9 RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION S "ALE (Allport & Ross, 1967) Reviewed by Christopher T. Burris Variable: The Religious Orientation Scale (ROS) is based on Allport’s early (1950) conceptual work where he characterized the 1) well-differentiated [complex and critically dynamic in character in spite of its derivative nature {motivational in and of itself]; 3) productive « morality [shapes personal ethical code]; 4) comprehensive [applies to all areas of life}; egral {capable of assimilating new in: formation]; and 6) fundamentally heuristic [tentatively, though not lightly, held)” (pp. 64-65, interpretive brackets inserted). The ‘immatur jous sentiment, it was as- sumed, embodied the opposite of these characteristics. Details of the immatur jure distinction are largely absent from later discussions (Allport, 1966; Allport & Ross, 1967) of the relabeled extrinsic and intrinsic religious orientations; however, itis unclear whether this omission represented a narrow- ing of Allport’s thinking or merely an indi- cation that the earlier proposed differences so-called mature religious sentiment as: embraced}; 2) had become implicit assumptions, Still ex plicit, however, was that rel ) is a motivational con Instrumental ultimatey “peripheral versus central, “servant versus master” all capture the essence of the differential role that Allport assumed reli= gion to occupy within the individual's life depending on whether he or she is extrinsi= cally or intrinsically oriented, respectively. Mors religious orienta tion refers to a flagrantly utilitarian motive tion underlying religious behaviors: The ie dividual endorses religious beliefs and attitudes or engages in religious acts only the extent that they might aid in achieving mundane goals, such as feeling comforted! and protected or acquiring social status and approval. In contrast, intrinsic religious oie entation refers to motivation arising from goals set forth by th ous tradition ite self, and is thus assumed to have an “othe erly,” nonmundane, even self-denying qual ity: Religion is regarded as a “mastem gious orient: tion (or sentimei struct: formally, exirin:Scales of Religious Orientation motive . . . [whe Js, strong as they may be, are regarded as of less ultimate ificance” (Alport & Ross, 1967, p. 434, brackets inserted), Based on this distinction, many subsequent res | other ned archers have adopted the convenient, albeit simplistic, conceptual initiated by Allport and Ross themselves, of referring to the extrinsic-in rinsic distinction as “using” versus “living one’s religion. Description: Subseales. Although the ROS represents Allport’s capstone effort to operationalize the extrinsic and intrinsic re ions, there were at ast two earlier efforts to tap these constructs. Specifically, Wilson 1960), with ssistance from Allport, con: structed a 15-item, forced-choice mea of extrinsic (but notin ues.” Several years later, Feagin (1964) pre he derived both a 6-item Extrinsic and a 6-item Intrin. sie Scale, (AN but 1 of Fes items subsequently appeare sented 21 items from whe n's original 21 in the ROS.) Neither of these earlier efforts has received the empirical attention that the ROS has, however Within the ROS itself (sub)scal the Extrinsic assesses an individual's d ment of the peripheral role that a plays in his or her life, as well as fee to which he or she frankly admits jous involvement in orde 1 approval. That is, the ationalize straightfor wardly the key elements of extrinsic orien tation as Allport (1966; Allport & Ross, 1967) understood them Sampled from a var tudes, behaviors, acknowlet solace and/or soc items appear to op% ty of religious atti- and intentions, Intrinsic (ub)scale items at first glance seem less focused than do Extrinsic items. To the extent that intrinsic orientation involves enshrining religion as the “master motive” of one’s life as Allport and Ross (1967) suggested, however, the items make considerable sense, for they all reflect the no-nonsense fervency of commitment that such a master motive might evoke (at least be articulated within a traditional conceptually Christian context; see “Practical Consi Scoring. Extrinsic and Intrinsic ROS items are best treated as composing distine (0 the absence of a straightfor- ward inverse relationship between the two idity"). Thus, (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) response format used in the original report (Allport & Ross, 1967), sep- ae summation of the respective scale Js score ranges of 11-55 and 9-45 for the Extrinsic and Intrinsic Scales. A 9. point response format is preferred by some Batson, 1976). Ri of the specific response orientations (see “Va he 5-poin