Nondoctrinal Religion Scales

Abstract

The Nondoctrinal Religion Scales (NRS), developed by J. Milton Yinger, are psychological instruments designed to measure cross-cultural and non-doctrinal aspects of religion related to ultimate concerns of universal human interest. These concerns primarily revolve around existential questions such as meaninglessness, suffering, and injustice. The scale exists in two major iterations: the 1969 version (7 items) and the expanded 1977 version (20 items).

Yinger conceptualized these measures based on the assumption that interest in fundamental existential questions forms the underlying structural foundation for both traditionally religious and non-institutionalized expressions of ultimate concern. Both scales utilize a 5-point Likert-type scale format, rating agreement or disagreement. Crucially, Yinger advocated for analyzing responses item-by-item rather than generating composite scale scores, a practice which subsequent psychometric research found problematic due to poor reliability and multidimensionality.

Keywords

Nondoctrinal religion, Yinger, cross-cultural, ultimate concern, suffering, injustice, meaninglessness, existential questions, religiosity, social psychology.

Authors

J. Milton Yinger.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Nondoctrinal Religion Scales (NRS) is to assess an individual’s engagement with fundamental, non-doctrinal ultimate concerns that underpin religious belief and behavior, without relying on adherence to specific dogma or institutional practices. Yinger sought to capture the “ephemeral, the emergent, the poorly institutionalized expressions of ultimate concern” that transcend conventional definitions of religiousness.

Specifically, the 1977, 20-item measure was designed for cross-cultural comparison among international student populations. This version aimed to measure concerns across five conceptually distinct areas: worldwide human suffering, injustice, meaninglessness, general religion, and politics. By focusing on these universal human issues, Yinger intended to gauge a structural foundation of spirituality and meaning-making that is relevant across diverse cultures and belief systems.

Construct

The scale measures the construct of Nondoctrinal Religion, defined as the individual’s concern regarding universal human dilemmas rather than their participation in formal religious structures. This construct is rooted in the assumption that interest in existential questions—particularly the issues of meaninglessness, suffering, and injustice—is a foundational element of human belief, whether or not that belief manifests in traditional religious forms.

The 1977 scale, in particular, attempts to operationalize this construct by clustering items around these core concerns. Although Yinger analyzed the data separately by item, the conceptual grouping suggests an underlying structure comprising: (1) Meaninglessness, (2) Suffering, (3) Injustice, (4) General Religion, and (5) Politics. This approach sought to identify how individuals respond to ultimate human conditions independent of their specific doctrinal heritage.

Validity

Psychometric research has raised significant questions regarding the validity of the Nondoctrinal Religion Scales, particularly the 1969, 7-item version. Multiple factor analysis studies (Nelsen et al., 1976; Roof et al., 1977) indicate that the items are multidimensional and do not represent a unitary dimension, undermining the claim that they measure a single construct of nondoctrinal religion.

Furthermore, these subsequent studies concluded that Yinger’s measures were significantly correlated with indices of traditional religiosity (such as orthodoxy, prayer frequency, and self-rated religiousness). This finding challenges the measure’s convergent and discriminant validity by suggesting that the NRS may not effectively distinguish the non-doctrinal ultimate concerns from more conventional definitions of religious belief. While Brown (1981) attempted a factor analysis on the 1977 scale, the results were inconclusive due to the use of an exceptionally small sample size (n=80).

Reliability

Yinger did not report any measure of internal consistency reliability for the 1969 scale, as he did not recommend summing the items. However, researchers who subsequently treated the 7-item set as a composite scale reported consistently poor reliability.

Nelsen, Everett, Mader, and Hamby (1976) reported a very low Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of only .34 for the total 1969 scale. Even when partitioning the items into subscales based on their factor analysis, the internal consistency reliabilities remained poor (alphas of .45 and .37). Roof et al. (1977) replicated the finding of poor internal consistency for the 7-item measure. Critically, no reliability data of any kind have been published for the 20-item 1977 scale, leaving its psychometric stability unknown.

Factor Analysis

The primary psychometric critiques of the 1969 scale stem from its factor analysis results, which indicated that the scale is not unidimensional. Nelsen et al. (1976) found evidence for two factors within the 7 items, which they labeled “acceptance of belief and order” and “acceptance of the value of suffering.”

In contrast, Roof et al. (1977) conducted a separate factor analysis and identified three factors: “value of religious efforts,” “value of difficult experience,” and “the basic human condition.” The lack of convergence between these two independent analyses suggests instability in the factor structure of the 1969 scale, reinforcing the recommendation that the items should not be summed into composite scores.

Instrument

Test Type: Psychological/Sociological Inventory

Format: Self-report Questionnaire using a 5-point Likert-type scale (ranging from fully agree to fully disagree). The scale exists in a 7-item version (1969) and a 20-item version (1977).

