Religious Fundamentalism Scale

Abstract

The Religious Fundamentalism Scale (RF Scale), conceptualized and validated by Canadian social psychologists Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger in 1992, represents a watershed psychometric advancement in the empirical psychology of religion. Developed to circumvent the confounding doctrinal provincialism that plagued antecedent inventories, the RF Scale measures religious fundamentalism not as an inventory of specific theological affirmations (e.g., biblical inerrancy, creationism, or virgin birth), but as a cognitive-epistemological style characterized by an unyielding, dualistic, and exclusionary approach to religious conviction. The instrument operationally defines fundamentalism across four distinct yet unified thematic pillars: the belief in an absolute, inerrant divine truth; the perception of a cosmic battle between divine agency and forces of evil; an unwavering adherence to ancient, immutable religious mandates; and the assertion of an exclusive, sanctified ingroup identity possessing a special relationship with the deity.

Comprising 20 psychometrically refined items balanced symmetrically with 10 pro-trait and 10 con-trait statements to neutralize acquiescence response set bias, the scale utilizes a 9-point Likert-type response continuum extending from -4 (“very strongly disagree”) to +4 (“very strongly agree”), with a neutral midpoint of 0. Total composite scores range from 20 to 180, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of fundamentalist ideology. Across extensive normative, cross-cultural, and interfaith investigations—including university cohorts, community parent samples, and non-Christian denominations such as Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism—the RF Scale has demonstrated exceptional internal consistency reliability (with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients uniformly oscillating between .92 and .95) and robust structural validity confirmed through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses delineating a coherent unidimensional construct. The scale exhibits profound convergent validity with Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA; r = .66 to .75) and general dogmatism, while maintaining vital discriminant validity from religious quest orientations and general orthopraxy. This article provides a comprehensive academic analysis of the RF Scale, detailing its theoretical architecture, psychometric properties, factor structure, scoring algorithms, and empirical utility across behavioral science.

Keywords

Religious Fundamentalism Scale, Bob Altemeyer, Bruce Hunsberger, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, religious dogmatism, cognitive style, psychometrics, scale validation, prejudice, intergroup relations

Authors

The Religious Fundamentalism Scale was collaboratively constructed and validated by two prominent figures in social psychology and the scientific study of religion:

• Bob Altemeyer, Ph.D. — Formerly Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Manitoba (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada). An internationally recognized authority on authoritarian personalities, Dr. Altemeyer is widely known for developing the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) construct and its associated psychometric inventory, which revolutionized the empirical study of political conservatism, obedience to authority, and intergroup hostility.
• Bruce Hunsberger, Ph.D. (1946–2003) — Formerly Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada). Dr. Hunsberger served as President of Division 36 (Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality) of the American Psychological Association (APA). His pioneering research examined religious socialization, apostasy, fundamentalism, and the interface between religious orientation, cognitive complexity, and ethnocultural prejudice.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Fundamentalism Scale is to provide behavioral scientists, personality researchers, sociologists, and clinical practitioners with a doctrinally neutral, psychometrically robust instrument capable of assessing a fundamentalist cognitive orientation across diverse faith traditions. Prior to Altemeyer and Hunsberger’s 1992 publication, empirical instruments designed to assess religious fundamentalism were virtually all doctrinally bound to Western Protestant evangelical Christianity. Scales routinely incorporated explicit theological propositions concerning young-earth creationism, the historical reality of the virgin birth, or the literal interpretation of the King James Bible. These measures suffered from profound methodological limitations, most notably the conflation of belief content (what an individual believes) with epistemic process (how rigidly and dogmatically those beliefs are held).

By divesting scale items of sectarian dogmatic jargon, Altemeyer and Hunsberger sought to isolate the core psychological phenomenon of fundamentalism. Consequently, the RF Scale can be administered with equal validity to Christians of diverse denominations (Protestant, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Anabaptist), Muslims (Sunni, Shia), Jews (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform), Hindus, and other religious adherents, as well as secular or non-affiliated populations. In clinical, social, and developmental contexts, the scale addresses critical questions regarding the role of closed-minded cognitive structures in social functioning. In research applications, the RF Scale serves as an indispensable tool for modeling:

• The psychological mechanisms linking rigid belief systems to generalized outgroup antipathy, anti-homosexual prejudice, and ethnocentrism.
• The cognitive styles underlying dogmatic information processing, integrative complexity deficits, and resistance to scientific consensus (e.g., evolution, medical science, climate change).
• The interplay between political authoritarianism, institutional conformity, and theological rigidity in shaping voting behavior, policy preferences, and civil liberties attitudes.
• The developmental trajectories of religious doubt, spiritual deconstruction, apostasy, and psychological well-being during pivotal life transitions, such as the transition from adolescence to higher education.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the Religious Fundamentalism Scale is anchored in Altemeyer and Hunsberger’s (1992) foundational definition:

