CHRISTIAN CONSERVATISM SCALE

Abstract

The Christian Conservatism Scale (CCS), developed by Robert J. Stellway in 1973, is a psychometric instrument designed to quantify an individual’s commitment to the core theological, anthropological, and epistemological tenets associated with conservative Christianity. Stellway created this scale specifically to test the hypothesis that religious orientation and **sociopolitical conservatism** are directly correlated. The scale operationalizes conservative Christian beliefs, which typically include viewing God as an all-wise, personal, and morally pure supernatural power, while characterizing human beings as inherently flawed, ignorant, and tainted by sin.

This perspective posits that human reason and secular science are insufficient for solving life’s most critical problems; true solutions must derive from the authority of the Bible and church institutions. The CCS uses a short, seven-item, 5-point Likert-type response format, making it suitable for rapid administration, often in a simple paper-and-pencil format. Total scores range from 7 to 35, where higher scores indicate greater commitment to conservative Christian beliefs.

Keywords

Christian conservatism, religious orientation, sociopolitical conservatism, theological beliefs, evangelicalism, psychometric scale, Stellway, religious attitudes.

Authors

Robert J. Stellway.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Christian Conservatism Scale is to provide a brief, face-valid assessment of adherence to the fundamental assumptions of conservative Christianity. Stellway developed the scale to serve as an independent variable in sociological research, specifically aiming to determine the empirical relationship between commitment to these religious beliefs and adherence to broader **sociopolitical conservatism**.

It was intended to measure core commitments, such as the acceptance of divine forgiveness, the requirement for social life to reflect biblical standards, and the epistemological reliance on scriptural authority over secular reason or scientific inquiry. Although originally administered via interviews in Stellway’s seminal 1973 study, the scale is structured for straightforward use as a self-report questionnaire.

Construct

The construct measured is Christian conservatism, defined by Stellway through three major dimensions: theological assumptions (e.g., God’s nature, biblical literalism), anthropological assumptions (e.g., human sinfulness, limited reason), and epistemological assumptions (e.g., reliance on divine revelation over secular knowledge). The scale captures a fundamentalist or traditionalist worldview where religious truth is considered superior to all other forms of truth.

Critics, such as Hunter (1981), have suggested the instrument may contain subtle inadequacies in fully operationalizing the complex construct of evangelicalism, arguing it insufficiently captures traditional beliefs about sin and forgiveness. However, subsequent research (Boivin et al., 1987) has supported its utility and validity in Christian samples, confirming its measurement of a specific, defined facet of religious belief structure.

Validity

Stellway presented evidence supporting the validity of the CCS through correlations with related and opposing constructs. As hypothesized, scores on the Christian Conservatism Scale showed a significant inverse correlation with a measure of Christian liberalism (-.48), demonstrating strong discriminant validity.

Furthermore, the scale exhibited expected linkages with measures of broader political and social attitudes. Controlling for education and occupational status, the CCS correlated positively with a commitment to maintaining the status quo in American society (.21) and with a self-expressed conservative political preference (.26). These correlations were found to be more robust among a subsample of individuals with unfulfilled occupational aspirations, where the correlations increased to .36 (status quo orientation) and .40 (political conservatism), thereby supporting Stellway’s sociological hypotheses regarding the interaction of religious belief and social frustration.

Reliability

Stellway’s original 1973 publication did not supply specific reliability data for the scale. Consequently, the initial psychometric characteristics regarding internal consistency were unknown.

However, subsequent research has addressed this gap. Boivin, Darling, and Darling (1987) utilized the scale in a study involving Christian samples and successfully documented its internal consistency. They reported a strong coefficient alpha of .86, which provides evidence of the scale’s adequate internal reliability when used with appropriate populations.

Factor Analysis

The source content does not explicitly report a formal factor analysis conducted by Stellway or subsequent researchers. Given the scale’s brevity (seven items) and its intended use as a unified measure of commitment across theological, anthropological, and epistemological domains, it is generally treated as a unidimensional instrument designed to yield a single total Christian Conservatism score. The high coefficient alpha (.86) obtained by Boivin et al. (1987) further suggests strong internal consistency, which is consistent with the assumption of a single underlying factor.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric self-report scale (Attitude/Belief Inventory)

Format: Seven-item, 5-point Likert response scale (Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)). One item is negatively worded and reverse-scored.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Adults; originally utilized with white male heads of households.

Age Group: Originally studied in individuals aged 25 to 50 years.

Population Details: Stellway’s original standardization sample consisted of 322 white male heads of households (ages 25–50) residing in rural areas and a small town in west-central Illinois. The study lacked sufficient normative data, as Stellway did not report the mean or standard deviation of the scores. The scale is designed to be easily accessible, requiring minimal reading comprehension and typically completed in less than five minutes.

Test Methodology: Originally administered via structured interviews, but easily adapted for use as a simple paper-and-pencil or online self-report questionnaire.

Keywords

Religious attitudes, biblical literalism, social psychology of religion, religious fundamentalism, psychometrics, scale development, sociopolitical conservatism, reliability, validity.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and published in 1973 by Robert J. Stellway. The items were published in the Sociological Quarterly and reprinted with permission from the Midwest Sociological Society. The scale is short and appears to be available for academic use, though formal licensing or fee information is not detailed in the source material.

Reference’s

• Boivin, M. J., Darling, H. W., & Darling, T. W. (1987). Racial prejudice among Christian and non-Christian college students. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 15, 47-56.
• Hunter, J. D. (1981). Operationalizing evangelicalism: A review, critique and proposal. Sociological Analysis, 42, 363-372.
• Stellway, R. J. (1973). The correspondence between religious orientation and sociopolitical liberalism and conservatism. Sociological Quarterly, 14, 430-439.

Items of the CHRISTIAN CONSERVATISM SCALE

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

Subjects react to each statement using the following response options: “strongly agree” (5), “agree” (4), “neutral or no opinion” (3), “disagree” (2), and “strongly disagree” (1). An asterisk (*) identifies a negatively scored item for which 5 = 1, 4 = 2, 3 = 3, 2 = 4, and 1 = 5.

1. All Biblical miracles happened just as the Bible says they did.
2. A man must seek God’s forgiveness to enjoy fellowship with Him.
3. Jesus was more than a great prophet; he was God’s only son.
4. *4. Biblical miracles did not happen as the Bible says they did but have been used as examples.
5. If they stay true to God, people who suffer in this life are sure to be rewarded in the next.
6. Religious truth is higher than any other form of truth.
7. The Bible is God’s message to man and all that it says is true.