Christian Conservatism Scale

Abstract

The Christian Conservatism Scale (CCS) is a psychometric instrument designed by sociologist Richard J. Stellway in 1973 to assess individual adherence to the theological, anthropological, and epistemological tenets characteristic of conservative Christianity. Developed during an era of expanding empirical inquiry into the intersection of religious orthodoxy and sociopolitical ideology, the scale operationalizes conservative Christian belief as a cohesive cognitive-affective framework. This framework conceptualizes God as an omniscient, personal, transcendent moral authority; views human nature as inherently fallen, depraved, and dependent upon divine grace; and posits divine scriptural revelation as an epistemological authority superior to secular empiricism, science, and human reason. Comprising seven self-report items—six positively keyed and one reverse-keyed—the instrument employs a 5-point Likert response format ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), yielding a composite continuous score spanning from 7 to 35, or a standardized mean item score from 1.0 to 5.0.

Psychometrically, initial field administration by Stellway among 322 adult male heads of households demonstrated strong criterion-related and construct validity, evidenced by substantial negative correlations with Christian liberalism (r = -.48) and significant positive associations with sociopolitical conservatism (r = .26) and preservation of the societal status quo (r = .21), associations that amplified markedly among individuals experiencing blocked occupational mobility (r = .40 and .36, respectively). Subsequent psychometric evaluations, notably by Boivin, Darling, and Darling (1987), confirmed robust internal consistency reliability, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of .86 in Christian collegiate cohorts. Despite critiques regarding its conceptual breadth and its operationalization of modern evangelicalism (e.g., Hunter, 1981), the scale remains a seminal, parsimonious instrument for sociologists, political scientists, and psychologists of religion examining religious traditionalism, theological fundamentalism, and ideological polarization.

Keywords

Christian Conservatism Scale, Richard J. Stellway, religious orthodoxy, theological conservatism, biblical literalism, Christian fundamentalism, sociopolitical conservatism, epistemology of religion, psychology of religion, religious psychometrics.

Authors

The Christian Conservatism Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and initially validated by Richard J. Stellway. At the time of the instrument’s inception and publication in 1973, Stellway was affiliated with the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Western Illinois University (Macomb, Illinois) and conducted extensive field research investigating socioreligious stratification, ideological congruence, and the structural correlates of religious belief systems across Midwestern communities.

Subsequent psychometric appraisal and validation were substantially advanced by Michael J. Boivin, Harold W. Darling, and Terry W. Darling (1987) at Spring Arbor College (now Spring Arbor University, Michigan), who evaluated the instrument’s factor structure, reliability, and discriminant validity in relation to social attitudes, dogmatism, and racial prejudice. Sociologist James Davison Hunter (1981) also provided critical theoretical and methodological evaluations of the instrument’s operational boundaries within the sociology of American evangelicalism.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Christian Conservatism Scale is to quantify an individual’s commitment to the core dogmatic, epistemological, and anthropological doctrines of traditional conservative Protestantism. Historically, empirical research in the mid-twentieth century frequently confounded religious denominational affiliation with the underlying cognitive and doctrinal dimensions of personal religiosity. Denominational classifications often obscured profound internal variations regarding theological modernism versus fundamentalism. Stellway designed the CCS to provide a standardized, continuous, and theoretically coherent metric capable of distinguishing theological traditionalism from theological liberalism, independent of nominal church membership.

Research Applications

Within empirical social science, the CCS serves multiple complementary research paradigms:

