RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM SCALE

Abstract

The Religious Fundamentalism Scale (REL) is a brief, 12-item True/False scale designed to assess strong, fundamental religious beliefs and religiously motivated behavior. It was developed by J. S. Wiggins (1966) as one of the original 13 content scales for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Unlike the standard MMPI scales developed using empirical criterion keying, the REL scale utilized intuitive face validity judgments alongside rigorous psychometric principles to reflect the manifest content of self-report items relating to “Religious Attitudes.”

The REL items, which include both explicitly Christian and broadly Judeo-Christian themes, measure adherence to core fundamental doctrines such as belief in the second coming of Christ, the existence of Hell and the Devil, and the conviction that one’s faith is the only true one. The scale exhibits maximal homogeneity and internal consistency. Raw scores range from 0 to 12, and can be converted to T scores for clinical interpretation (T=70 being high). Although effective in measuring fundamentalism, researchers note that the REL does not differentiate between rigid and flexible religious beliefs, suggesting cautious interpretation, often requiring an additional indicator of rigidity or dogmatism.

Keywords

Religious Fundamentalism Scale (REL), Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), content scales, religious attitudes, dogmatism, rigidity, personality assessment, psychopathology, Wiggins.

Authors

J. S. Wiggins, S. R. Hathaway, J. C. McKinley

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Fundamentalism Scale (REL) is to measure the extent of an individual’s adherence to strong, traditional, and literal religious beliefs, often associated with fundamentalism, irrespective of affiliation with any specific formal religious body.

High scores on the REL are indicative of individuals who view themselves as religious, regularly attend church, and subscribe to fundamental doctrines concerning the interpretation of the Bible, eschatology (e.g., the second coming of Christ), and the existence of theological entities (e.g., hell and the devil). Furthermore, the scale is designed to tap into associated personality traits such as global rigidity, dogmatism, and intolerance toward individuals holding divergent beliefs. Conversely, low scores suggest nonfundamentalist religious beliefs and potentially greater tolerance for varied practices.

Construct

The psychological construct measured by the REL is Religious Fundamentalism, defined here not as an affiliation, but as a dimension of strong, overt religious belief and behavior, often coupled with cognitive inflexibility. The scale focuses on manifest content reflecting the subject’s self-report regarding deeply held religious convictions.

The REL measures a specific dimension that is largely distinct from constructs measured by standard personality inventories. In clinical populations, elevated REL scores are associated with both positive and negative correlates: lower rates of impulsive behaviors, substance abuse, and family conflict, but higher rates of disorganization and delusional thinking. Clinicians are advised that the scale measures the intensity of fundamental belief, but not the rigidity itself, necessitating contextual interpretation alongside measures of dogmatism.

Validity

The validity profile of the REL indicates that while it is highly specific, its contribution to discriminating between distinct psychiatric diagnostic groups in Wiggins’ original discriminant analyses was negligible. However, subsequent factor analytic studies confirmed its construct relevance.

In an evaluation comparing the content scales with the Differential Personality Inventory, the REL was found to load highly on a specific factor labeled “impulse expression versus religiosity.” Within this factor, the REL showed significant negative correlations with impulsivity, rebelliousness, and deviant attitudes (Hoffman & Jackson, 1976). The REL generally displays small and inconsistent correlations with broad measures like the Adjective Checklist, the California Personality Inventory, and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, affirming its measurement of a unique dimension.

Convergent validity was strongly established by Taylor et al. (1972), who reported a substantial correlation (r = .83) between the REL and the Omnibus Personality Inventory-Religious Orientations Scale. Further evidence of convergent validity was found through correlations (r = .759 and r = .774) between the REL and two example anchored scale questions designed to measure fundamentalist religiosity directly. Furthermore, the REL correlates minimally, but in the expected negative direction, with MMPI standard scales tapping distress and impulsivity (e.g., F = -.26, Scale 2 = -.17, Scale 4 = -.14, and Scale 9 = -.15).

Reliability

Despite the relative brevity of the scale (12 items), the REL demonstrates high and consistent reliability across diverse samples, often ranking as the most internally consistent among the 13 Wiggins content scales.

Internal Consistency: Coefficient alpha reliability coefficients were robust:

• For Air Force men: .67.
• For university students (men): ranging from .82 to .89 across three samples.
• For university students (women): ranging from .76 to .86 across three samples.

Test-Retest Stability: The REL also exhibited high temporal stability, with test-retest reliability coefficients of .95 for men and .93 for women over a six-week interval in a sample of 203 college students.

Factor Analysis

Factor analytic studies focusing on the MMPI content scales revealed that the Religious Fundamentalism Scale (REL) loads significantly onto a factor identified as “impulse expression versus religiosity.” This positioning highlights the scale’s tendency to measure a construct that is inversely related to behavioral dysregulation.

