{f”title”: “Humanistic Morality / Liberal Belief Scale”,n “excerpt”: “An authoritative psychometric review of the Humanistic Morality and Liberal Belief Scales (HMS/LBS) developed by Eystein Kaldestad, detailing their theoretical foundations, factor structure, reliability, validity, and clinical research applications.”,n “slug”: “humanistic-morality-liberal-belief-scale”,n “categories”: [“Psychometrics”, “Psychology of Religion”, “Personality Assessment”, “Moral Psychology”],n “tags”: [“Eystein Kaldestad”, “Liberal Belief Scale”, “Humanistic Morality Scale”, “Religiosity Measurement”, “Psychology of Religion”, “Psychometrics”, “Moral Development”, “Secularization”, “Religious Orientation”, “Psychiatric Research”],n “seo_title”: “Humanistic Morality & Liberal Belief Scales (HMS/LBS): Psychometric Analysis”,n “seo_description”: “Explore the comprehensive psychometric analysis of Kaldestad’s Humanistic Morality and Liberal Belief Scales, including factor structure, validity, reliability, and full items.”,n “focus_keyword”: “Humanistic Morality Liberal Belief Scale”,n “content”: “
1. Abstract
\n
The Humanistic Morality and Liberal Belief Scales (HMS/LBS) were developed by Norwegian psychiatrist and psychometrician Eystein Kaldestad to capture nuanced, modern expressions of religiosity and post-traditional ethics that emerged within Western European cultural landscapes. Recognizing that classical psychometric batteries—such as the Allport-Ross Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scales and Batson’s Quest Scale—were developed predominantly within North American, evangelical, or conservative Protestant paradigms, Kaldestad sought to address their conceptual ceilings when applied to modern, secularized Lutheran populations. In societies such as Norway, where a vast majority of citizens were historically affiliated with the state church yet maintained progressive, non-literal theological perspectives and permissive moral codes, traditional measures frequently misclassified individuals as non-religious or externally motivated.
\n
The resulting instrument comprises two complementary self-report inventories: the Liberal Belief Scale (LBS), an 8-item instrument assessing non-dogmatic, universalist, and non-literal Christian eschatology inspired by the theoretical frameworks of Andrew Weigert; and the Humanistic Morality Scale (HMS), an 8-item measure capturing consequentialist, situationist, and humanistic moral judgment independent of ecclesiastical authoritarianism. Both scales employ a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), yielding continuous mean scores where higher ratings reflect greater liberal religious and humanistic moral attitudes.
\n
Extensive psychometric investigations across non-clinical healthcare professionals and psychiatric patient samples demonstrated robust psychometric viability. The LBS consistently demonstrates internal consistency coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) between .73 and .77, whereas the HMS—originally structured as a 5-item scale with modest reliability (α = .34)—achieved strong reliability (α = .72 to .80) following its systematic expansion to 8 items. Content validity was empirically verified through expert theological sorting panels exhibiting near-perfect concordance. Construct and convergent validity are corroborated by significant inverse correlations with doctrinal orthodoxy (r = -.58 to -.59) and moral conservatism (r = -.48 to -.50), alongside moderate positive alignments with quest orientation (r = .37 to .48) and extrinsic social orientation. Exploratory factor analyses identify interpretable dual-factor architectures for both scales, demarcating biblical anti-literalism from universalist eschatology within the LBS, and ethical situationalism from anti-dogmatic individualism within the HMS. The scales remain critical tools for clinical epidemiology, the psychology of religion, and cultural value tracking.
\n\n
2. Keywords
\n
Humanistic Morality Scale, Liberal Belief Scale, Eystein Kaldestad, psychology of religion, religious orientation, moral development, biblical literalism, situational ethics, Christian eschatology, psychometrics, secularization, theological liberalism, psychiatric epidemiology, Basic Character Inventory.
\n\n
3. Authors
\n
The scale was developed by Eystein Kaldestad, M.D., Ph.D., an eminent Norwegian psychiatrist, psychoanalytic clinician, and empirical researcher specializing in the intersection of clinical psychiatry, characterological personality structure, and the psychology of religion. Dr. Kaldestad conducted his foundational psychometric and clinical research in Norway, affiliated with institutions including the Modum Bad Psychiatric Center and various regional clinical psychiatric facilities in southwestern Norway. His investigative career centered on evaluating how diverse manifestations of religious faith, doctrinal orthodoxy, and existential worldviews correlate with psychiatric vulnerability, personality configurations, and therapeutic outcomes.