“The belief that there is one set of religious teachings that clearly contains the fundamental, basic, intrinsic, essential, inerrant truth about humanity and deity; that this essential truth is fundamentally opposed by forces of evil which must be vigorously fought; that this truth must be followed today according to the fundamental, unchangeable practices of the past; and that those who believe and follow these fundamental teachings have a special relationship with the deity.” (p. 118)

Rather than conceptualizing fundamentalism as an aggressive sociopolitical movement or a specific denominational category, Altemeyer and Hunsberger identified it as an interconnected cognitive-attitudinal structure. Although the scale is unidimensional in its psychometric operation, this overarching construct synthesizes four theoretical dimensions:

1. Uncompromising, Inerrant Divine Truth

This dimension posits that absolute, flawless truth regarding human nature, cosmic order, and the divine has been directly revealed by God. This truth is considered completely accessible, finalized, and immune to human revision, textual critique, or empirical falsification. Adherents view their sacred teachings as an exhaustive guide to morality and ultimate salvation. On the RF Scale, this is reflected in items asserting that God has provided a complete, unfailing guide to salvation (Item 1), that a specific religion teaches God’s truth without error (Item 16), and that scripture supercedes empirical science whenever contradiction arises (Item 18).

2. Cosmic Dualism and Manichean Struggle

The construct incorporates a polarized, Manichean worldview in which human existence represents a high-stakes battlefield between divine righteousness and malignant demonic forces. Ambiguity is rejected in favor of rigid moral dichotomies: humanity is split unequivocally into the saved and the damned. Evil is personified as an active, hostile entity (e.g., Satan) attempting to deceive and corrupt humanity. Illustrative items include the assertion that humanity is divided solely between the Righteous and the unrewarded (Item 6), that the basic cause of evil is Satan ferociously warring against God (Item 8), and that true followers must wage constant war against evil forces on earth (Item 14).

3. Inflexible Traditionalism and Doctrinal Immobility

Fundamentalism demands that sacred tenets must be practiced precisely as prescribed by historic precedents, resisting modern cultural shifts, hermeneutical revisions, or progressive secularization. Accommodating contemporary cultural norms is interpreted not as adaptive evolution, but as sinful apostasy. Items reflecting this dimension assert that ancient religious traditions are absolute and uncompromisable (Item 4), while vigorously rejecting the counter-attitudinal premise that religions must confess past failings and adapt to modern life to remain socially beneficial (Item 5).

4. Sanctified Ingroup Exceptionalism

The fourth dimension centers on an exclusive covenantal status: the profound conviction that adherence to this specific truth elevates the ingroup to a unique, sanctified relationship with God that is denied to outsiders. Other faith traditions are not viewed as alternate valid paths, but as flawed, deceptive, or spiritually bankrupt. This dimension is measured through assertions that one distinct group maintains an unrivaled standing before God due to doctrinal fidelity (Item 3), accompanied by strong disagreement with pluralistic sentiments suggesting that diverse religions may possess valid, equivalent versions of divine truth (Item 7, Item 10).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual genesis of the Religious Fundamentalism Scale resides at the theoretical intersection of authoritarian personality theory, social-cognitive models of belief perseverance, and the social psychology of religion. For decades following the publication of Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford’s (1950) The Authoritarian Personality, researchers wrestled with the intricate, often paradoxical relationship between religiosity and outgroup hostility. Although mainstream religious traditions routinely profess universal benevolence, love, and compassion, empirical investigations repeatedly revealed that regular churchgoers and devout believers frequently exhibited elevated levels of racial, ethnic, and social prejudice.

Gordon Allport attempted to resolve this paradox by differentiating between extrinsic religiosity (using religion as a self-serving means to social status or comfort) and intrinsic religiosity (living religion as an internalized end in itself). However, subsequent psychometric research indicated that intrinsic religiosity often correlated with covert prejudice and failed to restrain hostility toward groups perceived as violating traditional moral norms (such as homosexuals or political dissidents). Later, Daniel Batson introduced the Quest orientation—a dimension characterized by open-ended, questioning, and doubt-tolerant approaches to existential concerns—which consistently correlated negatively with prejudice.

