Salvation Opinionnaire Scale

Abstract

The Salvation Opinionnaire (SO) is a brief, 25-item psychological instrument designed to measure religious attitudes within the Christian tradition, specifically along a continuum ranging from religious conservatism to liberalism and radicalism. The scale was originally conceptualized by Wendland (1949) but was primarily developed and standardized through the extensive work of Dreger and Adkins (1991). The items reflect various opinions regarding the nature and purpose of salvation. Scoring utilizes the complex Thurstone method, which involves summing predetermined item weights for endorsed statements and converting the total raw score into a percentile score.

While the SO is intended for use as a unidimensional measure of religious ideology, subsequent research employing factor analysis suggested a multidimensional structure, complicating the interpretation of scores derived from the traditional scoring procedure.

Keywords

Salvation Opinionnaire, SO Scale, religious conservatism, religious liberalism, religious radicalism, Thurstone method, Christian tradition, religious attitudes, psychological measurement

Authors

L. V. Wendland (Original Attribution), R. M. Dreger, S. A. Adkins

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Salvation Opinionnaire (SO) is to provide a concise measure capable of placing subjects on a spectrum of religious belief, specifically quantifying their degree of religious conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism concerning the concept of salvation. The scale aims to differentiate individuals’ theological perspectives within the context of American Christian traditions.

The scale items were carefully selected to represent distinct viewpoints on the nature and purpose of salvation, allowing researchers to assign quantitative values to qualitative religious opinions, thereby facilitating statistical analysis of religious ideology.

Construct

The core psychological construct measured by the SO is Religious Ideology, specifically focused on the concept of Salvation. The scale operationalizes this construct across three main dimensions—conservative, liberal, and radical—which were initially observed to form a trimodal distribution during the standardization process (Dreger, 1952). The conservative pole typically encompasses traditional, orthodox views of salvation (e.g., salvation through Christ’s blood or forgiveness of sins), while the liberal and radical poles reflect more humanistic, psychological, or critical interpretations (e.g., salvation as integration, character development, or neurotic freedom).

Validity

Several studies have explored the validity of the SO. Dreger (1952) conducted extensive testing, finding significant criterion validity evidence based on denominational membership. Subjects categorized as conservatives demonstrated significantly higher SO scores (M = 7.84) compared to liberals (M = 4.00), with a highly significant difference (t = 27.33, p < .01).

Further evidence of convergent validity was established through a strong correlation between SO scores and scores on the Religionism subscale of the Ferguson (1941) Primary Social Attitudes Scale No. 1 (r(28) = .77, p < .01). However, Dreger and Adkins (1991) reported that subjects’ self-ratings of their own religious liberalism/conservatism were virtually uncorrelated with their objective SO scores (r = .04, p < .22). When subjects were categorized by the general conservatism/liberalism of their denomination, a modest but highly significant correlation with SO scores was found (r = .26, p < .0001).

Reliability

A significant limitation of the Salvation Opinionnaire is the complete absence of published reliability statistics in known research literature. Researchers using the SO have not reported measures such as internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha) or test-retest reliability. This lack of data makes it challenging to assess the stability and consistency of the scale’s measurements.

Furthermore, the conceptual reliability of the SO is questioned due to the conflict between its recommended scoring procedure and its latent structure. Dreger and Adkins (1991) advocate for a unidimensional scoring method, yet Dreger (1991) later discovered a clear multidimensional structure using factor analysis. The reliability of a single score derived from a scale known to measure multiple dimensions remains unclear.

Factor Analysis

Dreger (1991) investigated the latent structure of the SO using responses from 778 subjects. Employing a combination of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, he determined that the scale possesses a four-factor structure, contradicting the intended unidimensional measure. These four factors were identified as:

• Conservative (Factor I)
• Liberal: Integration and Growth (Factor II)
• Liberal: Freeing Oneself from Insincerity and Conflict (Factor III)
• Radical (Factor IV)

Despite identifying these distinct dimensions, Dreger (1991) did not publish a procedure for scoring the SO along these four factors, nor did he explicitly suggest that multidimensional scoring was possible. Consequently, the scale continues to be primarily scored using the original Thurstone method to produce a single raw score representing the conservative-to-radical continuum.

Instrument

Test Type: Attitude Scale / Opinionnaire

Format: Forced-choice (Agree/Disagree) format, where subjects check endorsed statements.

Language Available: English (developed within the American Christian tradition)

Population Group: Individuals within the Christian tradition; specifically, high school, undergraduate, and graduate students, as well as church members.