\n
Subsequent psychometric standardization, structural refinement, and English-language adaptation were conducted in collaborative partnership with Hans Stifoss-Hanssen, Ph.D., a distinguished scholar in the empirical sociology of religion and religious psychology, affiliated with the KIFO Centre for Church Research (Stiftelsen Kirkeforskning) in Oslo, Norway. Inquiries regarding original historical archival documents, Norwegian normative datasets, and specialized psychometric inquiries are typically directed through Scandinavian academic repositories, including the Department of Psychology at the University of Oslo or the Nordic Association for the Psychology of Religion.
\n\n
4. Purpose
\n
The primary purpose of the Humanistic Morality and Liberal Belief Scales is to provide a psychometrically sound, theoretically coherent assessment of progressive religious thinking and secularized humanistic morality. During the late twentieth century, empirical research into the psychology of religion was heavily dominated by American instrumentation. Instruments like the Allport-Ross Religious Orientation Scales, while ground-breaking, embodied implicit theological assumptions rooted in conservative American Protestantism, equating genuine \”intrinsic\” faith with orthodox dogmatic adherence, regular devotional practice, and biblical literalism. When researchers translated these instruments into Scandinavian contexts—specifically Norway, where over 90% of the populace were nominal members of the Lutheran State Church (Den norske kirke)—the instruments broke down conceptually and statistically. Scandinavian populations exhibited profound institutional loyalty coupled with widespread skepticism toward literal biblical dogma, personal devil narratives, and rigid sexual moralism.
\n
Kaldestad observed that conventional measures introduced profound systematic error: they erroneously classified culturally integrated, ethically reflective liberal Christians as either entirely non-religious, immature, or hypocritically \”extrinsic.\” The HMS and LBS were systematically devised to fill this psychometric lacuna. Specifically, their intended functions encompass:
\n
- \n
- Capturing Progressive Theological Ideation: The LBS assesses the degree to which an individual rejects fundamentalist, literal, or dogmatically exclusionary interpretations of Christian scripture in favor of universal reconciliation, historical contextualization, and non-apocalyptic interpretations of human history.
- Measuring Autonomous Consequentialist Ethics: The HMS measures the degree to which moral reasoning is derived from humanistic principles—such as harm reduction, individual autonomy, pragmatic empathy, and empirical reason—rather than deference to authoritarian divine command theory or absolute deontology.
- Differentiating Pathological from Healthy Religious Cognition: In clinical psychiatric settings, mental health professionals require assessment tools capable of disentangling rigid, scrupulous, or obsessive-compulsive manifestations of religiosity from open, flexible, and adaptive existential belief systems.
- Epidemiological and Sociological Value Tracking: The scales serve as valuable barometers in cultural sociology, mapping the psychological contours of secularization, moral liberalization, and the transition toward post-conventional moral reasoning across cohorts.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
By providing standardized metrics that do not conflate religiosity with fundamentalism, Kaldestad offered empirical researchers the necessary apparatus to explore how religious and moral cognitions genuinely relate to psychological well-being, neuroticism, characterological functioning, and psychiatric distress across modern pluralistic societies.
\n\n
5. Psychological Construct
\n
The HMS/LBS battery operationalizes two distinct yet inter-correlated psychological constructs that lie at the intersection of cognitive psychology, social-moral reasoning, and the psychology of religion.
\n\n
The Liberal Belief Construct
\n
The Liberal Belief construct represents a cognitive-religious schema characterized by theological openness, hermeneutical flexibility, and universalist eschatology. Rather than conceptualizing Christian doctrine as a static deposit of unalterable, literal propositions dictated by divine authority, the liberal believer conceptualizes sacred texts as historically situated human reflections upon the divine. The construct is delineated across several cognitive-theological dimensions:
\n
- \n
- Hermeneutical Non-Literalism: The conviction that biblical narratives are symbolic, allegorical, and context-dependent rather than scientifically or historically infallible records (e.g., acknowledging historical inaccuracies and competing textual interpretations).
- Eschatological Skepticism and Anti-Apocalypticism: Drawing upon Andrew Weigert’s sociology of eschatology, the construct measures a refusal to use biblical prophecy to predict historical futures, catastrophic nuclear or environmental apocalypses, or definitive chronologies of the \”end of the world.\”
- Universal Reconciliation (Apokatastasis): A rejection of binary salvation-damnation schemas in favor of a benevolent divine teleology, wherein ultimate reconciliation encompasses even those who actively dissent from orthodox theological positions.
