Religiosity Scales

Abstract

The Religiosity Scales, developed by Joseph E. Faulkner and Gordon F. DeJong in 1965, represent an early and influential attempt at the systematic psychological measurement of religious commitment. This instrument operationalizes the multidimensional approach proposed by Glock and Stark in their seminal work on the sociology of religion. Rather than relying solely on simplistic measures like church attendance, the scales are specifically designed to capture five distinct, yet potentially interrelated, dimensions of religious experience and practice.

This comprehensive structure allows researchers to move beyond unidimensional definitions of faith, examining specific aspects such as personal belief systems, intellectual knowledge of doctrine, frequency of ritualistic behaviors, subjective spiritual experiences, and the observable impact of religion on secular life. The scales were instrumental in providing an empirical analysis of the structure of religiosity, paving the way for subsequent theoretical refinements in the field.

Keywords

Religiosity, Faulkner and DeJong, Glock and Stark, 5-D Model, Religious Belief, Ritualistic Behavior, Experiential Religion, Consequentiality, Sociological Measurement, Social Psychology.

Authors

Joseph E. Faulkner, Gordon F. DeJong.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religiosity Scales was to provide a rigorously tested instrument for measuring the five dimensions of Religiosity—Ideological, Intellectual, Ritualistic, Experiential, and Consequential—as theorized by Glock and Stark. The authors sought to transition the study of religious commitment from theoretical models to quantifiable empirical metrics, allowing for detailed comparison and analysis across different populations.

This instrument was created to test the hypothesis that religious commitment is not a monolithic construct but rather a composite of distinct, measurable components. By isolating these dimensions, researchers could investigate how different aspects of faith correlate with other social, psychological, and behavioral variables.

Construct

The scale measures five distinct dimensions of religious commitment, often referred to as the 5-D Model, originally conceptualized by Glock and Stark. These dimensions cover the breadth of religious life, from private conviction to public behavior:

• Ideological (Belief): Measures adherence to core theological doctrines and beliefs (e.g., belief in God, views on the Bible, theological concepts).
• Intellectual (Knowledge): Measures the individual’s knowledge of the faith’s sacred writings, tenets, and history (e.g., naming the Gospels or books of the Old Testament).
• Ritualistic (Practice): Measures participation in formal religious practices and institutional activities (e.g., church attendance, prayer frequency, reading religious literature).
• Experiential (Feeling): Measures the subjective emotional and spiritual feelings of the individual (e.g., feeling “close” to the divine, finding purpose in religion).
• Consequential (Effect): Measures the extent to which religious commitment influences one’s behavior, ethics, and attitudes in non-religious, secular areas of life (e.g., political views, business ethics, moral judgments).

Validity

The initial validation of the Religiosity Scales focused heavily on demonstrating the empirical distinctiveness of the five dimensions. Faulkner and DeJong’s early studies (1965, 1966) provided evidence supporting the theoretical separation of the 5-D model. The content validity is high, as the items were explicitly derived to reflect the theoretical definitions established by Glock and Stark.

Subsequent research, notably the cross-cultural study by DeJong, Faulkner, and Warland (1976), further explored the generalizability and construct validity of the scale, confirming that the multidimensional structure holds across different cultural and religious contexts, though the specific intercorrelations between dimensions may vary.

Reliability

Although specific internal consistency coefficients (like Cronbach’s Alpha) are not detailed in the brief source description, the scale’s longevity and continued use in sociological and psychological studies suggest acceptable levels of reliability were established during its development. The subsequent refinement and cross-cultural testing (1976) indicate that the items within each dimension demonstrated sufficient coherence to measure the intended construct reliably.

Factor Analysis

The development of the Religiosity Scales was predicated on a factor analytic approach to confirm the multidimensional nature of religiosity. The initial empirical analysis by Faulkner and DeJong aimed to demonstrate that the items load onto the five hypothesized factors (Ideological, Intellectual, Ritualistic, Experiential, and Consequential), thus supporting the theoretical model put forth by Glock and Stark’s 5-D framework. While some subsequent studies have suggested that fewer factors might explain the variance in certain populations, the 1966 analysis successfully established the distinctiveness of the five dimensions for the initial U.S. samples.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report questionnaire.