items yi! researchers (¢.g ardless format used, it is recommended that means are scaled to the response format rather than reported as un: ed totals, for the former allows for meaningful comparisons between Extrinsic nd Intrinsic scale scores within a given sample, alidity is whether and how individuals should be Another scoring issue linked to assigned religious-orientation-type labels based on their Extrinsic and Intrinsic scores (see, e.g., Burris, 1994; Hood, 1978; but also see Batson et al., 1993), This issue was initially confronted by Allport and Ross (1967) when Extrinsic in their samples appeared to be linearly in dependent rather tha pected. In order to account primarily for individuals who and Intrinsic scores inversely related as those simultaneously tended toward agreement on both the Ex ttinsic and Intrinsic Seales—the so-called indiscriminately proreligious—Allport and Ross treated these respondents as a compari on pertin variables with those who tend them nt dependent d toward agreement on only one of the two sca (Extrinsies” or those who tended toward disagreement on Intrinsics”), and with both scales (the “indiscriminately proreli gious”), This later evolved into a median: split approach to classification, in which the four groups are created based on whether individuals score above or below the respec tive Extrinsic and Intrinsic medians for that sample. The chief advant split approach is that it assures a relatively146 MEASURES ©} equal representation of respondents in each of the four groups regardless of sampl This is also the chief disad- vantage: Extrinsic and Intrinsic score distri- butions—and thus, vary as a function of faith tradition (see Burris, Jack- ‘on, Tarpley, & Smith, 1996, Study 3), so labeled groups (e.g characteristics Intrinsics) may not comparable across samples, For this reason, the more conceptually meaningful practice of splitting the sample at the scales’ theoret Sona l-9 red, Whatever the procedur ical mid- or neutral-point (e.g seale) is p Burris (1994) has recommended that typi be employed only when adequately theoreti cally justified Spin-offs. Suggested revisions and re. placements for the ROS sca numerous, although they have have been enerally arisen based on one of two types of criti ind the Pure empirical criti more of the ROS's perceived psychometric inadequacies, e.g the absence of a strongly inverse Extrinsic Intrinsic correlation (Hoge, 1972; this volume), low interitem correlations and/or multidimensionality of especially the Extrinsic Scale (Genia, 1993; Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989; Iso this volume: Kirkpatrick 1989), or excessively abstruse item wording (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983; see also this volume). Conceptual-empirical hat the ROS does and does not measure than on how well it measures. Typically son immature/extrinsic gion are compared ROS items, discrepancies are new seales are proposed to fill the presumed Dudley & Cruise, cisms focus on one ¢ see also criticisms are based more on Allport’s writin ainst the content of noted, and conceptual gaps (¢ 1990). OF these, the most empirically pro- lifie has been Batson’s (1976; Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993) means-end ap. proach. It will thus be discussed in some de- wail According to Batson (1976), Allport's (1930) depiction of the “mature” actually confounds two forms of conceptually The Intrinsic seal religious orientation that ar and empirically distinet RELIGIOSITY of the ROS taps only the “r motive” the cussion of the intrinsic orientation in later Unmeasured by either the Intrinsic or the Extrinsic Seale is me that pervades Allport’s dis- writings, Batson claimed: ‘0 grapple with existential questions, to view religious doubts as posi= tive, and to remain open to religious change that peppers earlier discussions of the ma iment, Batson and colleagues thus the Interactional, or Quest, Scale to tap these develoy nitherto unmeasured themes (Batson, 1976; Batson & Schoenrade, 1991; also this and three additional scales intended to captur /olume), additional aspects of the extrinsic and intrinsic orientations that seemed implicit but unmeasured in the Specifically, based on his as that the “master motive” quality © rinsic orientation may be an outgrowth of needs for id direction imption the in ainty, strength, hat express themselves outwardly (in part) fhrough wholehearted endorsement of inst tutionally approved religious doctrines, Bat son (1976) constructed the Internal and Doctrinal Orthodoxy scales. The former es sentially need to believe” (in religion); the latter measures an individual's degree ment of a number of traditional