Language Available: English (original). Translated into Japanese, Korean, and Thai for the 1977 cross-cultural study.

Population Group: College Students

Age Group: Late Adolescence/Young Adulthood

Population Details: The 1969 norms were established using a total sample of 1,325 students from 10 different colleges. The 1977 analysis relied primarily on responses from 751 international college students from Korea, Japan, Thailand, New Zealand, and Australia, though the samples were non-representative and sometimes overrepresented specific academic courses.

Test Methodology: Respondents are given minimal instructions, and the term “religion” is intentionally avoided in the introduction to reduce potential bias. Scoring involves presenting simple raw frequencies for each item separately, as the author did not provide procedures for combining items into total or subscale scores.

Keywords

Psychometrics, Likert scale, J. Milton Yinger, suffering, injustice, meaning, cross-cultural study, internal consistency, ultimate concerns, sociology of religion.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The two primary versions of the scale were introduced in 1969 and 1977, respectively, through publications in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Permissions for use should be directed to the journal publisher, as the 1977 publication explicitly notes a copyright held by the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

Test Years: 1969 and 1977.

Reference’s

• Brown, L. B. (1981). Another test of Yinger’s measure of nondoctrinal religion. The Journal of Psychology, 107, 3-5.
• Nelsen, H. M., Everett, R. F., Mader, P. D., & Hamby, W. C. (1976). A test of Yinger’s measure of nondoctrinal religion: Implications for invisible religion as a belief system. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 15, 263-267.
• Roof, W. C., Hadaway, C. K., Hewitt, D., & Morse, R. (1977). Yinger’s measure of non-doctrinal religion: A Northeastern test. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 19, 403-408.
• Yinger, J. M. (1969). A structural examination of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 8, 88-99.
• Yinger, J. M. (1977). A comparative study of the substructures of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 67-86.

Items of the NONDOCTRINAL RELIGION SCALES

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

l = fully agree

2 = partly agree

3 = uncertain

4 = partly disagree

5 = fully disagree

Items from Yinger ( 1969)

1. Efforts to deal with the human situation by religious means, whatever the content of the beliefs and practices, seem to me to be misplaced, a waste of time and resources. (higher score is religious response)
2. Suffering, injustice, and finally death are the lot of man; but they need not be negative experiences; their significance and effects can be shaped by our beliefs. (lower score is religious response)
3. In face of the almost continuous conflict and violence in life, I cannot see how men are going to learn to live in mutual respect and peace with one another. (higher score is religious response)
4. There are many aspects of the beliefs and practices of the world’s religions with which I do not agree; nevertheless, I consider them to be valuable efforts to deal with man’s situation. (lower score is religious response)
5. Somehow, I cannot get very interested in the talk about “the basic human condition” and “man’s ultimate problems.” (higher score is religious response)
6. Man’s most difficult and destructive experiences are often the source of increased understanding and powers of endurance. (lower score is religious response)
7. Despite the often chaotic conditions of human life, I believe that there is order and pattern to existence that someday we’ll come to understand. (lower score is religious response)

Items from Yinger ( 1977)

1. I. I am not very interested in discussion of the question of the meaning or meaninglessness of life.
2. Despite the often chaotic conditions of human life, I believe there is an order to existence that someday we will come to understand.
3. I often wonder what life is all about.
4. Although mankind understands the world around him better, the basic meaning of life is beyond our understanding.
5. In recent generations, there has been a significant reduction in the amount of human suffering.
6. It is a mistake to believe that the reduction of suffering on earth is the critically important question for mankind.
7. The types of human suffering may have changed, and continue to change, but mankind is not likely to reduce the extent of suffering.
8. In recent generations, suffering has increased in the world.
9. The types of injustice may have changed, and may continue to change, but mankind is not likely to reduce the extent of injustice.
10. In recent generations injustice has increased in the world.
11. In recent generations there has been a significant reduction in the amount of injustice in human life.
12. It is a mistake to believe that the reduction of injustice on earth is the critically important question for mankind.
13. Mankind’s most difficult and destructive experiences are often the source of increased understanding and powers of endurance.
14. In the long run, undeserving persons seem to be the ones who win the most advantages.
15. In the face of the almost continuous conflict and violence in life, I cannot see how men are going to learn to live in mutual respect and peace with one another.
16. Suffering, injustice, and finally death need not be negative experiences; their significance can be shaped by our religious beliefs.
17. Efforts to deal with man’s most difficult problems by religious means seems to me to be a waste of time and resources.
18. There are many aspects of the beliefs and practices of the world’s religions with which I might not agree; nevertheless, I consider them to be valuable efforts to deal with man’s most important questions.
19. Efforts to deal with man’s most difficult problems by political means seem to me to be a waste of time and resources.
20. In the long run, mankind will be able to reduce injustice and suffering by wise political action.