Religion and Philosophy of Life Attitudes Scale

1. Abstract

The Religion and Philosophy of Life Attitudes Scale (originally designated as the Attitudes Toward Religion and Philosophy of Life Survey; ATRPLS) is a multidimensional psychometric instrument formulated by Ruth Anne Funk (1955, 1958) at Purdue University to evaluate the multifaceted configurations of religious attitudes, internal ideological struggles, secular ethical systems, and psychological dynamics among collegiate populations. Comprising 65 items distributed across seven distinct dimensions, the survey operationalizes religious and philosophical orientations through the following subscales: Religious Conflict (22 items), Religious Orthodoxy (9 items; adapted from Myers, 1952), Philosophy of Life (5 items), Hostility toward the Church (6 items), Religious Tranquility (6 items), Religious Solace (7 items), and Change of Religious Attitudes (10 items). The instrument was standardized on an undergraduate sample of 255 university students and utilizes primarily a dichotomous true/false response format, alongside categorical-frequency selections and comparative self-evaluations across temporal markers.

Psychometrically, the battery demonstrates robust three-week test-retest reliability across its subscales, ranging from .81 (Philosophy of Life) to .95 (Religious Orthodoxy), with Religious Conflict (.84), Hostility toward the Church (.88), Religious Tranquility (.84), Religious Solace (.87), and Change of Religious Attitudes (.90) demonstrating substantial temporal stability. Convergent and construct validity investigations indicate a significant positive correlation (r = .43, p < .001) between Religious Conflict and the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (TMAS; Taylor, 1953), substantiating the theoretical postulate that unresolved spiritual ambiguity and moral dissonance covary with heightened general anxiety. Concurrently, Religious Conflict demonstrates a robust negative association with Religious Orthodoxy. Subsequent evaluations by psychometricians (e.g., Shaw & Wright, 1967) have identified notable item overlap and structural collinearity among affective subscales (specifically Tranquility and Solace), suggesting that contemporary factor analytic models would likely consolidate these dimensions into higher-order latent factors. The ATRPLS remains a historically pivotal framework bridging the transition from early unidimensional religious measurements to multidimensional psychological assessments of the psychology of religion, existential questioning, and identity development in emerging adulthood.

2. Keywords

Religion and Philosophy of Life Attitudes Scale, Attitudes Toward Religion and Philosophy of Life Survey, Religious Conflict, Religious Orthodoxy, Religious Tranquility, Religious Solace, Hostility toward the Church, Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale, Psychology of Religion, Emerging Adulthood, Psychometrics, Cognitive Dissonance.

3. Authors

The scale was developed and psychometrically established by Ruth Anne Funk during her doctoral research at the Department of Psychology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. The foundational work appeared in her doctoral dissertation titled A Survey of Religious Attitudes and Manifest Anxiety in a College Population (Funk, 1955) and was subsequently distilled for academic dissemination in the Psychological Newsletter under the title Experimental Scales Used in a Study of Religious Attitudes as Related to Manifest Anxiety (Funk, 1958). The instrument incorporated items and structural approaches originally pioneered by M. Scott Myers (1952) from the Purdue University Division of Educational Reference (published in Studies in Higher Education), notably regarding the quantification of institutional doctrinal adherence via the Orthodoxy Scale.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religion and Philosophy of Life Attitudes Scale is to provide a granular, differentiated assessment of how individuals conceptualize, navigate, and emotionally process existential, ethical, and supernatural commitments. Designed explicitly for collegiate cohorts undergoing intensive ideological transitions, the ATRPLS was created to move beyond simplistic bipolar metrics (e.g., measuring individuals merely on an axis of “religious versus non-religious” or “fundamentalist versus agnostic”). Historically, post-secondary education has served as a transformative milieu in which young adults are exposed to empirical scientific paradigms, comparative philosophies, and cultural pluralism, frequently precipitating intrapsychic friction against institutional dogma, parental religious conditioning, and traditional metaphysical systems.

From an applied clinical and counseling psychology perspective, the instrument was conceptualized to isolate the specific facets of religiousness that operate adaptively versus maladaptively within the cognitive-affective architecture of the individual. While constructs such as Religious Tranquility capture stabilizing, life-affirming, and prosocial attitudes that foster emotional integration, the Religious Conflict and Hostility toward the Church subscales illuminate unresolved spiritual guilt, fear of damnation, ideological estrangement from parents, and acute cognitive conflict. In university mental health clinics, student development centers, and psychological counseling settings, identifying high scores on Religious Conflict can serve as a diagnostic indicator of underlying existential crises or clinical anxiety, as substantiated by the instrument’s empirically verified relationship with manifest neuroticism.

