Love and Guilt-Oriented Dimensions Scale

Abstract

The Love and Guilt-Oriented Dimensions Scale (LGODS) is a psychometric instrument designed to differentiate types of religious belief based on their underlying theological content. Developed by McConahay and Hough (1973), the scale centers its typology on the meaning of atonement within Christianity, specifically focusing on interpretations related to love, guilt, and forgiveness.

The instrument initially hypothesized five distinct dimensions: Guilt-Oriented Extrapunitive, Guilt-Oriented Intropunitive, Love-Oriented Self-Centered, Love-Oriented Other-Centered, and Culture-Oriented (Conventional). Following preliminary testing, the two guilt dimensions were collapsed into a single Guilt-Oriented Scale due to unsatisfactory item-rest correlations. The final measure consists of 20 items distributed across four distinct scales: Guilt-Oriented, Love-Oriented Self-Centered, Love-Oriented Other-Centered, and Conventional Religiosity. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale, and scale scores range between 5 and 25.

Keywords

Religious Belief, Atonement, Guilt, Love-Oriented, Conventional Religiosity, Extrapunitive, Intropunitive, Christianity, Psychological Measurement.

Authors

McConahay, J. B., Hough, J. C., Jr.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the LGODS is to operationally distinguish between various theological interpretations held by religious adherents, moving beyond simple measures of frequency of practice or attitude. The scale attempts to “distinguish types of religious belief based upon the theological content of belief.”

The instrument aims to separate those whose faith emphasizes punitive justice and self-unworthiness (guilt-oriented) from those who emphasize divine benevolence and universal redemption (love-oriented). The inclusion of the Conventional Religiosity dimension is intended to index values that are more culturally driven (e.g., citizenship preparation) than fundamentally theological in nature.

Construct

The LGODS measures four distinct psychological dimensions of religious orientation derived from the meaning of atonement. These constructs reflect differing views on God’s nature, human sinfulness, and the purpose of faith.

• Guilt-Oriented Scale: Characterized by an emphasis on punishment for evildoers, vengeance, and a strong identification with personal unworthiness or badness. This construct combines the initial extrapunitive (outward punishment focus) and intropunitive (inward guilt focus) hypotheses.
• Love-Oriented Self-Centered Scale: Characterized by an emphasis on God’s benevolence and the complete, individual forgiveness of one’s own sins. Focus is placed on personal spiritual comfort and salvation.
• Love-Oriented Other-Centered Scale: Characterized by an emphasis on the common humanity of all persons, God’s loving redemption of the whole world, and the importance of serving mankind.
• Conventional Religiosity Scale: Characterized by adherence to culturally conservative values and social expectations related to religious practice (e.g., church attendance for social status or citizenship), rather than profound theological conviction.

Validity

The independence of the hypothesized dimensions was not assessed via formal Factor analysis during the scale’s initial development. However, intercorrelations among the four final scales provided initial evidence regarding their relationships. The Guilt-Oriented scale correlated positively with the Love-Oriented Self-Centered scale (+.48) and the Conventional Religiosity scale (+.47), but negatively with the Love-Oriented Other-Centered scale (-.46).

Construct validity was further examined by correlating the LGODS dimensions with a measure of attitude toward church involvement in social action. The Love-Oriented Other-Centered scale showed a positive correlation (+.53), consistent with its universalistic nature. Conversely, negative correlations were observed between social action attitudes and the Guilt-Oriented scale (-.52), the Love-Oriented Self-Centered scale (-.31), and the Conventional Religiosity scale (-.27).

In subsequent research (McConahay & Hough, 1976), the scales were correlated with Symbolic racism. Positive correlations were found for the Conventional Religiosity scale (+.41), the Guilt-Oriented scale (+.32), and the Love-Oriented Self-Centered scale (+.22). The Love-Oriented Other-Centered scale exhibited a negative correlation (-.24), confirming its association with more socially progressive outlooks.

Reliability

The internal consistency of the LGODS dimensions was assessed using alpha coefficients (Cronbach’s Alpha) based on the original sample of 160 seminarians. The reliability results varied significantly across the subscales, indicating that some dimensions demonstrate higher homogeneity than others.

The reported alpha coefficients were: Guilt-Oriented scale, .807; Conventional Religiosity scale, .660; Love-Oriented Self-Centered scale, .561; and Love-Oriented Other-Centered scale, .533. The Guilt-Oriented scale showed strong internal consistency. Item rest of test correlations supported these findings, ranging from .52 to .62 for the Guilt-Oriented scale, but falling notably lower for the Love-Oriented Self-Centered scale (.22 to .43) and the Love-Oriented Other-Centered scale (.27 to .40).