Altemeyer and Hunsberger recognized that the critical missing variable in understanding authoritarian aggression within religious frameworks was not the intensity of belief (orthodoxy) or the motivational functionalism of belief (intrinsic vs. extrinsic), but rather the epistemological rigidity of the belief structure itself. They linked religious fundamentalism directly to Bob Altemeyer’s theory of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA). RWA conceptualizes authoritarianism as the covariation of three attitudinal clusters:

1. Authoritarian Submission: A profound inclination to submit to established, legitimate societal or divine authorities.
2. Authoritarian Aggression: A general aggressiveness directed against outgroups, perceived moral deviants, or norm violators, sanctioned by established authority.
3. Conventionalism: A rigid adherence to social and moral conventions endorsed by the ingroup.

Under this theoretical framework, religious fundamentalism operates as the ideological and theological manifestation of Right-Wing Authoritarianism within the spiritual domain. When individuals operate with high RWA, their cognitive architecture relies heavily on dualistic categorizations (good vs. evil, saved vs. damned), heightened threat perceptions concerning societal decay, and cognitive closure. Religious fundamentalism supplies an unshakeable metaphysical anchor that validates conventionalism, demands submissive surrender to divine authority, and mandates aggression against perceived existential enemies (e.g., Satan, heretics, and moral nonconformists).

Moreover, the construct connects directly to Milton Rokeach’s theory of open and closed minds (dogmatism). Rokeach argued that closed cognitive systems are organized around an absolute authority structure, a pronounced rejection of competing beliefs, and a stark divide between the belief system and disbelief system. Altemeyer and Hunsberger operationalized this cognitive architecture within the religious sphere, demonstrating that fundamentalism reflects an epistemological structure wherein incoming data is evaluated not by empirical coherence or logical consistency, but exclusively by its congruence with unalterable dogma.

Validity

The Religious Fundamentalism Scale has been subjected to rigorous construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity assessments across numerous independent laboratories, cross-national studies, and interfaith cohorts.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was initially established by Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) across samples comprising 463 students at Wilfrid Laurier University, 235 students at the University of Manitoba, and a community sample of 491 parents (247 mothers, 244 fathers). In each cohort, item-total correlations uniformly loaded robustly onto a single primary factor, confirming that the scale assesses a coherent ideological dimension. Factor analyses conducted by independent psychometricians have repeatedly demonstrated that the items constitute a dominant first factor accounting for substantial variance, confirming that the four theoretical themes coalesce into a single unified construct.

Convergent Validity

The RF Scale demonstrates robust, theoretically expected correlations with theoretically aligned psychological and behavioral constructs:

• Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA): In the original validation studies, RF correlated between r = .66 and r = .75 with Altemeyer’s RWA Scale across university and adult cohorts. This substantial overlap supports the hypothesis that religious fundamentalism serves as the theological counterpart to political authoritarianism, while remaining distinct enough to avoid total psychometric collinearity.
• Christian Orthodoxy: Correlations with Fullerton and Hunsberger’s (1982) Christian Orthodoxy Scale ranged from r = .60 to .75. This indicates that while orthodoxy (belief in traditional theological tenets) frequently co-occurs with fundamentalism, the constructs diverge: many orthodox believers hold their theological views without embracing the rigid, exclusionary, and Manichean attitudes measured by the RF Scale.
• Dogmatism: RF scores demonstrated strong positive associations with Altemeyer’s Dogmatism Scale (r = .57), underscoring that the scale captures generalized cognitive closed-mindedness independent of religious content.
• Prejudice and Social Attitudes: RF scores correlate significantly with generalized ethnocultural prejudice (r = .30 to .38) and heavily with anti-homosexual attitudes (r = .41 to .65). In subsequent mediation analyses by Laythe, Finkel, and Kirkpatrick (2001), structural equation modeling demonstrated that while RWA directly drove generalized racial and ethnic prejudice, fundamentalism’s association with racial prejudice was mediated through RWA. However, fundamentalism exerted a potent, direct effect on hostility toward sexual minorities and religious apostates whose lifestyles directly transgressed fundamentalist moral dogmas.

Discriminant Validity

The RF Scale successfully discriminates between cognitive fundamentalism and other modes of religious orientation. It correlates negatively and robustly with Batson’s Quest orientation (r = -.79 on balanced indices), illustrating that open-ended spiritual questioning and comfort with religious doubt stand in direct psychological opposition to fundamentalism. Furthermore, Hunsberger, Pratt, and Pancer (1994) established discriminant validity regarding cognitive complexity: high RF scores were strongly correlated with lower integrative complexity when individuals processed existential and religious moral dilemmas, yet showed no deficit in cognitive complexity when evaluating neutral social, non-religious, or political issues.