In empirical psychological research, the ATRPLS allows investigators to dissect the complex intersections among moral developmental stages, secular humanitarian orientations, and denominational adherence. Rather than assuming that an individual who distances themselves from formal institutional religion lacks an overarching existential framework, the inclusion of the Philosophy of Life Scale provides a dedicated mechanism to gauge whether the subject has constructed an autonomous ethical matrix oriented around social betterment, human welfare, and immanent meaning. Consequently, the battery serves cross-sectional and longitudinal research programs evaluating how personal belief systems evolve from early adolescence into emerging adulthood, how religious doubts impact subjective well-being, and how ideological stability relates to academic adjustment, personality traits, and psychological resilience.

5. Psychological Construct

The ATRPLS operationalizes attitudes toward religion and philosophy of life not as a monolithic entity, but as a complex multidimensional domain composed of seven interconnected psychological constructs:

Religious Conflict

Defined by Funk (1958, p. 240) as “simultaneous tendencies to react in opposing and incompatible ways to the same religious attitude object,” this 22-item construct reflects the presence of intense intrapsychic tension, ambivalence, and ideological dissonance. Representative items capture the acute friction between empirical scientific epistemology and theological doctrine (e.g., “It is hard to reconcile science with religion”), parental expectations and personal autonomy (e.g., “I sometimes feel disloyal to my parents because I cannot entirely accept their religious beliefs”), and internal moral guilt generated by perceived transgressions or inadequate devotion (e.g., “Sometimes I feel guilty because of my lack of faith”; “I wish I did not believe in Hell, but I do”). High scorers experience cognitive and emotional turbulence, marked by fluctuating faith and existential dread.

Religious Orthodoxy

Expanding upon the work of Myers (1952), Funk conceptualized orthodoxy as “the tendency to accept the teachings of religious authorities, and conform to prescribed religious practices” (p. 240). This 9-item subscale quantifies literal belief in theological tenets, church authority, divine omniscience, absolute teleology, and regular behavioral observance (e.g., “I believe God knows our every thought and movement”; “I believe firmly in the teachings of my church”; frequency of church attendance and prayer efficacy). The construct taps an institutionalized, dogmatic epistemic stance where doctrinal fidelity supersedes secular logic.

Philosophy of Life

Measured via 5 items, this dimension is defined as “an integrated system of meanings and purposes which relates the individuals goals to the goals of humanity and the wider structure of the universe” (Funk, 1958, p. 241). This construct captures a shift toward secular humanism, ethical autonomous rationalism, and moral immanence (e.g., “Although at one time I believed in a religion, I now believe in a code of ethics”; “We make our own heaven or hell here on earth”; “Promoting a better world is more important to me than religion is”). High scorers prioritize universal human progress over supernatural ritualism.

Hostility toward the Church

Denoted as “aggression or withdrawal toward religious attitude objects” (Funk, 1958, p. 242), this 6-item construct measures overt skepticism, active antipathy, cynicism, and institutional disaffiliation. High scores capture perceptions of religious establishments as antiquated, socially divisive, and regressive (e.g., “Religion has too often been used to promote prejudice”; “Religion has not kept pace with the times”; “I believe that religion is of little use in present-day society”). It reflects psychological alienation and critical rejection of institutional ecclesiastical authority.

Religious Tranquility

Characterizing the perspective of individuals who view religion “not as a compensation, but an aid to happiness and favorable socio-psychological adjustment” (Funk, 1958, p. 242), this 6-item subscale measures a secure, peaceful, and constructive relationship with the divine. It taps feelings of psychological safety, benevolent divine imagery, and moral enhancement (e.g., “Religion has brought me peace of mind”; “I feel secure in the knowledge that God is always with me”; “I believe in a merciful God, not a punishing one”). Rather than operating out of existential panic, high scorers experience emotional equilibrium through their spiritual convictions.

Religious Solace

Comprising 7 items, Religious Solace assesses the “use of religion as a means of compensating for the unhappiness and disappointments of life” (Funk, 1958, p. 242). Rooted conceptually in psychological coping and defensive functions, this construct reflects reliance on transcendent support to endure acute life crises, subjective suffering, and feelings of helplessness (e.g., “Religion helps me when I feel blue”; “At times only my belief in God has prevented me from feeling hopeless”; “Sometimes religion is the only thing we can rely on”). Unlike Tranquility, which emphasizes steady flourishing, Solace captures palliative religious coping.