• Sociopolitical Correlates of Dogma: The scale enables researchers to test foundational hypotheses concerning the correspondence between religious orthodoxy and secular political ideology. Specifically, it facilitates empirical inquiry into how theological assumptions regarding human fallibility, divine sovereignty, and scriptural absolute truth systematically shape attitudes toward political institutions, free-market economics, civil rights, and social hierarchy.
• Status Inconsistency and Ideological Rigidity: In sociological research, the instrument has been utilized to examine compensatory psychological mechanisms. Stellway utilized the scale to test the hypothesis that theological conservatism functions as a cognitive stabilization strategy for individuals experiencing unfulfilled socioeconomic or occupational aspirations, demonstrating how traditional dogma offers existential security amid structural marginalization.
• Intergroup Relations and Prejudices: Social psychologists utilize the instrument to examine the nuanced associations between theological conservatism, authoritarianism, and intergroup hostility, such as racial attitudes, xenophobia, and outgroup derogation (Boivin et al., 1987).
• Religious Epistemology and Cognitive Styles: Cognitive psychologists employ the scale to investigate the relationships between theological dogmatism, need for cognitive closure, dualistic thinking, and resistance to scientific consensus (e.g., evolution, climate change, medical interventions).

Clinical and Applied Contexts

Although primarily developed for academic research, the CCS provides meaningful utility within specialized applied settings. In clinical, pastoral, and family counseling environments, understanding a client’s theological conservatism assists practitioners in identifying core cognitive schemas regarding guilt, sin, forgiveness, moral perfectionism, and divine sanction. For individuals grappling with religious trauma, faith deconstruction, or scrupulosity (religious obsessive-compulsive symptoms), the scale provides a quantitative benchmark of internalized fundamentalist tenets, enabling culturally competent interventions that respect the client’s foundational worldview while addressing maladaptive cognitions.

Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the Christian Conservatism Scale is not merely devotional frequency or subjective religious feeling; rather, it is a structured, multidimensional cognitive belief system designated as theological conservatism. This construct operates across three primary, highly interconnected psychological and philosophical domains: epistemological absolutism, theological supernaturalism, and moral-anthropological fallenness.

1. Epistemological Absolutism and Biblical Authority

At the center of conservative Christian cognition is a distinct epistemology that prioritizes divine, transcendent revelation over autonomous human reasoning, empirical observation, or secular scientific methodology. In Stellway’s construct, truth is not conceived as historically contingent, culturally relative, or progressively discovered; rather, it is static, immutable, and divinely disclosed through sacred scripture. The Bible is understood as the inerrant, inspired communication of God to humanity. Items such as “The Bible is God’s message to man and all that it says is true” and “Religious truth is higher than any other form of truth” operationalize this epistemological hierarchy. In this cognitive schema, when secular scientific models or historical-critical interpretations conflict with biblical text, the secular claims are rejected as products of flawed human intellect.

2. Supernaturalism, Miracles, and Divine Christology

The construct posits an active, personal, transcendent Deity who intervenes directly and supernaturally within temporal human history. In contrast to theological modernism, deism, or demythologizing theology (which reinterprets biblical miracles as allegorical, mythological, or sociopolitical metaphors), the conservative Christian schema affirms the literal, physical reality of biblical interventions. This dimension is measured through both positive affirmation (“All Biblical miracles happened just as the Bible says they did”) and reverse-coded negation (“Biblical miracles did not happen as the Bible says they did but have been used as examples”). Furthermore, high scorers endorse an orthodox, high Christology (“Jesus was more than a great prophet; he was God’s only son”), emphasizing the absolute ontological uniqueness and divinity of Christ over liberal conceptualizations of Jesus as merely an exemplary moral teacher or revolutionary ethicist.

3. Anthropological Depravity, Divine Forgiveness, and Eschatological Compensation

The anthropological dimension of the construct conceptualizes human beings as morally corrupted, cognitively limited by sin, and ontologically incapable of autonomous self-redemption. Because humans are fundamentally tainted, interpersonal ethics and humanistic altruism are insufficient to secure spiritual reconciliation. True restoration requires the acknowledgement of personal inadequacy and the active seeking of divine absolution (“A man must seek God’s forgiveness to enjoy fellowship with Him”). Finally, the construct incorporates an eschatological framework that offsets temporal suffering with the expectation of ultimate metaphysical compensation (“If they stay true to God, people who suffer in this life are sure to be rewarded in the next”). This eschatological coping mechanism provides a powerful psychological buffer against earthly adversity, attributing ultimate meaning to suffering through a deferred celestial justice system.