Factor Analysis

No formal Factor analysis was executed by the original authors to definitively confirm the dimensional structure or the statistical independence of the four final scales. The structure was determined primarily through theoretical hypothesis testing and refinement based on item rest of test correlations, leading to the collapse of the two initial guilt subscales into one.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire / Paper-and-pencil measure

Format: 20 items, distributed across four subscales (5 items per scale). Responses are recorded on a 5-point Likert scale.

Language Available: English (Original)

Population Group: Christian adherents; primarily individuals involved in theological education or ministry.

Age Group: Adult

Population Details: The standardization sample consisted of 160 white seminary students in Southern California. Item generation was informed by conversations with members of Southern Baptist and United Church of Christ congregations.

Test Methodology: Minimal instructions are required for administration. Scores range from 5 to 25 per scale. A high score indicates agreement with the dimension being assessed, and a low score indicates disagreement.

Keywords

Psychology of religion, Theological content, Guilt, Love, Forgiveness, Symbolic racism, Atonement, Self-centeredness, Other-centeredness, Conventionality.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and published in 1973. The measure is a paper-and-pencil instrument requiring no special examiner skill. Users should note that the operational form may be constrained by the generation and location of its development, and some contemporary groups may find the original language non-inclusive. Permissions for use should be sought from the authors or the publisher of the original article in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Reference’s

Mcconahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C., Jr. (1973). Love and guilt-oriented dimensions of Christian be­ lief. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 53-64.

Mcconahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C., Jr. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32(2), 23-45.

Watson, P. J., Hood, R. W., Foster, S. J., & Mor­ris, R. J. (I 988). Sin, depression and narcissism. Review of Religious Research, 29, 295-305.

Watson, P. J., Hood, R. W., & Morris, J. R. (1985). Religiosity, sin and self-esteem. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 13, 116–128.

Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., & Hood, R.W. (1987). Antireligious humanistic values, guilt and self-esteem. Journal for the Scientific Study of Reli­gion, 26, 535-546.

Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., & Hood, R. W. (1988). Sin and self-functioning, part I: grace, guilt and self-consciousness. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 16, 245-269.

Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., & Hood, R. W. (1989). Intrinsicness, religious self-love, and nar­cissism. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 8 (I), 31-37.

Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., & Hood, R. W. (1990). Extrinsic scale factors: correlations and construction of religious orientation types. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 9 (3), 35-46.

Items of the Love and Guilt-Oriented Di­mensions Scale

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

Please use the following scale to indicate the extent to which you agree with each item below.

• 1 = definitely disagree
• 2 = tend to disagree
• 3 = neither agree nor disagree
• 4 = tend to agree
• 5 = definitely agree

Guilt-Oriented Scale

1. The fires of Hell are the right place for adulterers, murderers, drunkards, and other per- sons who violate God’s laws.
2. The thought of God’s anger should strike terror in the hearts of wild livers.
3. Whatever God’s punishment for me, I have no doubt that I deserve it.
4. At the final judgment, we can be sure that those who sin in this life will be exposed.
5. Nobody in the world is really good, least of all am I.

Love-Oriented Self-Centered Scale

6. The way the world can be changed is for each man to know that God loves him.
7. The important thing in religion to me is the knowledge that God loves me like a father loves his children.
8. When I have trouble, all I have to do is pray to God, who loves me, and he will help.
9. Heaven is my home, and so I do not worry about this world.
10. The main thing that Jesus taught was that God loves individual human beings just as they are.

Love-Oriented Other-Centered Scale

11. The greatest sin is man’s sin against his fellow man.
12. There is a goodness in man, even in the worst of us which is put there by God and which cannot be destroyed.
13. If a man wants to serve God, let him serve mankind.
14. We are all part of each other, because God’s love for us is bound up in his love for others.
15. It is love and not wrath that is the essence of the nature of God.

Conventional Religiosity Scale

16. Americans who are really good Americans are interested in the church.
17. I want my children to have the experience of church attendance to prepare them to be good citizens.
18. A religious man should be thrifty and honest, clean and hard working.
19. A great advantage of churches is the friendly atmosphere they provide for one’s associations with the right kind of people.
20. One of the marks of a good family is that they attend church somewhere, especially at Christmas and Easter.