Change of Religious Attitudes

Consisting of 10 items, this dimension tracks the subjective perceived “stability or instability of religious beliefs since college entrance” (Funk, 1958, p. 243). Individuals evaluate the degree to which their perspectives on core theological constructs (such as heaven, hell, prayer, the church, angels, and the divine inspiration of scripture) have remained the same, become partly different, or evolved to be very different relative to their pre-collegiate baseline.

6. Theoretical Framework

The construction of the Religion and Philosophy of Life Attitudes Scale is grounded in mid-twentieth-century psychological paradigms that synthesized psychodynamic drive models, learning theories of conflict, and nascent humanistic-existential frameworks. Historically, the instrument stands at the crossroads of three prominent psychological traditions:

Cognitive Dissonance and Approach-Avoidance Conflict Theory

Central to Funk’s conceptualization of Religious Conflict is the behavioral conflict paradigm formulated by Neal E. Miller (1944) and the cognitive dissonance theory articulated by Leon Festinger (1957). In Miller’s structural model, psychological conflict occurs when an organism is confronted with competing tendencies to both approach and avoid the same goal object. In the ATRPLS, the religious object represents a source of promised ultimate security, familial affirmation, and metaphysical salvation, yet concurrently acts as a source of intellectual constriction, punitive guilt, and cognitive incongruence with scientific training. Funk explicitly defined Religious Conflict through this conflictual mechanism—as opposing response tendencies evoked by the identical ideological stimulus. When students cannot harmonize inherited religious dogma with newly acquired critical thinking skills, chronic internal conflict emerges, producing measurable affective strain.

Psychodynamic Defense Mechanisms and Compensatory Religion

The theoretical bifurcation between Religious Tranquility and Religious Solace draws directly from psychoanalytic and psychological critiques of religious motivation. As conceptualized in Sigmund Freud’s seminal treatises The Future of an Illusion (1927) and Civilization and Its Discontents (1930), religious engagement frequently operates as an infantile wish-fulfillment mechanism and a neurotic defense against helplessness in the face of nature and personal suffering. Funk’s Religious Solace explicitly reflects this compensatory psychological dynamic, isolating the extent to which religious beliefs are deployed reactively to mitigate unhappiness, personal failure, and despair. In contrast, Religious Tranquility anticipates later conceptual models of mature spirituality and psychosocial integration, such as Gordon Allport’s distinction between “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” religious orientations (Allport & Ross, 1967). Tranquility represents an integrated spiritual stance that enhances proactive social adjustment, whereas Solace reflects compensatory, comfort-seeking usage.

Ego Identity Formation and Structural Faith Development

The transition through university represents a critical developmental stage characterized by Erik Erikson’s crisis of Identity versus Role Confusion (Erikson, 1950, 1968). The Change of Religious Attitudes and Philosophy of Life subscales are deeply rooted in the developmental imperative of establishing an autonomous ego identity. During emerging adulthood, individuals must dismantle childhood introjections and reconstruct an internally validated philosophy of life. This conceptualization anticipated James W. Fowler’s (1981) model of Stages of Faith, particularly the shift from Stage 3 (Synthetic-Conventional Faith) to Stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective Faith). In this stage, individuals actively deconstruct unexamined authorities, experience ideological disorientation, and develop personalized, critically scrutinized value frameworks.

7. Validity

Validity investigations for the ATRPLS have centered predominantly on construct, convergent, criterion, and content-related domains, alongside structural critiques from psychometric evaluators.

Convergent and Criterion Validity

The primary criterion-related and construct validation of the ATRPLS was established through its empirical cross-validation with the Taylor Manifest Anxiety Scale (TMAS; Taylor, 1953). In her empirical study of 255 Purdue University undergraduates, Funk observed a statistically significant positive correlation of r = .43 (p < .001) between Religious Conflict and the TMAS. This medium-to-large effect size supported the theoretical hypothesis that intrapsychic religious ambivalence, doctrinal doubt, and theological guilt covary significantly with chronic autonomic arousal, nervous tension, and manifest psychological distress. Conversely, individuals who scored high in unconflicted Religious Orthodoxy or integrated Religious Tranquility did not exhibit this elevation in manifest anxiety, demonstrating that spiritual conflict itself, rather than religious conviction per se, is the primary driver of affective maladjustment.