Christian beliefs. Both «were predicted and found to be mod ly positively correlated with the Intrinsic scale. ‘The remaining, External ‘measures the degre vidual’s religion others such as peers, family members, and religious workers, Bat son (1976) initially predict to which an indi s affected by influential lay or professional d that this seale would be positively correlated with the Ex ttinsie scale; it has, however, almost invari antly correlated positively with the Intrinsie Scale instead, leading Batson et al. (1993, 69) to concede that the initial assumption has “proved wrong The six scales (all of which use a 9-point in combination are in sure three dimensions of reli jous orientation that Batson assumes (and statistically forces) to be independent; The devout, doctrinaire End dimension (assessedScales of Religious Orientation by the Intrinsic, Internal, External, and Doc trinal Orthodoxy Scales), the utilitaria Means dimension (assessed primarily by the Extrinsic Seale), and the ally toned Quest dimension (assessed primarily by the Quest Scale). The statistical procedures for riving Means and End (as well as Quest) xisten scores are sufficiently complex as to be be yond the scope of this net al, (1993) for details, volume; see Bats Practical Considerations: Although Allport used the term “religion” rather generically in his theoretical works, he was undoubt edly influenced by his cultural, familial, and personal tics to a North American Protestant articulation of Christianity in his constr the ROS (see Wulff, 1997). Hence, items includin tion of references to church and Bible study, for example, restrict the ROS’s interpretability primarily to respondents with a Christian background, Modifications involving le “church” to “rel not alter the items’ meaning substantially sclarian wording, e thering,” that do Another problematic issue concerns con ditional items, i.e., those containing a premise such as “although I believe in my religion, Nonreligious respondents in particular have difficulty ing such questi e with the premise. Because respondents’ strategies for handli items differ (ie., some skip the items, some indicate stron ment, and some the reliability of particularly the Extrinsic Scale can be adversely affected. Specific in ns because they dis: structions to assist respondents, e.g., “If you disay fee with the premise on which an item is based, mark the re strongly disagree’ instead of item blank,” are therefore encourai Finally, as noted under “Description,” the ROS has been criticized for the relatively high reading level of its items. Although this probably presents no probl st dult samples, it is a when working with special adult popula tions or with children, An version of the ROS has been developed for 147 such instances (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983: so this volume). Norms/Standardization: Allport and Ros: 1967) sample consisted of 309 members of six different churches/denominations Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Nazarene, Pres- byterian, Methodist, Baptist) scattered cross the eastern United States, sample that was claimed to be “in no sense repre sentative” (p. 436). Unfortunately, Allport nd Ross reported Intrinsic and Extrinsic scale means for neither each subsample nor the total sample. Donahue (1985a, p. 419) speculated that “smaller, more sect-like [1 ligious] groups, would be expected to have hi than larger denominations due to their more stringent membership requirements.” Offer ing some support for this speculation, Burris, et al, (1996, Study 3) found h scores among conservative Protestant Baptist, Pentecostal, Mormon) either liberal Pro gher Intrinsic and lower Extrinsic scores Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian) Cathoties sample. Conservative Protestants also aver ina midwestern U.S. university aged lower on the Extrinsic scale compared to Catholics but not compared 10 liberal Protestants. Reliability: Internal consistencies reported for the ROS Intrinsic seale range from ade quate to excellent, with Cronbach's alphas most typically in the mid .80s (e.g., Don ue, 19854). Internal consistencies re- ported for the ROS Extrinsic scale are in ariably lower, with Cronbach's alphas most typically in the low .70s (¢.g.. Don- ahue, 1985a). Burris and Tarpley (in press footnote 3) reported two-week test-retest re 84 and .78 for the Intrinsic and Extrinsic scales, respectively (NV = 61). The lower reliabilities associated with the Ex although subject to criticism. an be attributed—at least in part—to the tapping of multiple manifestations of the extrinsic orientation ( Kirkpatrick 1989). Whether the trade-off of psychomet- ric potency for