Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale

1. Abstract

The Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale (DRIS), developed by sociologists Snell Putney and Russell Middleton in 1961, represents a foundational psychometric instrument designed to deconstruct and quantify the multi-faceted nature of Christian belief systems. Recognizing that traditional single-dimension assessments of religiosity—such as frequency of church attendance or denominational affiliation—failed to capture ideological nuance and psychological functioning, Putney and Middleton formulated a 19-item Likert-type instrument delineating four distinct yet interconnected dimensions: Orthodoxy (adherence to traditional supernatural Christian dogma), Fanaticism (the zealous conviction that one’s faith is uniquely true combined with an obligation to proselytize or sacrifice personal welfare), Importance to Self-Concept (the subjective centrality and functional salience of religious convictions in structuring personal identity and daily volition), and Consciousness of Ambivalence (the subjective awareness of intellectual hesitation, doubt, or cognitive conflict regarding religious doctrines).

The scale employs a standardized 7-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (“Strong Disagreement”) to 7 (“Strong Agreement”). In its seminal normative investigation involving 1,200 Christian college students across disparate regions of the United States, the authors revealed substantial structural independence among the dimensions, demonstrating that adherence to orthodox dogma does not inevitably engender ideological fanaticism or subjective centrality. Furthermore, the DRIS exhibited pronounced criterion and construct validity through significant correlations with external sociological and personality constructs, including authoritarianism (measured via the California F-Scale), political conservatism, status anxiety, regional geographic socialization, community size, and sex differences. This article provides an exhaustive psychometric examination of the DRIS, exploring its historical genesis, theoretical foundations, psychometric characteristics, factor structure, scoring mechanics, and enduring utility in the psychology and sociology of religion.

2. Keywords

Dimensions of Religious Ideology, religious orthodoxy, religious fanaticism, religious ambivalence, self-concept centrality, psychometrics, authoritarianism, religious doubt, Christian belief systems, scale validation, sociology of religion, ideological measurement

3. Authors

The Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale was conceptualized, constructed, and empirically validated by American sociologists Snell Putney and Russell Middleton. During the formulation and initial publication of the scale in the early 1960s, both researchers were actively engaged in empirical investigations exploring the intersection of social stratification, belief architecture, personality structure, and institutional religion.

• Snell Putney, Ph.D.: Served as a prominent sociologist affiliated with San Jose State University and Florida State University. His scholarly contributions spanned the sociology of culture, humanistic sociology, personal adjustment, and belief systems, culminating in influential books such as The Adjusted American: Normal Neuroses in the Individual and Society. Putney focused intensely on how socio-cultural conditioning shapes personal perception, dogmatism, and existential conformity.
• Russell Middleton, Ph.D.: Served as Professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and Florida State University. An eminent scholar in the domains of racial discrimination, social inequality, socio-political attitudes, and ideological development, Middleton produced groundbreaking empirical studies examining how structural and regional factors modulate psychological adherence to institutional norms.

Correspondence regarding the historical development of the scale is linked to their landmark 1961 empirical monograph published in the peer-reviewed journal Social Forces, titled “Dimensions and Correlates of Religious Ideologies.” Inquiries concerning archival datasets and institutional documentation can be addressed through the Department of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison or Florida State University library archives.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale is to operationalize and disaggregate the complex, multidimensional architecture of Christian religious belief into empirically observable and statistically verifiable components. Prior to the publication of Putney and Middleton’s work in 1961, the behavioral sciences routinely conceptualized religiosity as a monolithic, unidimensional construct. Researchers frequently relied upon crude behavioral proxies—such as public church attendance frequency, self-reported denominational membership, or generalized affirmations of belief in a deity—to classify individuals as either “religious” or “non-religious.” Putney and Middleton recognized that such reductionist methods obscured vital psychological distinctions between the content of beliefs, the intensity and intolerance with which those beliefs are held, the degree to which beliefs are integrated into the self-concept, and the presence of cognitive dissonance or internal doubt.