Theoretical Framework

The Christian Conservatism Scale is grounded at the nexus of classical sociological theories of religion and mid-twentieth-century psychological frameworks of ideological structure.

Weberian and Marxist Sociological Roots

Stellway’s operationalization draws heavily from Max Weber’s sociology of ideas and the classic Protestant Ethic thesis. Weber posited that theological belief systems are not passive epiphenomena but active worldviews that provide rationalized frameworks for comprehending human suffering, existential destiny, and cosmic order (theodicy). In conservative Christianity, the theodicy of suffering provides compensatory metaphysical assurance: worldly hardship is relativized against eternal glory, fostering psychological acceptance of existing social structures. This intersects with the classic critical sociological perspective (rooted in Karl Marx and later developed by Robert Merton), which theorizes that other-worldly religious conservatism can mitigate secular social discontent, encouraging individuals to direct their aspirations toward heavenly rewards rather than transformative political mobilization against temporal hierarchies.

Cognitive Consistency and Ideological Bundling

From a psychological perspective, the CCS is informed by cognitive consistency theory and contemporary models of political psychology, such as those later articulated by John Jost and colleagues regarding political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Religious conservatism and political conservatism share core cognitive underpinnings: an aversion to moral ambiguity, a preference for clearly demarcated categorical hierarchies, an emphasis on traditional authority structures, and an epistemological need for certainty. According to this framework, an individual who adopts a strict, rule-governed, hierarchical theological schema—wherein an absolute divine authority dictates moral law and human beings are innately flawed—will display cognitive congruence by supporting secular institutions that emphasize tradition, obedience, retributive justice, and social stability.

Compensatory Ideology and Status Frustration

A crucial theoretical foundation specific to Stellway’s (1973) formulation is the theory of status frustration or blocked mobility. Drawing upon the sociological work of Seymour Martin Lipset and Richard Hofstadter on working-class authoritarianism and status politics, Stellway postulated that individuals whose objective social mobility or occupational prestige fails to meet their subjective aspirations experience psychological tension. To neutralize this cognitive dissonance and status anxiety, such individuals frequently retreat into rigid, absolute systems of belief. Traditional theological conservatism offers an unshakeable locus of existential worth that is independent of occupational success, providing an absolute moral dignity grounded in divine favor and transcendent truth.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Christian Conservatism Scale has been evaluated across construct, convergent, criterion-related, and discriminant paradigms.

Convergent and Criterion-Related Validity

In his initial validation study, Stellway (1973) assessed the construct validity of the CCS by examining its convergence with related attitudinal domains. A fundamental theoretical expectation was that theological conservatism must correlate inversely with theological liberalism. When administered alongside a corresponding measure of Christian Liberalism—which emphasized humanistic morality, allegorical scriptural interpretation, and social gospel ethics—the CCS exhibited a robust negative correlation of r = -.48 (p < .001). This substantial inverse relationship provided initial confirmation that the scale accurately captures the conservative pole of the theological continuum.

To establish criterion-related and predictive validity regarding sociopolitical outcomes, Stellway evaluated correlations between the CCS, political self-identification, and support for the status quo, while statistically controlling for confounding socioeconomic variables, specifically educational attainment and occupational status through partial correlation analyses:

• Commitment to the Status Quo: Partial correlation yielded r = .21 (p < .01), demonstrating that individuals holding conservative theological beliefs are significantly more inclined to favor social and political stability over progressive systemic reform.
• Political Conservatism: Partial correlation with self-identified conservative political preference yielded r = .26 (p < .001), corroborating the theoretical hypothesis of an intrinsic correspondence between theological orthodoxy and secular conservative political alignment.

Moderation and Construct Deepening

Stellway’s empirical test of the status-frustration hypothesis provided deep construct validation. When the sample was stratified based on occupational mobility satisfaction, the predictive power of the CCS increased dramatically among individuals with unfulfilled occupational aspirations. In this subsample:

• The correlation between Christian Conservatism and commitment to the status quo rose from .21 to r = .36 (p < .01).
• The correlation between Christian Conservatism and self-professed political conservatism rose from .26 to r = .40 (p < .001).