Age Group: Adolescents and Adults

Population Details: Standardization samples included 763 respondents (initial reduction), 351 subjects (initial scoring procedure), and 778 subjects (Dreger & Adkins, 1991 restandardization). The latter sample included 485 students from a southern city and church members from two southern cities, with approximately equal numbers of men and women.

Test Methodology: The scale uses the Thurstone method of equal-appearing intervals. The scoring procedure is complex compared to standard Likert scales, requiring the summation of specific, predetermined item weights to achieve a raw score, which is then converted into a percentile score. This process can be automated using statistical software packages capable of handling variable creation from equations.

Keywords

Religious attitudes, psychological measurement, scale standardization, religious humanism, religious orthodoxy, Likert scales, personality correlates, salvation

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not available in source material.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not available in source material.

Correspondence Address: Not available in source material.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was initially developed in 1949 (Wendland). The key restandardization and publication occurred in 1991 (Dreger & Adkins). The 1991 article containing the full scale items and scoring procedure was published in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, with copyright held by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1991). Users should seek permission from the original copyright holder for use.

Reference’s

• Dreger, R. M. (1952). Some personality correlates of religious attitudes, as determined by projective techniques. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 66(3) (Whole No. 335).
• Dreger, R. M. (1991). The latent structure of the Salvation Opinionnaire, a measure of religious attitudes in the American Christian tradition. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 51, 707-719.
• Dreger, R. M., & Adkins, S. A. (1991). A restandardization of a brief scale of religious orthodoxy, religious humanism, and religious radicalism. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 1(3), 173-181.
• Ferguson, L. W. (1941). The stability of the primary social attitudes: I. Religionism and II. Humanitarianism. Journal of Psychology, 12, 283-288.
• Thurstone, L. L., & Chave, E. J. (1929). The measurement of attitudes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Wendland, L. V. (1949). The Salvation Opinionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Graduate School of Religion, University of Southern California.

Items of the SALVATION OPINIONNAIRE SCALE

Check (with an X) those statements below that describe your understanding and attitude toward “salvation.” Leave all other statements blank.

1. Salvation “is a very ambiguous term used by orthodox groups indicating when a person is saved.” (IV)

2. Salvation means “saving myself from myself, eliminating the conflict in my personality.” (III)

3. Salvation “is a great joy and peace that comes with the knowledge of sins forgiven.” (I)

4. Salvation “makes me think of a Southern Revival meeting and uncontrolled emotions.” (IV)

5. Salvation is “being saved from sin by the blood of Christ on the cross.” (I)

6. Salvation is “a state of spiritual integration.” (II)

7. Salvation is “accepting Christ as Savior and putting one’s entire trust and faith in Him as a living Savior.” (I)

8. Salvation means “to save yourself from yourself.” (III)

9. Salvation “is integration of my life around constantly progressive meanings and values.” (II)

10. Salvation is “a promise that the church makes to people to keep them under its thumb.” (IV)

11. Salvation is “the knowledge of sins forgiven.” (I)

12. Salvation is “accepting Christ as Savior.” (I)

13. Salvation “means being saved from the guilt and power of sin through faith in Christ.” (I)

14. Salvation is “to be saved from eternal condemnation unto eternal life and an eternal home in heaven with God.” (I)

15. Salvation is “character development.” (II)

16. Salvation is “eternal life hereafter, and peace, joy, and a greater work to do now.” (I)

17. Salvation is “a social and psychological orientation toward the realization of worthfulness.” (II)

18. Salvation is “being born again, thus letting the Holy Spirit guide my life now and forever.” (I)
19. Salvation is “living an objective life; that is, being objective about my subjectivity.” (II)
20. Salvatidn is “deliverance from the penalty of sin, the power of sin, and eventually the presence of sin.” (I)
21. Salvation is to be “relieved from feelings of insincerity, self-pity, inadequacy.” (III)
22. Salvation is “growth toward ultimate reality.” (II)
23. Salvation is “a mighty work of grace given to every man and partaken of by a few.” (I)
24. Salvation is “the freedom from neurotic conflict and harmonious living.” (IV)
25. Salvation “is release from sin and finding peace of mind through living close to God.” (I)

I consider myself a: (Mark an X anywhere along the line.)

Religious Liberal —————————————————- Religious Conservative

Numbers in parentheses after each item represent the factor identified by Dreger (1991) on which that item loads:

• I – Conservative
• II – Liberal: Integration and Growth
• III – Liberal: Freeing Oneself from Insincerity and Conflict
• IV – Radical