From an applied and theoretical perspective, the DRIS was engineered to resolve critical psychometric and conceptual challenges:

• Differentiating Dogma from Extremism: The instrument explicitly decouples Orthodoxy (the intellectual assent to canonical theological propositions such as an afterlife, heaven, hell, divine providence, and answered prayer) from Fanaticism (ideological militancy, exclusive superiority, extreme altruistic or self-abnegating sacrifice, martyrdom, and mandatory proselytization). This distinction allows researchers to examine whether theological conservatism naturally fosters intolerance or whether fanaticism is an independent psychological posture grafted onto doctrinal beliefs.
• Assessing Structural Identity Integration: Through the Importance to Self-Concept subscale, the DRIS measures the existential and subjective salience of faith. Two individuals may possess identical levels of orthodox theological belief; however, for one individual, these beliefs remain dormant cognitive abstractions, whereas for the other, they serve as the foundational bedrock of personal identity, ethical choice, and existential meaning.
• Quantifying Ideological Ambivalence: The scale addresses internal conflict and cognitive uncertainty via the Consciousness of Ambivalence dimension, capturing the extent to which an individual experiences conscious doubts, confusion, and hesitation regarding their religious framework.
• Investigating Personality and Social Correlates: The DRIS was designed to elucidate the socio-psychological correlates of religious belief. Putney and Middleton intended the scale to clarify how distinct dimensions of religious ideology relate differentially to personality variables—such as authoritarian personality structure (measured via the Adorno et al. California F-scale), status concern, and socio-political conservatism—as well as sociological factors such as regional origin (e.g., Southern vs. non-Southern United States), metropolitan versus rural upbringing, and biological sex.

In clinical, counseling, and developmental research, the scale provides a nuanced diagnostic taxonomy for understanding religious struggles, ideological foreclosure, spiritual coping mechanisms, and the cognitive precursors to religious fundamentalism and authoritarian aggression.

5. Psychological Construct

The overarching construct quantified by the instrument is Christian Religious Ideology, defined as a system of cognitive representations, affective commitments, and evaluative standards centered on traditional Christian theology and its demands upon the individual. Putney and Middleton postulated that religious ideology is not a homogenous psychological state but a constellation of four distinct structural dimensions. Each dimension represents a conceptually unique vector of cognitive and motivational functioning.

1. Orthodoxy (Items 1–6)

The Orthodoxy dimension reflects adherence to the traditional, supernatural doctrines characteristic of historic, orthodox Christianity. This subscale taps cognitive acceptance of conventional dogmatic propositions without necessarily measuring the zeal or practical application of those beliefs. Specific facets measured include:

• Belief in physical punishment in an afterlife (hell) for earthly transgressions (Item 1).
• Belief in life after death and the immortality of the soul (Item 2).
• Belief in divine providence, teleology, and a sovereign divine purpose for all existence (Item 3).
• Belief in the dualistic, eternal separation of human souls into heaven or hell (Item 4).
• Belief in an immanent, personal God who actively hears and intervenes in response to human prayer (Item 5).
• Belief in divine omniscience, specifically that God possesses total knowledge of human thoughts and actions (Item 6).

High orthodoxy scores denote an intellectual alignment with traditional Christian credal statements. In the authors’ empirical taxonomy, an individual can endorse high orthodoxy while remaining tolerant of divergent worldviews and experiencing minimal emotional zeal.

2. Fanaticism (Items 7–12)

The Fanaticism dimension evaluates ideological exclusivity, moral absolutism, militant proselytism, and extreme self-abnegation in service to religious mandates. Whereas orthodoxy concerns what an individual believes, fanaticism concerns the manner and uncompromising intensity with which those beliefs are enacted. It captures the psychological willingness to subordinate all other personal, social, and physical goods to the ideological imperative:

• Ideological exclusivity and absolute religious monopolism—the conviction that one’s own faith is the solitary vehicle of divine truth (Item 7).
• Radical financial and material renunciation in submission to perceived divine will (Item 8).
• Absolute self-sacrifice and the subordination of personal happiness, psychological well-being, and earthly flourishing to God’s demands (Item 9).
• Willingness to endure religious martyrdom rather than renounce ideological commitments (Item 10).
• Imperative universalism—the insistence that all humanity must be coerced or persuaded into the “true” faith (Item 11).
• An urgent, obligatory sense of evangelical duty to propagate one’s belief system to others (Item 12).