Known-Groups Criterion Validity

Criterion-related validity has been demonstrated through known-groups methodologies. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) revealed striking differences in mean RF scores across diverse religious groups in Canada:

• Self-identified Fundamentalist Protestants exhibited the highest mean score: M = 130.6 (SD = 22.0).
• Mennonites scored markedly high: M = 121.7 (SD = 34.6).
• Roman Catholics displayed intermediate scores: M = 92.1 (SD = 25.6).
• Mainline denominations fell lower: Lutherans (M = 89.1, SD = 23.7), Anglicans (M = 73.0, SD = 22.8), and United Church of Canada adherents (M = 69.8, SD = 19.6).
• Religiously unaffiliated individuals (“None”) scored lowest: M = 54.2 (SD = 21.1).

Extending cross-religious validity, Hunsberger (1996) administered the RF Scale to diverse non-Christian religious samples in Toronto, documenting its construct coherence among Muslims (M = 112.3, SD = 40.3), Hindus (M = 84.5, SD = 31.5), and Jews (M = 48.3, SD = 21.1). Across all traditions, the scale predicted anti-homosexual hostility with comparable magnitude (r = .42 to .65), empirically confirming the cross-cultural and interfaith validity of the construct.

Reliability

The Religious Fundamentalism Scale consistently demonstrates exceptional psychometric reliability across student, adult, community, and cross-cultural populations.

Internal Consistency

In the seminal 1992 validation investigations, Altemeyer and Hunsberger reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of:

• Student Cohorts: Alpha values ranged from .93 to .95 across independent samples at Wilfrid Laurier University (N = 463) and the University of Manitoba (N = 235). Inter-item correlations within these collegiate samples were remarkably homogeneous, ranging from .41 to .48.
• Parent and Adult Cohorts: In a community sample of 491 parents, the scale achieved an internal consistency alpha of .92, with an average inter-item correlation of .37.
• Interfaith Samples: In Hunsberger’s (1996) multi-faith study examining Toronto community samples, internal consistency remained equally high: .93 for Muslims, .91 for Hindus, and .92 for Jewish participants.

The exceptional magnitude of these internal consistency coefficients (consistently exceeding .90) indicates that the scale contains minimal measurement error and operates with high precision across the entire trait continuum.

Test-Retest Stability

Longitudinal and short-term test-retest assessments underscore the temporal stability of the RF Scale. Over intervals ranging from several weeks to three months during academic semesters, test-retest reliability coefficients have consistently exceeded r = .85. Even across extended multi-year developmental transitions (e.g., following students across the four-year transition through university education; Hunsberger, Pancer, Pratt, & Alisat, 1996), fundamentalism demonstrated notable structural stability, shifting systematically only in response to deep personal identity reassessments or disaffiliation crises.

Factor Analysis

A central objective in the psychometric design of the Religious Fundamentalism Scale was the creation of a strictly unidimensional instrument. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) conducted across diverse populations have repeatedly corroborated this structural objective.

Exploratory Factor Analyses

In early principal axis and unweighted least-squares factor analyses (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992), examination of the eigenvalue distributions and Cattell’s scree plots revealed a pronounced, dominant first factor. In student and parent cohorts, the primary factor accounted for roughly 45% to 52% of the total variance prior to rotation, with the ratio of the first to the second eigenvalue routinely exceeding 5:1 or 6:1. All 20 items loaded substantially on this primary unrotated dimension, with factor loadings ranging from .48 to .78.

Secondary factors that occasionally emerged in unconstrained orthogonal or oblique rotations invariably reflected method variance associated with item keying directionality (i.e., a pro-trait factor vs. a con-trait factor). When item wording direction was psychometrically modeled or controlled, these secondary components vanished, proving they represented artifactual response polarization rather than substantive psychological sub-dimensions.

Confirmatory Factor Analyses and Structural Equation Modeling

Subsequent psychometric evaluations utilizing Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) have tested one-factor versus multi-factor models. Standard goodness-of-fit parameters for a single latent fundamentalism factor demonstrate acceptable to excellent fit when accounting for method effects on negatively keyed items:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values typically range between .91 and .96.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values consistently exceed .90.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates oscillate between .045 and .068 (90% CI [.038, .074]).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Observed values generally remain below .05.