conceptual breadth is justfi able remains open to debate,48. MEASURES OF Validity: Evaluating the Intrinsic and Extrin: nately, not a simple task, given the subtle shifts in empl lidity of the ROS scales is, unfortu- sis in Allport's writings ov time, and given the value-ladenness of the The first issue affects evaluations of the scales’ struc tural properties; the second raises questions as to what standards or markers should be ant to validity As earlier noted, Allport’s dis. cussion (if not his conceptualization) of the considered rel intrinsic orientation appeared to narrow over time to a primary emphasis on the ori entation’s 1 motive Thus it could ued that the adequacy of the Intrinsic scale as a measure of intrinsic ori mas character entation depends on whether one focuses on Allport’s early or late sie seale's combination of relatively hi ternal consistency and breadth of item con- tent would seem to support its validity as a writings. The Intrin. in Indeed, from this perspective, that intrinsic items scatter across a number of factors when factor-analyzed with othe ping traditional religious attin ities is not as problematic as Hunt and (1971) claimed. Rather. ted as si items tap. des and activ- the scatter be interps derly motivation, On the other hand, the Intr scale does not appear to be adequate as A la Allport (1950), as Batson (1976) measure of hhas demonstrated In contrast, there is much less uncertainty as to whether the Extrinsic scale gets at the intended orientation. Although the scale’s multidimensionality has been criticized on both conceptual and empirical grounds (e. Kirkpatrick, 1989) that Extrinsic ite arable factors related to comfort-seek: ns load ing, status-seeking, and the admission of re ligion’s tangentiality conforms precisely 10 Allport’s (1966; Allport & Ross, 1967) con- ceptualization. Thus, from a structural-con- tent standpoint, the validity of the Extrinsic ale, like the validity of the is very much a matter of perspective RELIGIOSITY ‘The same can be said from a structural: relational standpoint. As was earlier noted, Allport and Ross (1967) clearly expected a strong, inversely linear relationship between their Extrinsic and Intrinsic items tent with an hypothesized bipolar religious orientation dimension—rather than the neat= zero linear correlation between the {Wo scales that they found, In fact, the expected negative relationship has been obtained but has be sn restricted to theologically conserv= samples (Donahue, 1985), leading the majority of researchers (e.g., Batson, 1976) to conclude that Allport was wrong, i.e., that the extrinsic and intrinsic orienta ‘ions are not opposites but are independent however, that ed near-zero linear re Burris (1994) demonstrated, the frequently obse lationship masks a substantial nonline lationship. Specifically, the Intrinsic and Extrinsic scales were shown to be inversely curvilinearly related such that, below the In trinsic midpoint, the Intrinsic/Extrinsic eo relation is positive, st rejection of feligious motivation, or sim josity, Above the Intrinsie mid the Intrinsic/Extrinsic corre sug hat, as reported intrinsic orientation increases, te ported extrinsic orientation decreases, (A similar overall relationship has been ob= served for the Intrinsic and Quest scales— see Burris, 1994), This pattern thus offers at of Allport and Ross's but no support for ihe independence assumption, ative, esting least partial suppor bipolarity assumption, Standards. The value-ladenness of the extrinsicfintrinsic distinction is most evident when determining what should serve as standards or markers of the ROS’s validity Allport and Ross (1967) provided no data relevant to the validity of the Extrinsic and that rrential relationship observed be: Intrinsic scales, apparently assumi the dif tween measures of ethnocentrism and these The’ ‘mature’ two scales was adequate assumption As the old and “imma: ture” labels implied, the intrinsic orientation ‘good” oF ion, whereas the extrinsic orien bad” oF was clear: was seen as the embodiment o true” rel tation was the embodiment ofScales of Rel religion cannot, or at ance. Al as a theo- Teast should not, foster intol though perhaps quite compellin logical prescription, this assumption—that prejudice or its absence should ipso facto serve as a criterion for the religious orie tion scales’ validity—warrants clearer psy chological (i Much subsequent research utilizing the ROS and related measures has sidestepped issues of validity, however, by relying—as did Allport—upon an implicit “extrinsic is bad, intrinsic is good” conceptual) justification quence, research that challenges the mora fiber and purity of motives assumed to bk