Format: Multiple-choice and fixed-response options, varying by dimension (e.g., Likert-type responses for agreement, categorical choices for behavior, and knowledge-based questions).

Language Available: Primarily English (initial publication); used in cross-cultural studies requiring translation.

Population Group: General population, often utilized with university students and community samples in initial validation studies.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults.

Population Details: Developed initially on samples representative of mainstream Christian denominations in the United States, with later adaptations for other faith groups (e.g., specific Intellectual Scale items for Jewish respondents).

Test Methodology: Pencil-and-paper or interview administration.

Keywords

Religious attitudes, Belief systems, Spiritual experience, Church attendance, Psychological measurement, Faith, DeJong, Faulkner.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Information not provided in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Information not provided in source material.

Correspondence Address: Information not provided in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was first presented in 1965 and published in 1966. For current usage and permissions, researchers should consult the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, which archived the instrument in its collection of social psychological attitudes measures.

The original PDF of the instrument, as compiled in the 1969 volume “Measures of Political Attitudes,” can be downloaded here: Measures of social psychological attitudes.

Reference’s

The following references document the development, empirical testing, and theoretical context of the Religiosity Scales:

• Faulkner, J. E. and DeJong, G. F. (1965). Religiosity in 5-D: an empirical analysis. Paper presented at American Sociological Association Convention, in Chicago.
• Glock, C. and Stark, R. (1965). Religion and society in tension. Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Faulkner, J. E. and DeJong, G. F. (1966). Religiosity in 5-D: An Empirical Analysis. Social Forces, 45(2), 246–254.
• Robinson, John P., Shaver, Phillip R. (1969). Measures of Political Attitudes. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan/. Ann Arbor, Michigan.
• DeJong, G. F., Faulkner, J. E. and Warland. Rex H. (1976). Dimensions of Religiosity Reconsidered; Evidence from a Cross-Cultural Study. Social Forces, 54(4), 866–889.

Items of the Religiosity Scales

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

Ideological Scale

1. Do you believe that the world will come to an end according to the will of God?
   1. Yes, I believe this.
   2. I am uncertain about this.
   3. No, I do not believe this.)
2. Which of the following statements most clearly describes your idea about the Deity?
   1. I believe In a Divine God, Creator of the Universe, Who knows my innermost thoughts and feelings, and to whom one day I shall be accountable.
   2. I believe in a power greater than myself, which some people call God and some people call Nature.
   3. I believe in the worth of humanity but not in a God or a Supreme Being.
   4. The so-called universal mysteries are ultimately knowable according to the scientific method based on natural laws.
   5. I am not quite sure what I believe .
   6. I am an a theist.
3. Do you believe that it is necessary for a person to repent before God will forgive his sins?
   1. Yes, God’s forgiveness comes only after repentance.
   2. No, God does not demand repentance.
   3. I am not in need of repentance.
4. Which one of the following best expresses your opinion of God acting in history?
   1. God has and continues to act in the history of mankind.
   2. God acted in previous periods but is not active at the present time.
   3. God does not act I n human history.
5. Which of the following best expresses your view of the Bible?
   1. The Bible is God’s word and all it says is true.
   2. The Bible was written by men inspired by God, and its basic moral and religious teachings are true, but because writers were men, it contains some human errors
   3. The Bible is a valuable book because it was written by wise and good men, but God had nothing to do with it .
   4. The Bible was written by men who lived so long ago that it is of little value today.

