum.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Adjective Ratings of God Scale is to provide a nuanced measurement of an individual’s perception of God, thereby enriching research in the psychology of religion. Instead of merely assessing the presence or absence of belief, the scale focuses on the qualitative nature of that belief.

The instrument seeks to quantify specific attributes—such as whether God is perceived as “kindly,” “wrathful,” or “impersonal”—allowing researchers to move beyond vague survey responses and correlate these specific God concepts with other psychological and behavioral constructs.

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of God Conceptualization or God Image, defined by the specific adjectives an individual attributes to the deity. This construct is recognized as multidimensional, incorporating both theological expectations and emotional dimensions.

The scale development was informed by two foundational theoretical approaches: 1) the usefulness of anthropomorphic characterizations, exemplified by the five descriptive factors derived by Spilka et al. (1964) (stern father, impersonal, kindly father, “omni-ness”); and 2) the underlying linguistic properties of the adjectives used (evaluation, potency, and activity), derived from the Semantic Differential framework established by Osgood et al. (1957).

Validity

Overall, the psychometric analysis indicated that support was lacking for a purely semantic differential explanation of God concepts, suggesting that the perception of God involves more than just linguistic characteristics.

However, the study successfully replicated the essential five-factor finding of Spilka et al. (1964), suggesting that the underlying factors used to describe God concepts appear consistently. This replication supports the scale’s construct validity. Researchers noted that future steps should involve directly comparing the Gorsuch scales with other instruments that purport to measure similar religious constructs.

Reliability

The five final subscales isolated by Gorsuch (1968) evidenced high to moderately high internal consistency. The Reliability coefficients for the scales in the original undergraduate sample were:

• Traditional Christian: .94
• Deisticness: .71
• Wrathfulness: .83
• Omni-ness: .89
• Irrelevancy: .49 (This reliability estimate was severely attenuated due to a lack of variance in responses to items in this specific scale.)

Two subsequent unpublished studies (Fairchild et al., 1993; Sundin et al., 1995) utilizing college student samples (N=116 and N=149, respectively) offered further support for the scale’s stability. Their reported reliabilities were consistent or higher, particularly noting the inclusion of a “Kindliness” factor (which was a first-order factor but not one of Gorsuch’s final suggested scales) that yielded reliabilities of .94 and .95.

Factor Analysis

The scale was constructed using a comprehensive list of 91 adjectives, combining the 63 adjectives from Spilka et al. (1964) and 28 adjectives derived from the Semantic Differential work of Osgood et al. (1957). Gorsuch added nine marker items (eight random variables and one denoting sex) which were not included in the final scoring.

The analysis ultimately led to the determination of eight first-order, two second-order, and one third-order potentially correlated factors. Gorsuch used factor analysis to isolate items on five of the eleven factors to construct the final reliable subscales that form the overall instrument:

• Traditional Christian: Items (1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 82, 85, 86, 88)
• Deisticness: Items (18, 39, 41, 55, 60)
• Wrathfulness: Items (4, 6, 12, 13, 14, 36, 43, 64, 70, 71, 76, 81, 90)
• Omni-ness: Items (42, 56, 57)
• Irrelevancy: Items (24, 28, 87, 89)

Instrument

Test Type: Psychological Adjective Checklist / Factor-Analytic Scale

Format: Paper-and-pencil instrument

Language Available: English (Original Publication)

Population Group: General population, specifically useful for religious studies and psychological research on belief systems.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults (validated primarily on college students)

Population Details: The initial standardization sample consisted of 585 undergraduate students (234 females, 351 males). The sample was moderately religious (29% attended services at least once per week) and predominantly Christian Protestant (77%). An independent cross-validation sample of 85 males displayed similar results.

Test Methodology: Respondents are instructed to rate each of the descriptive words according to how well they believe the word describes the term “God” using a 3-point scale:

• 1. The word does not describe “God.”
• 2. The word describes “God.”
• 3. The word describes “God” particularly well.

The estimated completion time for this instrument is approximately 5–10 minutes.

Keywords

Gorsuch, God image, religious cognition, psychometrics, scale development, Traditional Christian factor, Deisticness, Wrathfulness, Omni-ness, Irrelevancy.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not specified in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not specified in source material.

Correspondence Address: Based on the original publication: Gorsuch, R. L. (1968). The conceptualization of God as seen in adjective ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 7, 56-64.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was originally published in 1968 by R. L. Gorsuch.

Information regarding current usage permissions and associated fees must be obtained by contacting the copyright holder or the publisher of the originating journal, the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Reference’s

Fairchild, D., Roth, H., Milmoe, S., Gotthard, C., Fehrmann, L., Richards, S., Kim, B. H., Sedlmayr, J., Carely, B., Pan, P., & Spilka, B. (1993). God images and prayer behavior: Consonance in the psychology of religion. Paper presented at the joint convention of the Rocky Mountain and Western Psychological Associations, Phoenix, AZ.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1968). The conceptualization of God as seen in adjective ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 7, 56-64.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). Measurement of meaning. Urbana: Urbana University of Illinois Press.

Schaefer, C. A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1992). Dimensionality of religion: Belief and motivation as predictors of behavior. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, I I, 244-254.

Spilka, B., Armatas, P. & Nussbaum, J. (1964). The concept of God: A factor analytic approach. Review of Religious Research, 6, 28-36.

Sundin, H., Ladd, K. L., & Spilka, B. (1995). The relation between God images and perceptions of God’s control. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Boulder, CO.

[quads id=5]

Items of the ADJECTIVE RATINGS OF GOD

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

1. Absolute
2. Critical
3. Faithful
4. Gracious
5. Active
6. Cruel
7. False
8. Guiding
9. All-wise
10. Damning
11. Fast
12. Hard
13. Avenging
14. Dangerous
15. Fatherly
16. Helpful
17. Blessed
18. Demanding
19. Fearful
20. Holy
21. Blunt
22. Democratic
23. Feeble
24. Impersonal
25. Charitable
26. Distant
27. Firm
28. Important
29. Comforting
30. Divine
31. Forgiving
32. Inaccessible
33. Considerate
34. Eternal
35. Formal
36. Infinite
37. Controlling
38. Everlasting
39. Gentle
40. Jealous
41. Creative
42. Fair
43. Glorious
44. Just
45. Kind
46. Omnipresent
47. Safe
48. Tough
49. Kingly
50. Omniscient
51. Severe
52. True
53. Lenient
54. Patient
55. Sharp
56. Loving
57. Passive
58. Slow
59. Majestic
60. Permissive
61. Soft
62. Matchless
63. Powerful
64. Sovereign
65. Meaningful
66. Protective
67. Steadfast
68. Meek
69. Punishing
70. Stern
71. Merciful
72. Real
73. Still
74. Moving
75. Redeeming
76. Strong
77. Mythical
78. Restrictive
79. Supporting
80. Omnipotent
81. Righteous
82. Timely
83. Unchanging
84. Unyielding
85. Valuable
86. Vigorous
87. Weak
88. Warm
89. Worthless
90. Wrathful
91. Yielding