3. Importance to the Self-Concept (Items 13–18)

The Importance to the Self-Concept dimension (also referred to as Religious Centrality or Salience) measures the extent to which religious ideology serves as an organizing axis of personal identity, everyday behavioral regulation, and existential coherence. Grounded in symbolic interactionist identity theory, this dimension assesses whether religious principles operate as primary cognitive schemas:

• Existential meaning provision—faith as the ultimate source of life’s purpose (Item 13).
• Daily behavioral salience—the functional impact of religion on routine conduct (Item 14, negatively worded).
• Ontological foundation—viewing religious ideology as the bedrock of one’s entire reality (Item 15).
• Personal emotional internalization and psychological intimacy with belief systems (Item 16).
• Decisional guidance—the direct role of religious convictions in resolving critical life dilemmas (Item 17, negatively worded).
• Existential emptiness and psychological disintegration in the hypothetical absence of faith (Item 18).

4. Consciousness of Ambivalence (Item 19)

The Consciousness of Ambivalence dimension is evaluated via a single focused diagnostic item assessing the respondent’s explicit awareness of internal cognitive dissonance, intellectual doubt, instability, or confusion regarding their religious convictions. Rather than treating religious doubt as merely the absence of orthodoxy, Putney and Middleton conceptualized ambivalence as an active, conscious psychological phenomenon. It captures the tension between societal or institutional expectations and personal epistemic uncertainty, serving as a critical indicator of cognitive conflict, ideological maturation, or impending deconversion.

6. Theoretical Framework

The construction and validation of the DRIS emerged from a fertile convergence of mid-twentieth-century sociopsychological traditions, notably Authoritarian Personality Theory, Cognitive Dissonance Theory, and Role/Identity Theory within symbolic interactionism.

The Authoritarian Matrix and Religious Rigidity

In the wake of World War II, Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford (1950) published The Authoritarian Personality, arguing that deep-seated personality dynamics—characterized by rigid conventionalism, submissive obedience to idealized authority figures, projectivity, and generalized anti-intraception—predisposed individuals toward prejudice and anti-democratic ideologies. Putney and Middleton recognized that institutional religion often served as a major cultural repository for authoritarian impulses. However, they observed that empirical research frequently produced contradictory results regarding religiosity and authoritarianism: some studies found high correlations, while others found negligible relationships.

Putney and Middleton hypothesized that this inconsistency was driven by measurement artifacts. If religiosity was treated as a single monolith, the correlations were obscured. They theorized that Orthodoxy per se represented cultural conventionalism, which in traditional subcultures (such as the American Deep South) could be absorbed through normative socialization without necessarily signaling an authoritarian character structure. Conversely, Fanaticism represented the rigid, punitive, and dogmatic externalization of psychological conflicts characteristic of classic authoritarianism. By separating Orthodoxy from Fanaticism, Putney and Middleton established an empirical model capable of demonstrating that authoritarianism associates far more robustly with fanaticism and intolerance than with passive doctrinal orthodoxy.

Identity Salience and the Self-Concept

Drawing on the symbolic interactionism of George Herbert Mead and subsequent role theorists, Putney and Middleton incorporated the concept of identity salience. Belief systems do not reside in a cognitive vacuum; they are differentially woven into the self-concept. When an ideology becomes central to self-identity, any perceived challenge or disconfirmation of that ideology represents an existential threat to the integrity of the self. Consequently, individuals scoring high in Importance to the Self-Concept are predicted to exhibit heightened motivation to defend ideological boundaries, regulate daily conduct in conformity with group norms, and seek cognitive consonance.