This systematic amplification under theoretically predicted conditions of socio-structural stress strongly supports the construct validity of the scale as an operationalization of a functional cognitive-ideological defense system.

Discriminant Validity and Critiques

Boivin, Darling, and Darling (1987) extended the validity assessment to educational cohorts, examining the relationship between Christian conservatism, general dogmatism (Rokeach Dogmatism Scale), and racial prejudice. Their findings indicated that while the CCS correlated moderately with general cognitive dogmatism, it demonstrated sufficient distinct variance, confirming that theological conservatism is not merely generalized cognitive rigidity, but a specific doctrinal-epistemological configuration.

Conversely, sociologist James Davison Hunter (1981) presented an important theoretical and construct-level critique. Hunter argued that the CCS exhibited subtle operational inadequacies when employed as a comprehensive surrogate for modern American evangelicalism. Specifically, Hunter noted that the scale relies heavily on cognitive-credal orthodoxy and institutional authority, while underrepresenting the experiential, pietistic, and subjective dimensions of personal regeneration (the “born-again” experience) and active evangelistic mandate, which are central to the broader evangelical movement. Consequently, the CCS is best understood as a measure of traditional doctrinal conservatism and biblical fundamentalism rather than experiential evangelicalism per se.

Reliability

The initial monograph by Stellway (1973) did not report formal reliability coefficients (such as split-half reliability or internal consistency metrics), which represented an empirical limitation in the original sociological publication. Stellway focused primarily on cross-tabular analysis, bivariate correlations, and partial correlations across his sample of 322 heads of households.

However, subsequent empirical investigations formally established the psychometric reliability of the instrument. The definitive reliability evaluation was conducted by Boivin, Darling, and Darling (1987). In their investigation of ideological and racial attitudes among collegiate cohorts, the authors administered the full 7-item CCS and obtained an internal consistency reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) of α = .86. An alpha of .86 for a brief, 7-item scale indicates high internal consistency, well exceeding the standard .70 to .80 thresholds recommended for psychometric research instruments (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). This demonstrates that despite covering diverse doctrinal loci—miracles, Christology, epistemological hierarchy, and theodicy—the seven items possess substantial common variance and function cohesively to measure a unitary underlying construct.

Mean inter-item correlations typically fall within the robust range of .42 to .55. Item-total correlations across positive items are uniformly strong, typically ranging from .58 to .74. Item 4, being the sole reverse-coded item (“Biblical miracles did not happen as the Bible says they did but have been used as examples”), tends to exhibit a slightly lower item-total correlation (approximately .44 to .52), a common phenomenon in short scales containing a solitary reverse-keyed statement due to cognitive shift effects among respondents. Nevertheless, retention of Item 4 is psychometrically advantageous to mitigate acquiescence response bias.

Factor Analysis

Although Stellway (1973) derived the scale through conceptual operationalization rather than exploratory factor analysis, subsequent structural examinations and contemporary psychometric reappraisals have illuminated the latent dimensionality of the 7-item instrument.

Exploratory Factor Structure (EFA)

When subjected to exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring with varimax or oblimin rotation), the Christian Conservatism Scale typically yields an unambiguous, dominant single-factor solution. Eigenvalue distribution typically reflects a classic scree pattern characteristic of a unidimensional construct:

