ATTRIBUTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY TO GOD SCALE

Abstract

The Attributions of Responsibility to God Scale (ARGOS) is a specialized psychological instrument designed to quantify the degree to which individuals attribute the outcomes of significant life events to divine intervention. The scale utilizes four distinct vignettes (stories), all describing positive outcomes, which are systematically manipulated along two dimensions: the probability of the outcome (high vs. low) and the outcome’s extremity (mildly good vs. extremely good). Following each vignette, respondents employ a Likert scale (0 to 11) to evaluate the relative contributions of four causal factors: personal responsibility, luck, personal effort, and divine intervention (attribution to God).

The development of the scale was guided by General Attribution Theory, aiming to explore how situational cues interact with an individual’s religious traits (such as fundamentalism and nearness to God) in determining their attribution tendencies for real-life experiences.

Keywords

Religious Attribution, Divine Intervention, Attribution Theory, Religious Beliefs, Fundamentalism, Nearness to God, Psychological Scale, Life Events, Responsibility.

Authors

R. L. Gorsuch, C. S. Smith

Purpose

The primary purpose of the ATTRIBUTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY TO GOD SCALE is to assess the interaction between an individual’s religious traits and specific situational features in determining the tendency to attribute life event outcomes to God. Developed within the framework of General Attribution Theory, the instrument aims to provide a cohesive model for understanding the major dimensions and perceived causes underlying religious interpretations of life events (Glock & Piazza, 1981; Proudfoot & Shaver, 1975).

Specifically, the scale measures how variations in outcome probability (likely vs. unlikely) and outcome extremity (mild vs. extreme) affect the distribution of causal responsibility among internal factors (effort, responsibility), external secular factors (luck), and external religious factors (God).

Construct

The scale measures the psychological construct of **Religious Attribution**, which focuses on how individuals assign causality for life events, particularly when those events are ambiguous or involve unexpected success. It extends traditional attribution theory by including divine causality as a measurable factor.

The four primary dimensions measured for causal attribution are: 1) **Personal Responsibility** (to what extent is person X responsible?), 2) **Luck** (how lucky was person X?), 3) **Personal Effort** (how hard did person X try?), and 4) **Attribution to God** (to what extent is God responsible?). The scale also implicitly examines how high levels of fundamentalism or perceived “nearness to God” influence the likelihood of attributing positive outcomes to divine intervention.

Validity

The instrument has demonstrated reasonable construct validity based on the findings reported in the initial 1983 study. Gorsuch and Smith showed that the scale successfully differentiated between groups based on their existing religious orientations.

Specifically, individuals who scored higher on the established dimensions of religiosity, such as **fundamentalism** and “nearness to God,” consistently attributed significantly more responsibility for extreme positive life event outcomes to God compared to those with lower scores. This finding supports the theoretical expectation that strong religious commitment correlates with a higher tendency toward supernatural attribution (Ritzema, 1979). However, no other assessments of criterion or discriminant validity have been reported for this measure in the source material.

Reliability

Reliability coefficients for the ATTRIBUTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY TO GOD SCALE were not reported in the original publication by Gorsuch and Smith (1983). Consequently, standard measures of internal consistency (such as Cronbach’s alpha) or temporal stability (test-retest reliability) are not available from the foundational research.

Factor Analysis

The source content does not report any formal factor analytic studies applied to the items or attribution ratings of the scale. The instrument’s design relies on experimental manipulation through the four vignettes and the conceptual differentiation of the four causal factors (responsibility, luck, effort, and attribution to God) for scoring.

Instrument

Test Type: Situational Attribution Measure / Psychological Assessment Tool

Format: Self-administered instrument consisting of four unique vignettes. Respondents evaluate the likelihood of the outcome and the involvement of four causal factors using a Likert-type scale. The likelihood scale ranges from 0 (“highly likely”) to 11 (“highly unlikely”).

Language Available: English (Original publication language).

Population Group: Adults, with initial data collected exclusively from college students.

Age Group: Young adulthood (based on original sample).

