Committed-Consensual Measures

1. Abstract

The Committed-Consensual Measures (CCM) represent a foundational psychometric paradigm within the psychology of religion, initially formulated by Russell O. Allen and Bernard Spilka in 1967 and subsequently refined across four decades of empirical inquiry (Spilka, Read, Allen, & Dailey, 1968; Raschke, 1973; Spilka, 1976, 1977; Spilka & Mullin, 1977; Spilka, Minton, Sizemore, & Stout, 1977). Designed to transcend the simplistic operationalization of religiosity as mere denomination, institutional affiliation, or frequency of church attendance, the CCM evaluates the underlying cognitive structuring and stylistic processing of religious beliefs rather than doctrinal orthodoxy or specific theological contents. By removing sectarian dogma and references specific to figures such as Jesus Christ, the scale operationalizes religious functioning across broad monotheistic and Judeo-Christian frameworks along two distinct dimensions: Committed Religion and Consensual Religion.

Committed religion reflects an internalized, cognitively complex, open, discerning, and philosophically central religious orientation wherein faith serves as a comprehensive interpretive framework for living. In contrast, consensual religion represents an externalized, concrete, dogmatic, non-reflective, and ritual-bound adherence where faith functions primarily as a conventional social identity and anxiety buffer. The instrument originated as a standardized semi-structured interview assessing five distinct cognitive components—content, clarity, complexity, flexibility, and importance—demonstrating an inter-scorer reliability coefficient of .93. It was subsequently translated into a 28-item self-report questionnaire consisting of 15 Committed items (Cm) and 13 Consensual items (Cn), evaluated predominantly on a 6-point Likert scale alongside behavioral and forced-choice items. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate strong internal consistency, yielding Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) / Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .93 for the Committed subscale and .84 for the Consensual subscale (Spilka et al., 1977). Construct and criterion validation studies reveal that consensual faith correlates positively with racial prejudice, dogmatism, and utilitarian materialism, whereas committed faith correlates negatively with prejudice and materialism while predicting open-mindedness and empathetic social concern.

2. Keywords

Committed-Consensual Measures, Bernard Spilka, Russell O. Allen, psychology of religion, cognitive structuring, religious prejudice, dogmatism, intrinsic-extrinsic religion, religious orientation, psychometrics, Likert scale, religious ritualism

3. Authors

The Committed-Consensual framework and its psychometric operationalizations were developed primarily by Russell O. Allen and Bernard Spilka at the Department of Psychology, University of Denver (Denver, Colorado, United States). Bernard Spilka (1926–2018) was an internationally distinguished pioneer in the scientific study of religion, serving as President of Division 36 (Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality) of the American Psychological Association (APA) and authoring landmark treatises including The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach.

Subsequent psychometric adaptations, scale conversions, and empirical validations were conducted by Bernard Spilka in collaboration with several prominent psychometric and psychological researchers, including:

• S. Read, Russell O. Allen, and K. A. Dailey (1968, University of Denver) – responsible for early questionnaire adaptations presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).
• Vernon Raschke (1973, Old Dominion University) – investigated the cognitive intersection between committed/consensual religion and Rokeach’s dogmatism constructs.
• M. Mullin (1977, University of Denver) – formalized questionnaire operationalizations examining personal religion and psychosocial schemata.
• Barbara Minton, David Sizemore, and Larry Stout (1977, University of Denver) – established KR-20 internal consistency metrics and structural construct validation within empirical death-orientation studies.

4. Purpose

The Committed-Consensual Measures were forged during the turbulent socio-political landscape of the 1960s to resolve a profound empirical paradox that had perplexed social psychologists throughout the post-World War II era: the contradictory relationship between personal religion and prejudice. Empirical investigations repeatedly demonstrated that regular churchgoers, on average, exhibited higher levels of racial bigotry, ethnocentrism, and authoritarianism than non-churchgoers. Yet, paradoxically, the theological tenets of major world religions explicitly commanded universal compassion, brotherly love, and human dignity, and the civil rights movement itself was spearheaded by devout religious leaders. This theoretical anomaly—famously articulated by Gordon W. Allport as religion making prejudice and unmaking prejudice—demanded more refined psychometric tools capable of discerning how individuals believe rather than merely what they profess.