Construct and Discriminant Inter-Scale Correlations

Internal correlational patterns among the seven subscales revealed substantial theoretical coherence. The Religious Conflict Scale correlated significantly and negatively with Religious Orthodoxy, demonstrating that rigid adherence to canonical dogma typically acts as a defense against overt doubt, whereas the emergence of doubt systematically dismantles fundamentalist certainty. Concurrently, Philosophy of Life exhibited positive associations with Hostility toward the Church and negative relationships with orthodox institutional conformity, corroborating the divergent pathways of secular humanistic ethics versus institutionalized piety.

Psychometric Critiques and Limitations of Face Validity

Despite these supportive findings, significant psychometric criticisms have been raised regarding the construct distinctiveness and discriminant validity of several ATRPLS subscales:

• Dimensional Overlap: In their comprehensive review of sociological and psychological instruments, Shaw and Wright (1967) observed that several ATRPLS subscales demonstrate high shared variance, compromising their discriminative power. Specifically, they questioned the psychometric separation between Religious Solace and Religious Tranquility, arguing that compensatory coping and peaceful socio-psychological adjustment share common latent affective elements.
• Item Cross-Loading and Domain Ambiguity: Certain statements are conceptually dual-loaded across constructs. For instance, Item 82 (“Promoting a better world is more important to me than religion is”) is scored simultaneously on the Philosophy of Life Scale and the Hostility toward the Church Scale. Such cross-scoring artificially inflates collinearity. Furthermore, Shaw and Wright noted that the Hostility toward the Church Scale behaves psychometrically not as a measure of specific institutional antipathy, but as a broad rejection of theism and religion in general.
• Temporal Ambiguity in Change Metrics: The Religious Attitude Change Scale evaluates whether beliefs regarding ten religious doctrines have become “different” since entering college. However, because it fails to capture the respondent’s baseline valence (i.e., whether an individual shifted from fundamentalism to atheism, or from indifference to fervent evangelical faith), high scores reflect non-directional attitude volatility rather than a specific developmental trajectory.

8. Reliability

The temporal stability of the ATRPLS was evaluated by Funk (1958) using a classical test-retest methodology over a three-week interval on the primary undergraduate standardization cohort. The Pearson product-moment stability coefficients obtained across the seven subscales were consistently elevated, demonstrating acceptable to high short-term stability:

• Religious Conflict Scale (22 items): r_tt = .84
• Religious Orthodoxy Scale (9 items): r_tt = .95
• Philosophy of Life Scale (5 items): r_tt = .81
• Hostility toward the Church Scale (6 items): r_tt = .88
• Religious Tranquility Scale (6 items): r_tt = .84
• Religious Solace Scale (7 items): r_tt = .87
• Change of Religious Attitudes Scale (10 items): r_tt = .90

While the test-retest coefficients demonstrate strong temporal stability, a major psychometric limitation of the original publication was the absence of modern internal consistency metrics (e.g., Cronbach’s coefficient alpha or McDonald’s omega). During the 1950s, split-half and test-retest approaches were standard, but modern standards require rigorous assessment of item homogeneity. Given that several scales contain relatively few items (e.g., Philosophy of Life with 5 items; Hostility toward the Church with 6 items), researchers intending to deploy individual subscales in modern contexts must compute internal consistency metrics within their specific study cohorts.

9. Factor Analysis

At the time of the instrument’s initial development (Funk, 1955, 1958), formal exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using computer-assisted matrix decomposition (such as principal component analysis or common factor extraction with varimax rotation) was not systematically applied to the item pool. Items were clustered into scales based on rational-theoretical construction, face validity appraisal, and item-discrimination analyses comparing high and low scoring groups.

Subsequent psychometric analyses (e.g., Shaw & Wright, 1967) strongly indicated that the 65 items would collapse into a considerably more parsimonious latent factor structure if subjected to modern EFA or confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Specifically, structural evaluations suggest that the 7 subscales represent three broader latent dimensions:

• Factor I: Traditional Institutional Commitment vs. Secular Humanism: This bipolar factor combines Religious Orthodoxy with inverted items from Philosophy of Life and Hostility toward the Church, capturing acceptance of traditional theological authority versus secular naturalism.
• Factor II: Spiritual Dissonance and Neurotic Tension: Driven predominantly by the 22 items of the Religious Conflict Scale, this factor represents intrapsychic distress, cognitive-affective ambivalence, parental guilt, and theological doubt.
• Factor III: Affective and Compensatory Well-Being: Combining items from Religious Tranquility and Religious Solace, this factor reflects using religious frameworks for emotional coping, feelings of divine security, and existential consolation during personal distress.