- Anthropological Optimism: A fundamental cognitive orientation positing that human nature possesses innate goodness and moral potential, explicitly repudiating classical dogmatic assertions of total depravity or inherent corruptness.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
The Humanistic Morality Construct
\n
The Humanistic Morality construct assesses a post-conventional, autonomous framework of moral judgment deeply aligned with the philosophical tradition of secular humanism and utilitarian consequentialism. Arising from the profound social-cultural shifts observed in Western Europe following World War II, this construct captures the emancipation of ethical evaluation from ecclesiastical authority and rigid, decontextualized prohibitions. Its core psychometric components include:
\n
- \n
- Ethical Consequentialism and the Harm Principle: Deciding the moral status of an action strictly by assessing its tangible consequences—specifically, whether the behavior inflicts psychological or physical harm on others—reminiscent of John Stuart Mill’s harm principle.
- Situational Pragmatism vs. Absolute Deontology: The assertion that contextual nuances, personal circumstances, and rational judgment supersede immutable religious mandates (such as the Decalogue).
- Moral Relativism and Empirical Epistemology: The belief that ethical standards evolve naturally through shared human lived experiences, rational insight, and empirical knowledge, rather than descending from transcendent, unalterable divine revelations.
- Interpersonal and Sexual Autonomy: Specific permissive stances toward modern relationship structures, such as de-stigmatizing non-marital cohabitation (consensual cohabitation) and premarital sexual relations grounded in mutual responsibility and effective contraception.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
While the two constructs exhibit substantial shared variance (typically sharing approximately 49% to 50% of their variance, r ≈ .70), they remain conceptually bifurcated: one maps metaphysical and theological epistemology, while the other addresses behavioral, interpersonal, and social-normative evaluation.
\n\n
6. Theoretical Framework
\n
The theoretical architecture undergirding Kaldestad’s battery synthesizes foundational concepts from developmental moral psychology, theological modernization theory, and the sociological analysis of modern apocalypticism.
\n\n
Developmental Moral Theory: Piaget, Kohlberg, and Autonomous Morality
\n
Kaldestad’s conceptualization of humanistic morality rests firmly upon Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development and Jean Piaget’s early distinction between heteronomous and autonomous morality. Heteronomous morality is characterized by strict obedience to external authority, absolute rules, and the conviction that rules are sacred, immutable decrees established by powerful entities. Transgression in heteronomous systems invites immanent justice. In contrast, autonomous morality emerges when the individual realizes that rules are socially constructed agreements designed to foster human welfare, mutual respect, and social justice. Autonomous agents view rules as subject to modification, contextual critique, and rational deliberation.
\n
Kaldestad observed that traditional religious morality measures frequently rewarded heteronomous, conventional moral reasoning—equating moral rectitude with unyielding adherence to biblical edicts. The Humanistic Morality Scale was explicitly engineered to assess Kohlberg’s post-conventional levels: individuals operating from Stage 5 (social contract and individual rights) and Stage 6 (universal ethical principles). Here, practical neighborly love, harm minimization, and rational evaluation supersede the letter of ancient canonical law.
\n\n
Weigert’s Eschatological Typology
\n
The intellectual springboard for the Liberal Belief Scale is the sociology of Christian eschatology formulated by Andrew Weigert (1988). Weigert delineated two divergent Christian postures toward modern existential crises (such as nuclear proliferation and environmental collapse):
\n
- \n
- Fundamentalist / Apocalyptic Eschatology: A fatalistic perspective viewing worldly history as irrevocably corrupt, marked by preordained decline toward violent cataclysm, divine judgment, and otherworldly rescue for a selected remnant. This perspective frequently fosters passivity or resignation toward terrestrial environmental and geopolitical preservation.
- Liberal / Teleological Eschatology: A perspective emphasizing human historical agency, the intrinsic value of terrestrial life, and divine reconciliation. Eschatology is understood symbolically as the ongoing moral evolution of humanity rather than a literal planetary termination.
\n
\n
\n
Kaldestad incorporated Weigert’s operational definitions to craft items reflecting non-literalism, rejection of biblical fortune-telling, and an affirmation that earthly human existence possesses equal importance to any speculative afterlife.