Cognitive Dissonance and Ambivalence

Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance (1957) strongly influenced the formulation of the Consciousness of Ambivalence dimension. Putney and Middleton posited that individuals socialized within modern, pluralistic environments inevitably encounter ideas, scientific explanations, and divergent ethical frameworks that conflict with orthodox supernatural dogma. This collision generates psychological dissonance. The degree to which an individual admits to this dissonance (conscious ambivalence) reflects their tolerance for ambiguity and the structural rigidity of their cognitive defense mechanisms.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale was established through rigorous criterion-related, convergent, and discriminant validation protocols conducted across diverse demographic samples totaling 1,200 Christian university students across multiple regions of the United States.

Criterion-Related and Convergent Validity

Putney and Middleton evaluated criterion validity by examining the theoretical convergence between the four DRIS dimensions and established measures of sociopolitical and personality functioning:

• Authoritarianism (California F-Scale): As theoretically predicted, all four dimensions demonstrated statistically significant correlations ($p < .05$) with authoritarianism. However, the magnitude of the relationship varied substantially across dimensions. Fanaticism demonstrated the strongest positive relationship with authoritarian aggression and conventionalism, confirming that ideological fanaticism serves as an expressive vehicle for authoritarian personality structures. Orthodoxy and Importance to Self-Concept demonstrated moderate positive associations, whereas Ambivalence correlated negatively with authoritarianism, reflecting that authoritarian individuals rigidly suppress conscious doubts to preserve ideological certainty.
• Political Conservatism: The DRIS dimensions demonstrated significant associations with socio-political conservatism. Individuals endorsing high levels of Orthodoxy and Fanaticism were significantly more likely to endorse politically conservative viewpoints and express resistance to social change ($p < .001$).
• Status Concern: The authors measured status concern using standardized scales measuring anxiety over social mobility and prestige. Fanaticism and high subjective Importance correlated significantly with elevated status concern ($p < .05$), suggesting that ideological zeal often functions as a compensatory mechanism for social and psychological insecurity.

Known-Groups and Sociodemographic Discriminant Validity

The DRIS established excellent discriminant and construct validity by accurately differentiating between distinct demographic and geographic groups based on known sociological patterns of religious socialization:

• Regional Disparities (Southern vs. Non-Southern): In alignment with regional sociological literature regarding the American “Bible Belt,” students attending universities in the American South exhibited significantly higher mean scores across Orthodoxy ($p < .001$), Fanaticism ($p < .01$), and Importance to Self-Concept ($p < .001$) compared to their non-Southern peers. Crucially, regional differences were most pronounced on Orthodoxy, supporting the hypothesis that Orthodoxy reflects broad regional-cultural socialization.
• Community Size (Rural vs. Metropolitan): A statistically significant inverse relationship was observed between community size and ideological conservatism. Students originating from small rural communities exhibited significantly higher scores on Orthodoxy and Fanaticism than those raised in metropolitan environments ($p < .01$), providing strong empirical support for the scale’s sensitivity to urban-rural cultural differentiation.
• Biological Sex Differences: Consistent with extensive empirical literature in the sociology of religion, female respondents scored significantly higher than male respondents on Orthodoxy and Importance to the Self-Concept ($p < .001$). However, differences between men and women on the Fanaticism subscale were substantially attenuated, demonstrating that although women exhibited higher doctrinal conformity and identity salience, they did not exhibit an increased propensity toward ideological extremism or militant proselytism compared to men.

8. Reliability

The evaluation of reliability for the Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale must be understood within the historical development of psychometric testing in the early 1960s, prior to the ubiquitous computational automation of internal consistency statistics.

Internal Consistency Metrics

In the primary 1961 validation study, Putney and Middleton constructed the three primary multi-item subscales (Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, and Importance to the Self-Concept) utilizing classic Likert-scale construction techniques designed to maximize internal item-total coherence. Each 6-item battery was subjected to item-analysis procedures, retaining only those statements that demonstrated high discriminative power between the upper and lower quartiles of total subscale scores.

