DIMENSIONS OF RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY SCALE

Abstract

The Dimensions of Religious Ideology Scale is a 19-item psychological instrument developed to measure four distinct facets of religious ideology, primarily within the context of Christian belief systems. The instrument is structured into four subscales: Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, Importance, and Ambivalence. The Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, and Importance subscales each contain six items and were constructed using the Likert method, emphasizing internal consistency. The Ambivalence scale is measured by a single item designed to capture the self-awareness of holding contradictory religious attitudes. Participants respond using a 7-point scale anchored by “strong agreement” and “strong disagreement.” Scoring requires the reversal of negatively worded items before summing responses for each independent dimension.

Keywords

Religious ideology, Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, Ambivalence, Importance, Religious identity, Christian ideology, Likert scale, Psychometric assessment.

Authors

S. Putney, R. Middleton.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the scale is to quantitatively assess specific, defined dimensions of religious belief and commitment, moving beyond monolithic measures of general religiosity. The original framework was intended to measure dimensions of Christian ideology, specifically focusing on belief in traditional doctrines and the personal significance of faith.

Although the items often reference concepts strongly associated with Christianity (e.g., hell, devil, church), the lack of specific references to God or Jesus Christ led researchers to generally apply the instrument as a broader measure of “religious” orientation, assessing identity and ways of being religious rather than strict theological adherence to distinct Christian tenets.

Construct

The Dimensions of Religious Ideology Scale is conceptualized as measuring four interrelated, yet distinct, psychological orientations toward faith:

• Orthodoxy: Measures adherence to traditional doctrinal beliefs, such as the existence of a physical hell, the devil, and a divine plan.
• Fanaticism: Assesses the evangelical impulse, defined as the desire and perceived duty to share or impose Christian beliefs on others, even at the cost of social discomfort.
• Importance: Captures the personal significance of religion, measuring the extent to which religious ideas form a core part of one’s philosophy of life and influence views in other areas.
• Ambivalence: Measures the degree of internal conflict regarding faith, specifically the conscious recognition of holding both believing and non-believing parts within oneself.

Initial analyses showed that the Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, and Importance scales were positively correlated, suggesting common underlying variance, while the Ambivalence scale was negatively correlated with the other three dimensions, confirming its distinct role in measuring internal conflict.

Validity

Evidence for the scale’s validity has been explored primarily through construct validation studies.

• In a study by Seyfarth et al. (1984), the Fanaticism scale demonstrated strong construct validity when correlated with the newly developed Attitude Toward Evangelism Scale. The resulting validity coefficient was reported as 0.76, indicating a substantial overlap between the two measures of evangelistic zeal.
• Cygnar et al. (1977) compared the Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, and Importance Scales with modified versions of Faulkner and DeJong’s (1966) five dimensions of religiosity. For Catholic high school students, the Dimensions of Religious Ideologies scales correlated positively with most of the Faulkner and DeJong scales, with coefficients ranging from 0.32 to 0.52.
• Notably, the correlations were significantly lower (ranging from 0.04 to 0.16) when compared to the Consequence Scale (which measures the integration of religion into everyday life). This pattern suggests that the Dimensions of Religious Ideology Scale is highly effective at assessing internal attitudes and ideological beliefs, but less so at measuring external, behavioral consequences of faith.

Reliability

Reliability estimates have been reported for the multi-item subscales (Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, and Importance) in two key studies.

Cygnar, Jacobson, and Noel (1977) reported reliability data based on factor scores derived from a sample of Catholic high school students. These initial reliability coefficients were modest:

• Orthodoxy: 0.50
• Fanaticism: 0.49
• Importance: 0.60

A later study by Seyfarth et al. (1984) focused exclusively on the Fanaticism Scale using a sample of introductory psychology students. By employing the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula for split-half reliability, the researchers reported a higher coefficient of 0.77 for this subscale.

Factor Analysis

Factor analysis was employed by Cygnar et al. (1977) to address the factor analysis of the Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, and Importance subscales. The purpose was to ensure that each scale maintained unidimensionality. Items that did not load sufficiently onto the first factor for their respective scales were subsequently removed, and reported means, standard deviations, and reliability coefficients were based on the remaining factor scores.