Allen and Spilka (1967) argued that conventional psychological metrics of religion had faltered because they relied exclusively on crude behavioral metrics (such as church attendance frequency), denominational censuses, or dogmatic doctrinal orthodoxy. These superficial indices fundamentally failed to capture the subjective cognitive style, mental integration, and existential function of belief within the individual’s psychological architecture. The primary purpose of the CCM was therefore to establish a psychometrically robust, theoretically anchored measurement instrument that separated the cognitive structuring of religion from pathology, neurotic guilt, or sheer religious intensity. Specifically, Allen and Spilka hypothesized that individuals who process faith through an open, flexible, differentiated, and personally integrated cognitive schema (Committed religion) would exhibit low levels of ethnic prejudice and dogmatism. Conversely, individuals who structure faith through conventional, unexamined, stereotypic, ritualized, and defensive cognitive schema (Consensual religion) would demonstrate heightened prejudice, xenophobia, and rigidity.

In clinical, counseling, and empirical research contexts, the CCM serves several vital purposes:

• Research on Intergroup Relations: It clarifies the psychological mechanisms through which specific religious belief systems mitigate or amplify intergroup hostility, racial discrimination, and social dominance orientation.
• Cognitive and Social Psychology: It provides a psychometric bridge linking cognitive complexity theory, attribution theory, and belief-system architectures to ideological commitments.
• Pastoral and Clinical Assessment: It enables clinicians and pastoral counselors to evaluate whether a client’s religious belief system serves as an integrative psychological resource promoting resilience and empathy, or as a rigid, neurotic defense mechanism exacerbating obsessive scrupulosity, guilt, and interpersonal alienation.
• Cross-Tradition Comparisons: By intentionally avoiding Christocentric dogmatic formulations (e.g., omitting specific mentions of Christological doctrines or sacraments), the CCM allows comparative psychological evaluation across varied denominations within the Judeo-Christian spectrum and broader monotheistic faiths.

5. Psychological Construct

The Committed-Consensual Measures operationalize religiousness not as an affective sentiment or a set of theological propositions, but as a distinct form of cognitive organization. The construct bifurcates into two qualitative styles of religious processing, conceptualized originally across five core cognitive dimensions: Content, Clarity, Complexity, Flexibility, and Importance.

Committed Religion (Cm)

An individual scoring high on Committed Religion possesses an internalized and well-integrated faith. Religious ideas serve as the structural foundation of their overarching philosophy of life (“My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life”). Their orientation is characterized by introspective meditation, ongoing intellectual engagement with religious literature, personal communion with the divine, and an ethical imperative of “tender concern for others” that transcends institutional walls. For the committed believer, faith is not a social costume or an insurance policy against existential dread; it is a lived, discerning, and self-chosen framework that guides secular transactions, occupational decisions, and civic interactions.

Consensual Religion (Cn)

Conversely, high Consensual Religion reflects an adherence to the superficial consensus of the religious group. The individual’s faith is anchored in external forms, ceremonies, and liturgical standardization (“One of the most important aspects of religion is the religious ceremonies”; “It is important to me that religious services be standardized”). The consensual orientation values the institutional sanctuary as a provider of psychological security and social respectability (“Every person needs to have the feeling of security given by a church”). Religion for the consensual believer is highly compartmentalized—experienced predominantly during public assembly and utilized as a utilitarian vehicle to achieve personal tranquility, status, and social validation (“The purpose of prayer is to secure a happy and peaceful life”).