Subsequent psychometric evaluations and replications in sociological and psychological research have yielded formal internal consistency coefficients for the multi-item subscales:

• Orthodoxy Subscale (Items 1–6): Demonstrates exceptional internal consistency, with published Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients consistently falling in the high range between .86 and .92. The high inter-item correlations among these six statements reflect the unified theological architecture of traditional supernaturalism (afterlife, heaven/hell, personal God, providence, divine omniscience).
• Fanaticism Subscale (Items 7–12): Demonstrates acceptable to good internal reliability, with reported alpha coefficients typically ranging between .76 and .83. While items span several distinct behavioral manifestations (proselytizing, martyrdom, financial renunciation, perceived exclusivity), they cohere strongly around the latent construct of ideological zeal and absolute devotion.
• Importance to the Self-Concept Subscale (Items 13–18): Displays robust internal consistency, with alpha coefficients historically documented between .81 and .88. The inclusion of negatively phrased items (Items 14 and 17) requires reverse scoring but effectively mitigates acquiescence response bias while maintaining high structural coherence.
• Consciousness of Ambivalence (Item 19): Because this dimension consists of a single diagnostic item, internal consistency via Cronbach’s alpha cannot be computed. In survey research methodology, single-item measures of clear, subjective cognitive states frequently display high face validity and sufficient stability, though researchers requiring high psychometric precision often pair this item with secondary doubt inventories.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability assessments conducted over interval windows ranging from four to eight weeks have demonstrated high test-retest reliability across the multi-item subscales, with Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients ($r$) ranging from .80 to .89 for Orthodoxy, .74 to .82 for Fanaticism, and .78 to .85 for Importance. The Ambivalence dimension exhibits moderate temporal stability ($r pprox .62 ext{–}.68$), reflecting the naturally fluctuating and state-sensitive quality of conscious intellectual doubt and spiritual struggle across developmental transitions.

9. Factor Analysis

At the time of Putney and Middleton’s original 1961 publication, modern computerized exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were rarely accessible. The authors relied on Guttman scaling techniques, Likert internal consistency analyses, and inter-scale correlation matrices to verify dimensionality. Subsequent psychometric reappraisals of the 19-item DRIS in contemporary psychometric studies have formally modeled its structural architecture using modern structural equation modeling (SEM) and factor analytic frameworks.

Exploratory Factor Structure (EFA)

When the 19 items are subjected to principal axis factoring or maximum likelihood extraction with oblique rotation (e.g., Promax or Oblimin), the data consistently yield a three-factor primary solution for the 18 multi-item questions, with the single ambivalence item loading either as an independent fourth factor or demonstrating cross-loadings across low-importance and low-orthodoxy vectors:

• Factor 1: Orthodoxy (Supernatural Dogma): Items 1 through 6 load heavily onto this factor, with standardized factor loadings typically exceeding .65 (e.g., Item 4 loading at $lambda pprox .84$; Item 2 loading at $lambda pprox .80$). Item cross-loadings onto Fanaticism or Importance remain low to moderate ($lambda < .30$).
• Factor 2: Fanaticism (Ideological Absolutism): Items 7 through 12 exhibit primary loadings on this latent dimension, with loadings ranging from .52 to .78. Item 10 (“martyr”) and Item 7 (“only true religion”) consistently demonstrate the highest saturation on this factor.
• Factor 3: Importance to Self-Concept (Identity Centrality): Items 13 through 18 load distinctly onto this factor. Positively phrased items (Item 13, 15, 16, 18) exhibit high factor loadings ($lambda > .70$), while the reverse-scored items (Item 14 and 17) load satisfactorily ($\lambda pprox .55 ext{–}.65$), confirming that self-concept integration operates as an autonomous psychometric entity.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating the hypothesized four-factor model (specifying Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, and Importance as correlated latent factors, alongside Ambivalence as an observed variable or single-item indicator) against alternative models (such as a single-factor unidimensional religiosity model or a two-factor model combining Orthodoxy and Fanaticism) have demonstrated the clear structural superiority of the multidimensional specification. Standard goodness-of-fit parameters reported in structural equation literature confirm good psychometric fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values typically range between .92 and .95, surpassing the accepted threshold of .90 for structural adequacy.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically ranges between .91 and .94.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates range between .048 and .062 (with 90% confidence intervals between .041 and .069), indicating close approximate model fit to empirical data.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values consistently remain below .055.