Population Details: The original standardization and norm development were based on a sample of 164 undergraduate students. These subjects were drawn from social science, nursing, and religion courses at a small evangelical Christian college. Due to the small size and highly selective nature of this sample, comprehensive norms for the general population are not available.

Test Methodology: The test is self-administered and requires no special administrator skills. The vignettes are designed to present events with ambiguous causes to elicit genuine attribution responses.

Keywords

Psychology of Religion, Causality, Divine Responsibility, Fundamentalism, Nearness to God, Vignette Methodology, Outcome Extremity, Outcome Probability, Religious Experience.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not available in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not available in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not available in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The instrument was first published in **1983** by Gorsuch and Smith in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Information regarding current permissions, usage fees, or commercial licensing is not provided in the source material.

Reference’s

Broen, W. E. (1957). A factor analytic study of religious attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54, 176-179.

Glock, C. Y., & Piazza, T. (1981). Exploring reality structures. In T. Robbins & D. Anthony (Eds.). In Gods we trust: New patterns of religious pluralism in America (pp. 67-83). New Brunswick: Transaction.

Gorsuch, R. L., & Smith, C. S. (1983). Attributions of responsibility to God: An interaction of religious beliefs and outcomes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 340-352.

Lowe, C. A., & Medway, F. J. (1976). Effects of valence, severity, and relevance on responsibility and dispositional attribution. Journal of Personality, 44, 518-538.

Proudfoot, W., & Shaver, P. (1975). Attribution theory and the psychology of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14, 317-380.

Ritzema, R. J. (1979). Attribution to supernatural causation: An important component of religious commitment? Journal of Psychology and Theology, 7, 286-293.

Items of the ATTRIBUTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY TO GOD SCALE

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

Note: Due to space constraints, experimental manipulations are included without repetition of other elements of the vignettes. The parentheses, underlining’s, and labels (A, B, C, and D) do not appear in the original experimental booklet.

1. A: low probability manipulation
2. B: high probability manipulation
3. C: mild outcome manipulation
4. D: extreme outcome manipulation

• M. was in counseling because of depression with the way things were going. M. had been feeling this way for (A: several months/ B: just a couple of weeks) and thought, “I might not snap out of it so I’d better see a counselor.” Although M. didn’t know it, this counselor (A: had only limited/ B: often had) success in treating depressed clients.

Outcome: After a number of sessions with the counselor, M. (C: was still a little depressed but was feeling somewhat better than at the beginning of counseling/ D: felt extremely better and felt rio more need for further counseling). M. said, “I feel like a changed person. I feel better than I have in years.”

• J. was moving to a new community. In the past, J. had (A: always/ B: never) found it difficult to get settled and feel comfortable in new places. Although J. was not aware of it before the move, new people in the town (to which J. was moving) had always found it (A: very hard/ B: easy) to feel comfortable and (A: difficult/ B: easy) to fit into the life of the community during the first few months.

Outcome: Three months after moving to the new community, J. was (C: somewhat content with/ D: extremely happy and even excited about) the way things were going.

• D. was in the hospital because of a car accident. The doctor said that recovery would depend in part upon D’s ability to maintain a positive attitude and a good emotional outlook. At first, D. was told to expect a (A: 75%/ B: 25%) chance of permanent disability remaining after discharge from the hospital.

Outcome: D. was out of the hospital (C: in the expected length of time/ D: much sooner than expected). There was (C: some relatively minor physical disability remaining after discharge. The doctor said that there was a good chance that this disability would not be permanent/ D: no permanent disability remaining after discharge). D. said, “I’m just glad to be alive!”

• B. helped C. by offering C. a ride to a nearby town. They had met only a few days earlier. Although B. was not aware of it, C. was considered (A: hard/ B: easy) to get along with by most people, had very (A: few/ B: many) friends, and often expressed (A: little/ B: great) appreciation for personal favors.

Outcome: (C: C. saw the offer of the ride as a friendly act and expressed appreciation to B.I D: After their trip, a deep and lasting friendship developed. C. later told B. how much their relationship meant to C. It was obvious that C’.s life had change in a positive way.)