\n\n
Secularization and Pluralism in Scandinavian Sociology of Religion
\n
Sociologically, the scale is anchored in European secularization theory, specifically the Scandinavian phenomenon often termed \”belonging without believing\” or \”vicarious religion\” (Grace Davie). In Norway’s social-democratic context, public education, scientific literacy, and gender equality initiatives transformed collective norms. Post-World War II Norwegian culture underwent rapid liberalization, divorcing personal morality from church dogmatics while retaining a benign, cultural Lutheran identity. Kaldestad’s framework posits that liberal belief and humanistic morality represent neither nihilism nor religious apathy, but rather a stable, mature, and coherent cognitive framework adapted to modernity.
\n\n
7. Validity
\n
Extensive psychometric investigations have established robust evidence supporting the construct, content, convergent, discriminant, and criterion validity of both the Liberal Belief Scale and the Humanistic Morality Scale.
\n\n
Content and Expert Validity
\n
Content validity was evaluated using rigorous expert panel methodologies. Kaldestad presented randomly ordered pools of prospective items on two separate occasions to a panel of 15 professional academic theologians and religious scholars. Panelists were tasked with categorizing statements into distinct theoretical dimensions (e.g., liberal belief versus humanistic morality versus orthodox dogma). The theologians exhibited 100% unanimous classification (15/15) across all statements assigned to the Humanistic Morality Scale. For the Liberal Belief Scale, complete unanimity was achieved for six of the eight items, with the overwhelming majority concurring on the remaining two items, verifying high taxonomic and content validity.
\n\n
Convergent and Discriminant Validity
\n
Convergent and discriminant validity were comprehensively assessed by correlating both scales with established psychometric indices across multiple clinical and non-clinical cohorts (Kaldestad, 1992; Kaldestad & Stifoss-Hanssen, 1993):
\n
- \n
- Doctrinal Orthodoxy: As theoretically expected, the LBS demonstrated a strong, statistically significant inverse correlation with Batson and Ventis’s Doctrinal Orthodoxy Scale (r = -.59, p < .001). The HMS exhibited an almost identical negative association (r = -.58, p < .001), demonstrating that individuals endorsing humanistic ethics and liberal theology consciously reject rigid dogmatic catechisms.
- Moral Conservatism: Both scales correlated negatively with Woodrum’s Moral Conservatism Index (LBS: r = -.48, p < .001; HMS: r = -.50, p < .001), confirming divergent validity against authoritarian or traditionalist moral views.
- Quest Religious Orientation: Significant positive correlations emerged with Batson’s Quest Scale (LBS: r = .37, p < .01; HMS: r = .48, p < .001). This confirms that liberal believers view existential inquiry as an open-ended, questioning process rather than a static set of unquestionable answers.
- Allport-Ross Intrinsic and Extrinsic Orientations: The scales revealed notable negative correlations with the Allport-Ross Intrinsic Scale (LBS: r = -.43; HMS: r = -.46) and substantial positive correlations with the Extrinsic Scale (LBS: r = .49; HMS: r = .56). As Kaldestad highlighted, this pattern exposes a well-known psychometric limitation of the classical Allport-Ross battery: the Intrinsic scale is heavily confounded with conservative evangelical orthodoxy, causing open-minded liberal believers to register misleadingly high extrinsic scores due to their institutional rather than dogmatic attachment.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Known-Groups Construct Validation
\n
Construct validity was further substantiated through known-groups contrast analyses. Respondents were stratified based on their self-identification with the statement: \”I am a believing Christian.\” Participants who answered \”strongly agree\” (firm traditional believers) scored significantly lower on both the Liberal Belief Scale and the Humanistic Morality Scale compared to those who endorsed more hesitant, tentative, or moderate positions (e.g., \”partly agree\” or \”neutral\”). The hesitant cohort scored significantly higher (p < .001), empirical proof that the scales effectively measure thoughtful departure from dogmatic certainty.
\n\n
Criterion and Clinical Validity
\n
In subsequent clinical psychiatric investigations, Kaldestad (1992, 1993) administered the HMS and LBS to 88 nonpsychotic psychiatric inpatients alongside 70 hospital staff controls. Nonpsychotic psychiatric patients scored significantly higher on both the LBS and the HMS than non-patient control participants. Furthermore, both scales yielded modest but statistically significant positive correlations with the Obsessive and Hysterical dimensions of the Basic Character Inventory (BCI). The Humanistic Morality Scale also exhibited a low positive correlation with the Global Symptom Index (GSI) of the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90). These findings indicate that in secularized cultural environments, psychological distress and existential conflict frequently prompt individuals to interrogate rigid traditional dogmas, driving them toward flexible, humanistic moral frameworks.