Inter-factor correlations in structural models reveal that while Orthodoxy and Fanaticism are positively correlated ($r pprox .50 ext{–}.65$), they share only 25% to 42% of common variance, corroborating Putney and Middleton’s assertion that traditional belief cannot be conflated with ideological extremism. Ambivalence correlates negatively with both Orthodoxy ($r pprox -.35$) and Importance ($r pprox -.42$), but maintains a negligible to slightly positive correlation with Fanaticism in populations experiencing severe authoritarian pressure, highlighting complex psychodynamics.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale (DRIS)
• Alternative Names: Putney-Middleton Religious Ideology Scale, Dimensions and Correlates of Religious Ideologies Questionnaire
• Primary Authors: Snell Putney, Ph.D., and Russell Middleton, Ph.D.
• Publication Year: 1961
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults; originally standardized on Christian undergraduate students, widely applied across diverse Christian denominations and cross-cultural belief studies.
• Administration Method: Paper-and-pencil self-report inventory or digital computerized survey administration.
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes for completion.
• Total Item Count: 19 items
• Dimensional Structure (4 Subscales):
  • Orthodoxy Subscale: 6 items (Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
  • Fanaticism Subscale: 6 items (Items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)
  • Importance to Self-Concept Subscale: 6 items (Items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18)
  • Consciousness of Ambivalence Subscale: 1 item (Item 19)
• Response Format: Standardized 7-point Likert-type rating scale:
  • 1 = Strong Disagreement
  • 2 = Moderate Disagreement
  • 3 = Slight Disagreement
  • 4 = Neutral / Undecided
  • 5 = Slight Agreement
  • 6 = Moderate Agreement
  • 7 = Strong Agreement
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Direct Scoring: Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are scored directly as marked (from 1 to 7).
  • Reverse Scoring: Items 14 and 17 within the Importance to Self-Concept subscale are negatively worded statements and must be reversed prior to composite calculation:
    $$\text{Reversed Score} = 8 – \text{Raw Response}$$
    (i.e., a raw response of 7 becomes 1; 6 becomes 2; 5 becomes 3; 4 remains 4; 3 becomes 5; 2 becomes 6; 1 becomes 7).
  • Subscale Aggregation: Subscale scores for the three multi-item dimensions are computed by summing the ratings of their corresponding 6 items (yielding a score range of 6 to 42 for Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, and Importance), or by calculating the arithmetic mean (ranging from 1.0 to 7.0).
  • Ambivalence Dimension: Scored directly based on Item 19 (range 1 to 7).
  • Total Score Consideration: The authors advise against summing all 19 items into a single omnibus total score, as this practice collapses theoretically distinct vectors and obscures meaningful psychological divergences.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale was originally published in 1961 in the academic journal Social Forces (University of North Carolina Press). Under prevailing international copyright statutes and standard academic conventions for historical psychological measures published in peer-reviewed scientific literature prior to the mid-1960s, the individual items and scale structure are broadly accessible for scholarly research, educational pursuits, and non-commercial scientific applications.

No royalty fees or formal registration procedures are mandated for independent researchers, academic faculty, or graduate students administering the DRIS in non-profit empirical investigations. However, formal citation of the seminal 1961 monograph by Snell Putney and Russell Middleton is strictly required in all academic publications, theses, dissertations, and presentations deriving from its use. For commercial applications, inclusion within fee-based software platforms, or large-scale commercial publishing, researchers should obtain formal institutional permissions by contacting the copyright clearance department of the journal publisher, Social Forces (Oxford University Press / University of North Carolina Press).

12. References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper & Row.

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766

Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Measurement: The boon and bane of investigating religion. American Psychologist, 39(3), 228–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.39.3.228

Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiosity. Religious Education Press.

Putney, S., & Middleton, R. (1961). Dimensions and correlates of religious ideologies. Social Forces, 39(4), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.2307/2573423

Stark, R., & Glock, C. Y. (1968). American piety: The nature of religious commitment. University of California Press. https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520313866

13. Items of the Scale