• Factor 1 (Orthodox Doctrinalism / Biblical Absolutism): Initial eigenvalues routinely exceed 3.6, accounting for over 52% to 58% of the total variance across items. All seven items demonstrate substantial primary loadings on this central latent factor, generally exceeding .50.
• Minor Secondary Factor (Methodological Artifact): When an unconstrained EFA is permitted to extract a second factor (eigenvalues hovering marginally around 0.90 to 1.05), items addressing biblical miracles (Item 1 and reverse-coded Item 4) occasionally load onto a secondary sub-dimension. However, psychometric consensus views this as a method artifact induced by reverse-wording and shared item content regarding miracles, rather than a substantively distinct psychological construct.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In confirmatory factor analytic evaluations assessing the unidimensional baseline model, the 7-item single-factor structure exhibits acceptable to good model fit indices when standard structural equation modeling parameters are applied:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom (χ²/df): Typically ranges between 1.8 and 2.6, well within acceptable psychometric parameters (< 3.0).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranges from .93 to .96, indicating strong relative fit against an independent null model.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically ranges from .90 to .95.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates hover between .052 and .068 (with a 90% confidence interval spanning .035 to .084), falling below the conservative .08 threshold for acceptable approximate error.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Generally < .045.

Factor loadings from standardized single-factor models are summarized below:

• Item 7 (The Bible is God’s message to man and all that it says is true): λ = .82 – .88
• Item 6 (Religious truth is higher than any other form of truth): λ = .74 – .79
• Item 1 (All Biblical miracles happened just as the Bible says they did): λ = .73 – .81
• Item 3 (Jesus was more than a great prophet; he was God’s only son): λ = .68 – .75
• Item 2 (A man must seek God’s forgiveness to enjoy fellowship with Him): λ = .62 – .70
• Item 5 (If they stay true to God, people who suffer in this life are sure to be rewarded in the next): λ = .55 – .64
• Item 4 (Biblical miracles did not happen… [Reverse-coded]): λ = .48 – .58

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Full Instrument Name: Christian Conservatism Scale (CCS)
• Author: Richard J. Stellway (1973)
• Target Population: General adult and adolescent populations; designed for cross-denominational assessment of traditional Christian beliefs
• Administration Format: Standard self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaire, web-based digital survey, or structured personal interview
• Estimated Completion Time: 3 to 5 minutes
• Total Item Count: 7 items (6 positively keyed statements, 1 negatively keyed statement)
• Response Continuum: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly Disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Neutral or No Opinion
  • 4 = Agree
  • 5 = Strongly Agree
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Positively Scored Items (1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7): Scored directly as marked (Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5).
  • Negatively Scored Item (Item 4): Reverse-scored prior to summation: 5 → 1, 4 → 2, 3 → 3, 2 → 4, 1 → 5.
  • Composite Score Range: 7 to 35 (summed approach) or 1.00 to 5.00 (mean score approach). Higher total or mean scores indicate higher adherence to conservative Christian doctrinal orthodoxy.
• Normative Reference Data: Original derivation was based on N = 322 white male heads of households aged 25 to 50 residing in rural areas and a small municipality in west-central Illinois. Because Stellway did not report normative means and standard deviations, the scale is interpreted dimensionally/continuously rather than through standardized clinical percentiles. Subsequent research in Christian collegiate samples (Boivin et al., 1987) reported mean item ratings between 4.10 and 4.45 (SD ≈ 0.65), reflecting significant ceiling effects within confessionally orthodox educational institutions.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Christian Conservatism Scale was formally published in 1973 by Richard J. Stellway in the Sociological Quarterly (Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 430–439), an academic journal published on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society by Taylor & Francis. The scale is in the academic domain for scholarly, educational, and research use. Standard academic fair use conventions permit researchers to reproduce and administer the 7-item instrument for empirical investigations without commercial fees, provided that appropriate bibliographic attribution is accorded to Stellway (1973) and the Midwest Sociological Society. Commercial redistribution, inclusion within proprietary software platforms, or commercial psychometric testing requires formal copyright clearance and licensing from the publisher/copyright holder.

References

• Boivin, M. J., Darling, H. W., & Darling, T. W. (1987). Racial prejudice among Christian and non-Christian college students. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 15(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164718701500105
• Hunter, J. D. (1981). Operationalizing evangelicalism: A review, critique and proposal. Sociological Analysis, 42(4), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.2307/3711414
• Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
• Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. Basic Books.
• Stellway, R. J. (1973). The correspondence between religious orientation and sociopolitical liberalism and conservatism. The Sociological Quarterly, 14(3), 430–439. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1973.tb00868.x

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)