associated with the intrinsic orientation is often met with sharp criticism and accuss. tions of bias, Por example, consider the current observation of a positive correlation between the Intrinsic scale and various mea- y (e-g., Batson Naifeh, & Pate, 1978). The straightforward interpretation of this is that higher intrinsic sures of social desirabi orientation is predictive of an increased need t0 “look good" to oneself and others. Defenders of the intrinsic orientation have responded by suggesting that measures social desirability are biased against reli jous respondents or, alternatively, that in- Uinsically oriented individuals report being more socially irable because they are Watson, Mor- is, Foster, & Hood, 1986; Richards, 1994), although empirical support for either con: ie (Burris, tention remains rather question 1994; Leak & Fish, 1989). Simi Gorsuch, 1993) hav ations (e n made with respect to research linking the intrinsic orientation with subtle and not-so-sub\ forms of prejudice (see Batson & Burris, 1994, for a review viewer is unaware of any comparable accu sations of bias with respect to research demonstrating links between the extrinsic orientation and unsavory variables such as ethnocentrism, To be certain, the conceptual and empir cal claims and counterclaims raised r ing the extrinsic and intrinsic orientations remain sensitive and controversial. That is precisely the point: Allport’s framework, Jous Orientation 149 because of its implicit value assumptions seldom elicits indifference. Moreover, r searchers’ personal responses to these value assumptions undoubtedly affect how ques. tions of validity are framed. Indeed, one might suggest that, failing all else, the ROS might serve as a sort of projective test of the values and predilections of psychologists of religion! Having said this, what data (if any) might speak regarding the validity of the Extrinsic and Intrinsic scales? If the Intrinsic sca ligion as a master motive indeed measures “re- it should be rather strongly positively correlated with measures tapping commitment to, or as- cribed importance of, religion. This is, in fact, the case (Donahue, 1985b). Moreover, ve found a positive cor: relation between the Intrinsic scale and measures of one’s in life, also consistent with th tive” conceptualization (see Batson et al 1993, chap. 8) If the Extrinsic seale indeed taps hands-off” attitude toward religion, then it eral sense of purpose should not be positively correlated with measures of religious commitment. One case (Donahue, 198: Moreover, if the Extrinsic scale assesses one’s frank admission of using religion for comfort, then it should be linked to vari suggestive of stress and maladjust ables that might encourage an otherwise irreligious person to “try “ reli- ion. Ri this si estion: Batson et al. (1993) cluded, based on a review of findings from over 40 studies, that there is “considerable sans] dimen including appropriate social behavior” and “freedom from worry and guilt” (p. 286, brackets in- serted), Moreover, Burris, Batson, and Was oner (1992) found that persons randomly as writing task subs. the personal comfort subscale of the Extrin- sic scale (Kirkpatrick, 1989) than did those > completed a neutral writing task, offer some experimental evidence for validity.150 MEASURES OF Direct evidence of this sort suggesting that the Extrinsic scale effectively taps the use Of religion to bolster one’s social status has yet to be produced, however. In short, the research reviewed here breadth of limited in scope due to the shee the literature, due the th value-ladenness of the con the seems generally supportive 0} validity of the extrinsic and in tations and the scales used to measure them. The research does not, however, support Allport’s conceptualizations in every detail, hat will undoubtedly el a fact it sparring between apologists and crities of religious orientation for some time yet (e. patrick & Hood, 1990: 1991). In this reviewer's opinion, essential to ensur- ing a “fair fight of Allport’s model based upon what has been learned in Masters, is a retool the past three decades, Such a revised framework should remain true to the mo- ‘if not the letter—of Allport’s extrinsic-intrinsic framework, but should also be capable of incorporating reli gious orientations more recently identi fied—e.g., Batson’s (1976) quest. Such a re vised framework should also move beyond (0 psychological principles as a basis for predicting and ex- tive-centered spirit theological prescriptions plaining relationships between religious ori- entation and variables of int prosocial health. It is a hopeful sign that erest, €.g., pre and mental tempts at such a framework