Contemporary structural equation modeling would likely indicate poor goodness-of-fit for a seven-factor independent cluster model (e.g., elevated RMSEA > .08, low CFI < .90) due to substantial inter-item cross-loadings and error covariances among conceptually adjacent items. Consequently, psychometricians recommend structural reassessment via exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) to recalibrate item performance before field administration.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The ATRPLS is a multidimensional, self-administered psychological inventory designed for group or individual testing. The structural parameters and administration guidelines of the instrument are detailed below:

• Instrument Name: Attitudes Toward Religion and Philosophy of Life Survey (ATRPLS) / Religion and Philosophy of Life Attitudes Scale.
• Total Item Count: 65 discrete statements and comparative indices.
• Subscale Breakdown:
  • Religious Conflict: 22 items (Items 1, 10, 12, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 38, 42, 44, 46, 50, 56, 60, 64, 66, 68, 72, 76, 84, 86).
  • The Orthodoxy Scale: 9 items (Items 1.a, 4, 6, 90, 92, 94, 96, 98, 100).
  • Philosophy of Life Scale: 5 items (Items 1.d, 8, 62, 82, 88).
  • Hostility to the Church Scale: 6 items (Items 1.e, 2, 48, 54, 58, 82).
  • The Religious Tranquility Scale: 6 items (Items 30, 32, 40, 70, 74, 80).
  • Religious Solace Scale: 7 items (Items 16, 18, 22, 34, 36, 52, 78).
  • Religious Attitude Change Scale: 10 items (Items 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113).
• Response Modes and Item Weights:
  • General Format: Standard True/False response sheet. An endorsement of “True” yields 1 point; “False” yields 0 points, unless otherwise specified.
  • Weighted Items:
    • Item 1.(d) on the Philosophy of Life Scale is assigned 2 points if endorsed.
    • Item 1.(e) on the Hostility to the Church Scale is assigned 2 points if endorsed.
    • Item 98 (Prayer efficacy) is rated: Always = 2 points, Sometimes = 1 point, False/Unendorsed = 0 points.
    • Item 100 (Church attendance) is rated: Once a week or more = 2 points, Once a month or more = 1 point, Less frequent/False = 0 points.
    • Item 82 contributes simultaneously to both the Philosophy of Life Scale and the Hostility to the Church Scale.
  • Change Scale Response Options: 3-point categorical rating: Same (S), Partly Different (P), or Very Different (D). Typically scored as 0 (Same), 1 (Partly Different), and 2 (Very Different) to generate a composite index of belief instability.
• Administration Procedure: In the operational survey, items for all scales are randomly mixed across a standard answer sheet to minimize response sets, social desirability bias, and halo effects. The original numerical identifiers serve as a key for scoring.
• Time Required: Approximately 20 to 30 minutes for the complete 65-item battery. Individual subscales may be modularly extracted for brief experimental protocols.
• Scoring and Interpretation: Subscale totals are calculated via linear summation of item points. Higher scores on respective dimensions correspond to greater degrees of conflict, orthodox commitment, secular life philosophy, church hostility, inner tranquility, reliance on solace, or perceived attitude drift.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed between 1955 and 1958 at Purdue University as part of Ruth Anne Funk’s doctoral dissertation, with public academic dissemination occurring in 1958. As an academic assessment instrument published in scholarly journals and historical compendia (e.g., Shaw & Wright, 1967) prior to modern proprietary psychometric licensing frameworks, the scale resides in the public domain for scholarly research, educational administration, and non-commercial scientific applications. No testing fees or formal commercial royalties are required to reproduce or administer the survey. Researchers utilizing the instrument in modern empirical studies should properly attribute the original developer (Funk, 1955, 1958) and Myers (1952) in accordance with APA ethical guidelines and standard academic citation practices.

12. References

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

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. W. W. Norton & Company.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton & Company.

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

Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. Harper & Row.

Freud, S. (1927). The future of an illusion (Standard Edition, Vol. 21). Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontents (Standard Edition, Vol. 21). Hogarth Press.

Funk, R. A. (1955). A survey of religious attitudes and manifest anxiety in a college population (Publication No. 13,927) [Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University]. University Microfilms.

Funk, R. A. (1958). Experimental scales used in a study of religious attitudes as related to manifest anxiety. Psychological Newsletter, 9, 238–244.

Miller, N. E. (1944). Experimental studies of conflict. In J. McV. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 431–465). Ronald Press.

Myers, M. S. (1952). The latent role of religious orientation. Studies in Higher Education, Purdue University, No. 78.

Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. (1967). Scales for the measurement of attitudes. McGraw-Hill.

Taylor, J. A. (1953). A personality scale of manifest anxiety. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48(2), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0056264

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)