Specifically, within this factor, high REL scores were negatively correlated with measures of rebelliousness, impulsivity, and the endorsement of deviant attitudes (Hoffman & Jackson, 1976). Additionally, minor correlations were observed between REL scores and demographic variables, showing a slight positive correlation with age and a small negative correlation with educational attainment (Colligan & Offord, 1988).

Instrument

Test Type: Personality and Attitude Scale (Subscale of the MMPI)

Format: 12 True/False items embedded within the larger MMPI inventory.

Language Available: Primarily English (as part of the original MMPI).

Population Group: Adults.

Age Group: Typically 18+ (requires a sixth-grade reading level).

Population Details: Norms were established using diverse samples, including military personnel, college students, and psychiatric patients. Later updates utilized census-matched adult samples.

Test Methodology: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized format. Administration time for the full MMPI rarely exceeds 90 minutes. Scoring can be done manually or via computer program. Raw scores (0-12) can be converted to T scores (Mean=50, SD=10). Notably, the REL scale does not utilize the K-correction procedure standard to many MMPI scales.

Keywords

MMPI, Wiggins scales, psychometrics, religiosity, intolerance, personality inventory, T scores, internal consistency, original MMPI.

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: N/A (Not applicable or readily available for historical authors)

Affiliation Email addresses: N/A

Correspondence Address: N/A

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Religious Fundamentalism Scale (REL) was developed in 1966 by J. S. Wiggins based on the original MMPI item pool (Hathaway & McKinley, 1951). The scale is derived from items within the MMPI, which is a copyrighted instrument typically administered and scored by qualified professionals, often involving licensing fees to the test publisher (currently Pearson Assessments).

It is crucial to note that the REL scale was eliminated from the revised version, the MMPI-2 (Kohutek, 1992). Since only one of the original 12 REL items was retained in the MMPI-2, calculation of the REL score is impossible using MMPI-2 data. Therefore, this scale is specific to the original MMPI.

Reference’s

• Caldwell, A. B. (1988). MMPI supplemental scale manual. Los Angeles: The Caldwell Report.
• Colligan, R. C., & Offord, K. P. (1988). Contemporary norms for the Wiggins content scales: A 45-year update. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 23-32.
• Graham, J. R. (1987). The MMPI: A practical guide (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
• Hathaway, S. R., & Briggs, P. F. (1957). Some normative data on new MMPI scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 13, 364-368.
• Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J.C. (1951). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory manual-revised. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
• Hoffman, H., & Jackson, D. N. (1976). Substantive dimensions of psychopathology derived from MMPI content scales and the Differential Personality Inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 44, 862.
• Horton, A. M., & Timmons, M. (1982). Separation of brain-damaged from psychiatric patients: Value of the Wiggins MMPI content scales. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 755-758.
• Jamecke, R. W., & Chambers, E. D. (1977). MMPI content scales: Dimensional structure, construct validity and interpretive norms in a psychiatric population. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 1126-1131.
• Kohutek, K. J. (1992). Wiggins content scales and the MMPI-2. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 215-218.
• Lachar, D., & Alexander, R. S. (1978). Veridicality of self-report: Replicated correlates of the Wiggins MMPI content scales. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1349-1356.
• Panton, J. H. (1979). An MMPI item content scale to measure religious identification within a state prison population. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 588-591.
• Perkins, S. R., & Goldberg, L. R. (1964). Contextual effects on the MMPI. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 133-140.
• Taylor, J. B., Ptacek, M., Carithers, M., Griffin, C., & Coyne, L. (1972). Rating scales as measures of clinical judgment, III: Judgments of the self on personality inventory scales and direct ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 543-557.
• Waller, N. G., Kojetin, B. A., Bouchard, T. J., Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1990). Genetic and environmental influences on religious interests, attitudes, and values: A study of twins reared apart and together. Psychological Science, 1, 138-142.
• Weaver, A. J., Berry, J. W., & Pittel, S. M. (1994). Ego development in fundamentalist and nonfundamentalist Protestants. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 22, 215-225.
• Wiggins, J. S. (1966). Substantive dimensions of self-report in the MMPI item pool. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, (22, whole no. 630).
• Wiggins, J. S. (1969). Content dimensions in the MMPI. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI: Research developments and clinical applications (pp. 127-180). New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Wiggins, J. S., Goldberg, L. R., & Applebaum, M. (1971). MMPI content scales: Interpretive norms and correlations with other scales. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37, 403-410.

Items of the RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM SCALE

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

1. Everything is turning out just like the prophets of the Bible said it would.
2. I go to church almost every week.
3. I believe in the second coming of Christ.
4. I believe in a life hereafter.
5. I am very religious (more than most people).
6. I believe there is a Devil and a Hell in the afterlife.
7. I believe there is a God.
8. I feel sure that there is only one true religion.
9. Christ performed miracles such as changing water into wine.
10. I pray several times every week.
11. I read the Bible several times a week.
12. I have no patience with people who believe there is only one true religion.