inning t0 appear Pargament, 199 1997) Given the fervency with which he strove to understand the v (eg Burris. ries of religious motiva his own life, we can only as- tion duri sume that Allport would have wanted it this, Location: The ROS does not appear in All- port and Ross (1967), although the authors refer the reade address from which it obtained, A number o} present the ROS items, however, in- cluding Batson et al, (1993) and Wulff (1997). Batson et al. (1993) the Internal, External, and Doctrinal Ortho- doxy scale items. RELIGIOSITY Subsequent Research: Batson, C. D., & Flory, J. D. (1990). Goal-rele vant cognitions associated with helping by indivi uals high on intrinsic, end religion. Journal for the Siuay of Religion, 29, 346-360. C.T., Batson, C. D., Alistaedien, M. K_ (1994), “What a friend . ..": Lonel ness as motivator of intrinsi religion. Journal for Buri the Sciemifie Study’ of Religion, 33, Hathaway, W. L,, & Pargame 326-334 K. 1 (1990) In coping, and psy A. covarian analysis. Journal for the Selentfic Study of Rel 3-441 Kirkpatrick, L.A. stan orthodox, and int tion as predictors of discriminatory the Study of Religion, 32, Mek land, S. G., Warren, J.C. (1992). Reli and selective exposute among Fundamentalist Christians, J si sion, 31, 163-17 References Allport, G. W. (1950), Th ligion. New York: MacMillan Allport, G. W. (1966). The rel Scientific St individual us content of 5.4745 port, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (196 ous orientation and prejudice Personal Jour 5.48745 Rel sonality and Social Psychol 1976), Batson, C. D. on as prosocial tor docile Study of Religion, 15, 29-85, Batson, C.D, & Burris, C.T igion: Deprestant or stimulant of prejudice and discrimination? In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson Eds.), The seventh Ontario person the Stiontfic ty and social psychology op. 149-169). Hillsdale, NJ prejudi Lawrence Erlbaum, Batson, C. D., Naifeh, S.J. & Pate s. (978) and racial udy of Rel Journal for the Selenite S 11 C.D., & Schoenrade, P.A. (1991 2. Reliabii prejudice Bases Mea gion as quest concerns 30-447 Batson, C. D, & Vents, W.L (1993), dual: A soclal-psy chological perspective. New York: Oxford Univer ity, PressScales of Religious Orientation 151 Burts, C7, (1994). Curvilinerity and retigiou types: A second look at intrinsic, extrinsic quest relation Journal Ps Burrs, C. 7. (1997, Jan ious o Annual Convention of Association, Toron mn. Paper presented at th he Canadian Psychological Burris, C. T, Batson, C. D., & Wagoner, K. ( November. Effect of esteem threat of trinsic and extrinsic religion, Paper presented at the Annual Convention ofthe Society fr the Scientific Study of Religion, Washington, D. Buss, C. 7, Jackson, L. M., Tarpley, W. R., & Smith, G. (1996). Religion as quest: The self-ai Per ind Soe CT, & Tarp W. R. (1998). Religion Donahue, M. J. (19853). Intrinsic and extrins igiousness: The empiri ural fo eS Siudy of R 3-423, Donahue, M. Btgiumes: Review and 1. (19850). Intrinsic and extrinsic eta-analysis. J Dudley, R.L., & Cruise, R. J. (1990 agin, J, R nia, V. (1993). A psychometric evaluation of he Allpor-Ross UE scales in a religiously he Religion, 32, 284-290. rorsuch, R. L., (10993). Religion and prejudi Lessons not learned from the past. International urnal for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 29-3 Forsuch, R. I. & MePherson, 8. E. (1989), In trinsic/extrinsic measurement: UE Revised and sin Re 8, 348-382 Gorsuch, R. L. & Venable, G. D. (1983). Devel: pment of an “age-universal” HE scale. Jour fic Study of Religion, 22, 181-18 D. R. (1972), A validated inrinsi reli Hood, R. W., J. (1978) indiscriminately pro and anti categories of religious Hunt, R.A., & King, M, (1971), The extrinsic intrinsic concept: A review and evaluation. Journ for the Scienific Study of Religion, 10, 339-356 Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1989). A. psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin measures of intrinsie-extrinsic orientation. In M. L Lynn & D. 0. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the so cial scientific study of reli ol. 1, pp. I-31 Greenwich, CT: JAL Press. Kirkpatrick, L. A, & Hood, R. W., Je, (1990 Intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation: The by or bane of contemporary logy of religion K., & Fish, S, (1989), Religious orie tation, impression management, and self-deception: Toward a clarification of the link between religios- Masters, K. S. (1991). OF boons, banes, babie bathwater A teply to the Kiskpattick and Hoo Richards, P. S, (1994), Religious devoutness, impression management, and personality function ng in college students. Journal of Research in P ronality, 28, 14-26, Watson, P. J, Morris, R. Jo, Fost & Wilson, W. C. (1960). Extinsi religious values and prejudice, Journal of Abnormal and Soc hologs, 60, 286-288, W M. (1997). Psychology of nMEASURES OF RELIGIOSITY Appendix A us Or on Scale (ROS) Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each it following rating scale:* 1 3 strongly neutral strongly disagree agree Extrinsic (sub)se Although I believe in my religion, I feel there are many more important things in my life. I doesn’t matter so much what I believe so long as I lead a moral life 3. ‘The primary purpose of prayer is to gain relief and protection. 