Intellectual Scale

1. How do you personally view the story of creation as recorded in Genesis?
   1. Literally true history.
   2. A symbolic account which is no better or worse than any other account of the beginning.
   3. Not a valid account of creation.
2. Which of the following best expresses your opinion concerning miracles?
   1. I believe the report of the miracles in the Bible; that is, they occurred through a setting aside of natural laws by a higher power.
   2. I do not believe in the so-called miracles of the Bible. Either such events did not occur at all, or, if they did, the report is inaccurate, and they could be explained upon scientific grounds if we had the actual facts.
   3. I neither believe nor disbelieve the so-called miracles of the Bible. No evidence which I have considered seems to prove conclusively that they did or did not happen as recorded.
3. What is your view of the following statement: Religious truth is higher than any other form of truth.
   1. Strongly agree
   2. Agree
   3. Disagree
   4. Strongly disagree
4. Would you write the names of the four Gospels?

   (What are the first five books of the Old Testament?–used for Jewish respondents.)

   Three or more books correctly identified.

Ritualistic Scale

1. Do you feel it is possible for an individual to develop a well-rounded religious life apart from the institutional church?
   1. No
   2. Uncertain
   3. Yes
2. How much time during a week would you say you spend reading the Bible and other religious literature?
   1. One hour or more
   2. One-half hour
   3. None
3. How many of the past four Sabbath worship services have you attended?
   1. Three or more
   2. Two
   3. One
   4. None
4. Which of the following beat describes your participation in the act of prayer?
   1. Prayer is a regular part of my behavior.
   2. I pray primarily in times of stress and/or need, but not much otherwise.
   3. Prayer is restricted pretty much to formal worship services.
   4. Prayer is only incidental to my life.
   5. I never pray.
5. Do you believe that for your marriage the ceremony should be performed by:
   1. A religious official.
   2. Either a religious official or a civil authority.
   3. A civil authority.

Experiential Scale

1. Would you say that one’s religious commitment gives life a certain purpose which it could not otherwise have?
   1. Strongly agree
   2. Agree
   3. Disagree
2. All religions stress that belief normally includes some experience of “un‎ion” with the divine. Are there particular moments when you feel “close” to the divine?
   1. Frequently
   2. Occasionally
   3. Rarely
   4. Never
3. Would you say that religion offers a sense of security in the face of death which is not otherwise possible?
   1. Agree
   2. Uncertain
   3. Disagree
4. How would you respond to the statement: “Religion provides the individual with an interpretation of his existence which could not be discovered by reason alone.”
   1. Strongly agree
   2. Agree
   3. Disagree
5. Faith, meaning putting full confidence in the things we hope for and being certain of things we cannot see, is essential to one’s religious life .
   1. Agree
   2. Uncertain
   3. Disagree

Consequential Scale

1. What is your feeling about the operation of non-essential businesses on the Sabbath?
   1. They should not be open.
   2. I am uncertain about this.
   3. They have a legitimate right to be open.
2. A boy and a girl, both of whom attend church frequently, regularly date one another and have entered in to sexual relations with each other. Do you feel that people who give at least partial support to the church by attending its worship services should behave in this manner? Which of the following statements expresses your opinion concerning this matter?
   1. People who identify themselves with the church to the extent that they participate in its worship services should uphold its moral teachings as well.
   2. Sexual intercourse prior to marriage is a matter of individual responsibility.
3. Two candidates are seeking the same political office. One is a member and a strong participant in a church. The other candidate is in different, but not hostile, to religious organizations. Other factors being equal, do you think the candidate identified with the church would be a better public servant than the one who has no interest in religion?
   1. He definitely would.
   2. He probably would.
   3. Uncertain.
   4. He probably would not.
   5. He definitely would not.
4. Suppose you are living next door to a person who confides in you that each year he puts down on his income tax a $50.00 contribution to the church in “loose change,” even though he knows that while he does contribute some money to the church in “loose change” each year, the total sum is far below that amount. Do you feel that a person’s religious orientation should be reflected in all phases of his life so that such behavior is morally wrong– that it is a form of lying?
   1. Yes
   2. Uncertain
   3. No