\n\n
8. Reliability
\n
The reliability of the HMS/LBS inventory was rigorously investigated across multiple iterative development phases, independent participant samples, and diverse clinical and professional cohorts.
\n\n
Internal Consistency across Samples
\n
Internal consistency was calculated via Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (α), yielding the following empirical metrics across distinct testing phases:
\n
- \n
- Sample 1 (Psychiatric Hospital Staff, N = 78): In this initial pilot investigation, the 8-item Liberal Belief Scale achieved a satisfactory internal consistency alpha of .77. Conversely, the experimental first iteration of the Humanistic Morality Scale, which contained only 5 items, demonstrated an unacceptable alpha coefficient of .34. Item-total analyses revealed that five items provided inadequate sampling domain bandwidth for the complex multidimensional facets of post-war morality.
- Sample 2 (Expanded Staff Cohort): In response to the pilot findings, Kaldestad expanded the Humanistic Morality Scale from 5 to 8 items by introducing specific items addressing sexual autonomy, situational ethics, and the primacy of rational inquiry over religious dogma. When administered to a second independent sample of healthcare professionals, the expanded 8-item HMS demonstrated a robust alpha of .72, confirming that the new items stabilized the measurement variance.
- Sample 3 (Combined Clinical and Non-Clinical Cohort, N = 158): Administered to a comprehensive combined sample comprising 70 healthcare staff members and 88 nonpsychotic psychiatric inpatients, both scales demonstrated high internal consistency: the Liberal Belief Scale demonstrated an alpha of .73, and the 8-item Humanistic Morality Scale achieved an alpha of .80.
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
Scale Covariance and Inter-Scale Consistency
\n
Across validation cohorts, the Pearson correlation coefficient between the LBS and the HMS remained stable at approximately r = .70 (p < .001). This indicates that the two scales share roughly 49% to 50% of their variance. While demonstrating distinct conceptual facets, this high degree of mutual association led Kaldestad to suggest that researchers studying broad ideological orientations may sum or average the two inventories into an overarching 16-item composite index of General Religious Liberalism.
\n\n
9. Factor Analysis
\n
To verify the internal structural validity and factorial composition of the instruments, Kaldestad conducted extensive exploratory factor analyses (EFA) using principal components extraction followed by orthogonal (Varimax) rotations across discrete and combined matrices.
\n\n
Factor Structure of the Liberal Belief Scale
\n
When factor-analyzed independently, the 8 items of the Liberal Belief Scale yielded a clear two-factor solution accounting for 53.8% of the total cumulative variance:
\n
- \n
- Factor 1: Biblical Anti-Literalism and Hermeneutic Relativism: Accounting for 37.0% of the variance, this dominant primary factor is defined by high loadings from Items 1, 2, 4, and 5. These items address the non-literal interpretation of biblical scripture, the acknowledgement of historical and factual inaccuracies within biblical texts, the rejection of biblical prophecy as a roadmap for world history, and human ignorance regarding apocalyptic timelines.
- Factor 2: Universalism and Theological Optimism: Accounting for 16.8% of the variance, this second factor encompasses items evaluating the rejection of the devil/metaphysical evil (Item 3), the equal value of earthly existence compared to an afterlife (Item 6), universal reconciliation of dissenters (Item 7), and the innate moral goodness of striving human beings (Item 8).
\n
\n
\n\n
Factor Structure of the Humanistic Morality Scale
\n
Independent exploratory factor analysis of the expanded 8-item Humanistic Morality Scale likewise identified a robust two-factor configuration, accounting for 56.8% of the cumulative variance:
\n
- \n
- Factor 1: Situational Harm Reduction and Relational Autonomy: Accounting for 42.5% of the total variance, this primary dimension reflects practical neighborly love over dogmatic legalism (Item 1), the primacy of avoiding harm when evaluating moral wrongness (Item 3), and progressive acceptance of non-marital cohabitation and responsible premarital sexuality (Items 4 and 5).
- Factor 2: Anti-Dogmatic Rationalism and Value Relativism: Explaining 14.3% of the variance, this dimension is characterized by loadings on items asserting that values emerge from lived human experience (Item 2), explicit rejection of absolute religious moral norms (Item 6), situational judgment over rigid dogma (Item 7), and the guidance of reason and knowledge over ecclesiastical edicts (Item 8).