Additionally, Putney and Middleton examined the interrelationships among the four scales using Yule’s Q, a non-parametric measure of association. This analysis, conducted on over 1,100 college students, confirmed that the three core belief scales (Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, and Importance) were positively correlated, suggesting they measure related facets of religious commitment, while Ambivalence stood in negative relation to the others.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychometric Attitude Scale

Format: 19 self-report items across four subscales, utilizing a 7-point Likert response format.

Language Available: English (Original Publication)

Population Group: Primarily used with Christian populations, though generally referred to as a measure of religious identity rather than strictly Christian identity.

Age Group: College and University Students (Primary sample); High School Students (Normative data).

Population Details: The initial study included 1,200 college and university students in the northeastern and southeastern United States. Analyses focused on a subset of 1,126 non-Jewish, non-Christian students. Published normative data are available for Catholic high school students (Cygnar et al., 1977).

Test Methodology: Responses are scored on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Scores for each subscale are computed separately by reversing negatively worded items and summing the responses. Researchers have historically employed the strategy of splitting participants into high and low categories using the theoretical midpoint for each scale (e.g., 24 for the Orthodoxy Scale).

Keywords

Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, Religious importance, Ambivalence, Christian doctrines, Psychometrics, Attitude measurement, Yule’s Q.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Information not available in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Information not available in source material.

Correspondence Address: Information not available in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Dimensions of Religious Ideology Scale was first published in 1961 in the journal Social Forces. The original items were presented in the article by Putney and Middleton. Information regarding current usage fees or specific permissions is not provided in the source documentation.

Reference’s

• Benson, P. L., Dehority, J., Garman, L, Hanson, E., Hochschwender, M., Lebold, C., Rohr, R., & Sullivan, J. (1980). Intrapersonal correlates of nonspontaneous helping behavior. Journal of Social Psychology, 110, 87-95.
• Cygnar, T. E., Jacobson, C. K., & Noel, D. L. (1977). Religiosity and prejudice: An interdimensional analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 183-191.
• Faulkner, J. E., & DeJong, G. (1966). Religiousity in 5-D: An empirical analysis. Social Forces, 45, 246-254.
• Pargament, K. I., Ensing, D. S., Falgout, K., Olsen, H., Reilly, B., Van Haitsma, K., & Warren, R. (1990). God help me: (I): Religious coping efforts as predictors of the outcomes to significant negative life events. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 793-824.
• Putney, S., & Middleton, R. (1961). Dimensions and correlates of religious ideologies. Social Forces, 39, 285-290.
• Seyfarth, L. H., Larsen, K. S., Lamont, K., Haasch, C., Hale, T., & Haskin, D. (1984). Attitude toward evangelism: Scale development and validity. Journal of Social Psychology, 123, 55-61.

Items of the DIMENSIONS OF RELIGIOUS IDEOLOGY SCALE

Please read the following statements carefully, and then indicate agreement according to the following scale:

7 = strongly agree

6 = moderately agree

5 = slightly agree

4 = no response

3 = slightly disagree

2 = moderately disagree

1 = strongly disagree

Orthodoxy Scale

1. I believe that there is a physical hell where men are punished after death for the sins of their lives.

1. I believe there is a supernatural being, the devil, who continually tries to lead men into sin.
2. To me the most important work of the church is the saving of souls.
3. I believe that there is a life after death.
4. I believe there is a divine plan and purpose for every living person and thing.
5. The only benefit one receives from prayer is psychological. (reverse scored)

Fanaticism Scale

1. I have a duty to help those who are confused about religion.
2. Even though it may create some unpleasant situations, it is important to help people become enlightened about religion.
3. There is no point in arguing about religion because there is little chance of changing other people’s minds. (reverse scored)
4. It doesn’t really matter what an individual believes about religion as long as he is happy with it. (reverse scored)
5. I believe the world would really be a better place if more people held the views about religion which I hold.
6. I believe the world’s problems are seriously aggravated by the fact that so many people are misguided about religion.

Importance Scale

1. My ideas about religion are one of the most important parts of my philosophy of life.
2. I find that my ideas on religion have a considerable influence on my views in other areas.
3. Believing as I do about religion is very important to being the kind of person I want to be.
4. If my ideas about religion were different, I believe that my way of life would be very different.
5. Religion is a subject in which I am not particularly interested. (reverse scored)
6. I very often think about matters relating to religion.

Ambivalence Scale

1. Although one is stronger than the other, there is part of me which believes in religion and part of me which does not.

Items should be placed in random order.