These empirical findings affirm that the RF Scale functions as an essentially unidimensional scale. The conceptual facets (inerrancy, cosmic dualism, traditionalism, exclusive divine covenant) do not operate as autonomous subscales, but rather reflect manifestations of a singular, highly integrated psychological worldview.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The complete structural, operational, and scoring parameters of the Religious Fundamentalism Scale are outlined below:

• Instrument Name: Religious Fundamentalism Scale (RF Scale).
• Authors: Bob Altemeyer, Ph.D., and Bruce Hunsberger, Ph.D. (1992).
• Psychological Classification: Self-report attitudinal questionnaire / Socio-cognitive psychometric inventory.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (approximate reading level: Grade 8 and above). Suitable for cross-denominational, cross-cultural, and interfaith administration.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computerized survey software, or supervised clinical/laboratory assessment.
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes to complete.
• Number of Items: 20 items (10 pro-trait, 10 con-trait reversed items).
• Response Continuum: 9-point Likert scale centered on a neutral zero point:
  • -4: Very Strongly Disagree
  • -3: Strongly Disagree
  • -2: Moderately Disagree
  • -1: Slightly Disagree
  •  0: Exactly and Precisely Neutral
  • +1: Slightly Agree
  • +2: Moderately Agree
  • +3: Strongly Agree
  • +4: Very Strongly Agree
• Item Keying Architecture:
  • Pro-trait Items (Fundamentalist Direction): Items 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 18, and 20.
  • Con-trait Items (Non-Fundamentalist Direction / Reverse Scored): Items 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19 (indicated with an asterisk *).
• Scoring and Transformation Protocol:
  1. Step 1 (Item Conversion): For each of the 20 items, convert the raw response (-4 to +4) into an interim positive integer by adding a constant of 5. Under this conversion, -4 becomes 1, -3 becomes 2, -2 becomes 3, -1 becomes 4, 0 becomes 5, +1 becomes 6, +2 becomes 7, +3 becomes 8, and +4 becomes 9.
  2. Step 2 (Reverse Scoring): For all 10 con-trait items (Items 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 19), invert the scored value using the standard reversal formula: Reversed Score = 10 - Converted Score. (For example, an initial +4 response converts to 9 in Step 1, which then reverses to 1 in Step 2; an initial -4 response converts to 1, which reverses to 9).
  3. Step 3 (Summation): Compute the grand sum of all 20 items (combining the converted scores of the 10 pro-trait items and the reversed scores of the 10 con-trait items).
• Total Score Range and Theoretical Benchmarks:
  • Minimum Theoretical Score: 20 (Reflects extreme anti-fundamentalism / comprehensive rejection of rigid religious dogmatism).
  • Maximum Theoretical Score: 180 (Reflects complete, maximal endorsement of religious fundamentalism).
  • Theoretical Midpoint: 100 (Represents a balanced or neutral stance across all statements).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Religious Fundamentalism Scale was officially published in 1992 in the peer-reviewed journal The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. Consistent with Bob Altemeyer’s and Bruce Hunsberger’s commitment to open empirical research, the 20-item scale was placed in the public domain for academic, scientific, and educational use. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required for non-commercial scholarly research, student dissertations, or scientific investigations. Researchers and practitioners utilizing the instrument are required to cite the original 1992 publication and subsequent validation literature in all published reports, academic papers, and scientific presentations.

References

• Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. Jossey-Bass.
• Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.
• Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5
• Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A revised religious fundamentalism scale: The short and sweet of it. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1401_4
• Fullerton, J. T., & Hunsberger, B. (1982). A unidimensional measure of Christian orthodoxy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21(4), 317–326. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385521
• Genia, V. (1996). I, E, quest, and fundamentalism as predictors of psychological and spiritual well-being. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(1), 56–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386396
• Hunsberger, B. (1996). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and hostility toward homosexuals in non-Christian religious groups. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6(1), 39–49. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0601_5
• Hunsberger, B., Pancer, M. S., Pratt, M., & Alisat, S. (1996). The transition to university: Is religion related to adjustment? In M. Lynn & D. O. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the social scientific study of religion (Vol. 7, pp. 181–199). JAI Press.
• Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (1994). Religious fundamentalism and integrative complexity of thought: A relationship for existential content only? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 33(4), 335–346. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386493
• Laythe, B., Finkel, D. G., Bringle, R. G., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2002). Religious fundamentalism as a predictor of prejudice: A two-component model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(4), 623–635. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00142
• Laythe, B., Finkel, D., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2001). Predicting prejudice from religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism: A multiple-regression approach. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/0021-8294.00033
• Pancer, S. M., Jackson, L. M., Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M. W., & Lea, J. (1995). Religious orthodoxy and the complexity of thought about religious and nonreligious issues. Journal of Personality, 63(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00808.x

Items of the Scale