\n
\n
\n\n
Higher-Order Factor Analysis and Scale Homogeneity
\n
When Kaldestad conducted a comprehensive simultaneous factor analysis integrating all items from the LBS, HMS, the Doctrinal Orthodoxy Scale, and the Moral Conservatism Index, the items dispersed across four to five distinct factors within a broader seven-factor solution. Kaldestad noted this dispersion as a potential indication of item-level heterogeneity. However, citing psychometrician Anne Anastasi (1988), he argued that psychometric scale homogeneity is not necessarily a virtue when the psychological and cultural criterion being measured is inherently complex, multifaceted, and multidimensional. The modest residual heterogeneity within the HMS and LBS ensures broad ecological validity across diverse socio-cultural domains.
\n\n
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
\n
The Humanistic Morality and Liberal Belief Scales are self-administered, paper-and-pencil or computerized psychometric inventories. The structural parameters of the measurement battery are summarized below:
\n
- \n
- Instrument Names: Humanistic Morality Scale (HMS) / Liberal Belief Scale (LBS)
- Author: Eystein Kaldestad, M.D., Ph.D. (subsequent standardization with Hans Stifoss-Hanssen, Ph.D.)
- Test Format: Standardized self-report inventory
- Item Count: 16 items total (Liberal Belief Scale: 8 items; Humanistic Morality Scale: 8 items)
- Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes for the complete 16-item battery
- Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16 and older) across general, educational, and clinical populations
- Response Scale: 5-point Likert-type agreement rating scale formatted as follows:\n
- \n
- 1 = Strongly disagree (or strong disagree)
- 2 = Partly disagree
- 3 = Neutral (or do not know)
- 4 = Partly agree
- 5 = Strongly agree
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
- Scoring and Computational Rules:\n
- \n
- All 8 items of the Liberal Belief Scale are positively keyed; no items require reverse-scoring.
- All 8 items of the Humanistic Morality Scale are positively keyed; no items require reverse-scoring.
- Individual Scale Scores: Calculated by summing the numerical ratings of the scale items and dividing by 8, yielding a continuous mean score ranging from 1.00 to 5.00 for each respective scale.
- Composite Liberalism Index (Optional): If measuring a generalized progressive religious-moral orientation, researchers may calculate the grand mean across all 16 items (Sum of all items / 16).
- Missing Data Handling: If a respondent leaves no more than one item blank per 8-item subscale, the mean of the completed items may be imputed. Questionnaires missing two or more items per scale should be deemed invalid.
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
\n
The foundational development and initial validation of the scales were published by Eystein Kaldestad in 1992 in the Journal of Empirical Theology, followed by collaborative standardization and English-language presentation in 1993 in the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. The instrument is considered an open-access academic research tool. It is published in the public academic domain for non-commercial research, academic inquiry, and educational purposes. No user licensing fees or royal commercial permissions are required for non-profit scientific investigation.
\n
Researchers intending to utilize the scale in published academic investigations or clinical trials are requested to provide full bibliographic attribution to the original publications (Kaldestad, 1992; Kaldestad & Stifoss-Hanssen, 1993). Inquiries regarding commercial digital redistribution or integration within proprietary commercial assessment platforms should consult the relevant academic copyright holders (originally Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, now Taylor & Francis Group).
\n\n
12. References
\n
- \n
- 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
- Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). Macmillan.
- Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The religious experience: A social-psychological perspective. Oxford University Press.
- Davie, G. (1990). Believing without belonging: Is this the future of religion in Britain? Social Compass, 37(4), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/003776890037004004
- Kaldestad, E. (1991). Intrinsic, extrinsic and quest scales: Development of Norwegian versions. In O. Wikström (Ed.), Klinisk religionspsykologi (pp. 85–101). Teologiska institutionen, Uppsala Universitet.
- Kaldestad, E. (1992). Questionnaires for belief and morality. Journal of Empirical Theology, 5(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1163/157092592X00054
- Kaldestad, E. (1992). Religious orientation, personality, mental health, and religious activity. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 46(5), 321–328. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039489209100096
- Kaldestad, E. (1993). Letter to the editor [correction]. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 47(4), 305–306. https://doi.org/10.3109/08039489309099818
- Kaldestad, E., & Stifoss-Hanssen, H. (1993). Standardizing measures of religiosity for Norwegians. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3(2), 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0302_4
- Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice. Harper & Row.
- Weigert, A. (1988). Christian eschatological identities and the nuclear context. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386505
- Woodrum, E. (1988). Moral conservatism and the 1984 presidential election. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27(2), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386506
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n\n