4. ‘The church is most important as a place to formulate good social relationships. 5. What religion offers me most is comfort when sorrows and misfortune strike 6. I pray chiefly because I have been taught to pray 7. Although I am a religious person I refuse to let religious considerations influence my day affairs. 8. A primary reason for my interest in religion is that my church is a congenial social activity 9. Occasionally I find it necessary to compromise my religious beliefs in order to pro- tect my social and economic well-being. 10. One reason for my being a church member is that such membership helps to establish a person in the community 11, The purpose of prayer is to secure a happy and peaceful life. *"12. Religion helps to keep my life balanced and steady in exactly the same way as my citizenship, friendships, and other memberships do. Intrinsic (sub)scale 1. Itis important for me to spend periods of time in private religious thought and medita- tion. If not prevented by unavoidable circumstances, I attend church 3, I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life. 4, ‘The prayers I say when I am alone carry as much meaning and personal emotion as those said by me during services. 5. Quite often I have been keenly aware of the presence of God or the Divine Bei 6. Tread literature about my faith (or church). 7. If T were to join a church group I would prefer to join a Bible study group rather than a social fellowship, 8. My religious beliefs are really what lie behind my whole approach to life.scales of Religious Orientation on is especially important because it answers many 4) ions about the meaning ocs nve mecl « 9-pointncspowse Spemn ed, used by Feagin (1964) but not by Aliport and Allport and Ross Batson’s Supplementary “End Dimension” Scales Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each item below by using the following rating scale:* strongly disagre neutral agree strongly disagree agree 1. My religious development is a natural response to our innate need for devotion to God. God's will should shape my life. 3. Iris necessary for me to have a religious belief 4, When it comes to religious questions, I feel driven to know the truth 5. (-) Religion is something I have never felt personally compelled to consider 6. (2) Whether I turn out to be religious or not doesn’t make much difference 0 me 7. Uhave found it essential to have faith. 8. [find it impossible to conceive of myself not being religious, 9. (.) For me, religion has not been a “must. External sca 1. The church has been very important for my religious dev 2. My minister (or youth director, camp counselor, etc.) has had a profound influence on my personal religious developmen A major factor in my r jous development has been the importance of re 4 My religion serves to satisfy needs for fellowship and security Certain people have served as “models” for my reli jous development ) Outside forces (other persons, church, etc.) have been relatively unimportant in my religious development, Doctrinal Orthodoxy scale believe in the stence of a just and merciful personal God I believe God created the universe I believe God has a plan for the universe. | 4. [believe Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God 5. [believe Jesus Cl 6. belie 7. Lelie ist was resurrected (raised from the dead), ve Jesus Christ is the Messiah promised in the Old Testament ve one must accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to be saved from sin 8. I believe in the “second coming” (that Jesus Christ will one day return to judge and rule world) 9. [believe in “original sin” (we are all born sinners). 10, I believe in life after deathMEASL I believe there is a transcendeni we live). Thelieve the Bible is the unique coring procedures, see Batson et Batson, C.D, Schoenrade, P, && Vents, RES OF RELIGIOSITY ¢ realm (an “other” world, not just this world in which authority for God's will W. L. (1995), Religion and the Individual; A social-p sal perspective, New York: Oxford University Press. Copyright © 1993 Oxford University Press. Reprint