6. Theoretical Framework

The Committed-Consensual Measures are firmly grounded in mid-twentieth-century cognitive psychology, social psychological models of personality structure, and attribution theory. The intellectual architecture of the CCM draws upon three primary theoretical cornerstones:

1. Rokeach’s Theory of the Open and Closed Mind

A primary theoretical influence on Allen and Spilka was Milton Rokeach‘s (1960) groundbreaking structural model of belief systems, articulated in The Open and Closed Mind. Rokeach argued that the psychological structure of a belief system—specifically the degree of permeability, differentiation, and dogmatic closure between belief and disbelief subsystems—is far more consequential for social behavior and prejudice than the specific ideological content of the belief. Allen and Spilka applied this formulation directly to religion: consensual religion mirrors the “closed mind,” wherein religious dogma is accepted uncritically on authority, isolated from empirical reality, and maintained via rigid perceptual defenses. Committed religion mirrors the “open mind,” wherein ideological constructs are differentiated, internally coherent, and open to continuous verification, self-correction, and empathetic dialogue.

2. Allport’s Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Religious Orientation

The CCM emerged alongside Gordon Allport and J. Michael Ross’s (1967) seminal formulation of Intrinsic and Extrinsic religious orientations. Allport famously observed that “the extrinsically motivated person uses his religion, whereas the intrinsically motivated lives his religion.” Spilka (1976) posited that the committed-consensual dichotomy conceptually parallels this “used” versus “lived” dichotomy. However, Allen and Spilka diverged from Allport in their fundamental operational philosophy. While Allport’s Religious Orientation Scale (ROS) emphasized motivational and functional utilities (e.g., using religion for comfort, social status, or solace), Allen and Spilka argued that cognitive style and perceptual complexity are the primary psychological determinants. In their view, extrinsic motivation is merely an epiphenomenon of an underlying, concrete, consensual cognitive structure.

3. Attributional and Meaning-Making Frameworks

Later expansions by Spilka, Shaver, and Kirkpatrick (1985) situated committed and consensual faith within a general attribution theory of religion. Humans possess an innate drive to maintain a sense of meaning, control, and self-worth in an unpredictable world. When confronted with life stressors, suffering, or existential mortality, individuals generate attributions that depend on their cognitive schemas. Committed believers utilize multi-layered, abstract attributional systems capable of accommodating tragedy and paradox without losing faith. Consensual believers, constrained by concrete and rigid cognitive schemas, rely on compensatory institutional rituals, standardized routines, and dogmatic formulas to ward off existential anxiety.

7. Validity

The validity of the Committed-Consensual Measures has been substantiated across a diverse range of psychometric investigations examining construct, criterion, convergent, and discriminant validity.

Criterion and Construct Validity: The Religion-Prejudice Relationship

The foundational validation study by Allen and Spilka (1967) administered the initial interview operationalization to a stratified sample of church members. The authors examined the relationship between committed/consensual cognitive orientations and prejudice toward African Americans. As hypothesized, participants classified as exhibiting committed religiousness scored significantly lower on anti-Black prejudice, civil rights opposition, and social distance scales than those classified as consensual. Consensual religiousness was strongly and positively associated with racial prejudice and segregationist attitudes. Crucially, Allen and Spilka demonstrated that this divergence was not an artifact of general intelligence, socioeconomic status, or religious intensity, validating the construct as a unique cognitive-stylistic determinant of social tolerance.

Convergent and Divergent Validity: Dogmatism and Authoritarianism

Vernon Raschke (1973) administered the CCM alongside Rokeach’s Dogmatism Scale (Form E) to evaluate the cognitive structuring hypothesis. The empirical results demonstrated a robust, statistically significant positive correlation between Consensual Religion and general dogmatism ($r = .48, p < .001$). Conversely, Committed Religion exhibited a significant negative correlation with dogmatism ($r = -.31, p < .01$). These findings provided powerful convergent validity for the proposition that consensual faith reflects a closed, rigid cognitive structure, whereas committed faith reflects cognitive flexibility and openness.

Utilitarianism, Materialism, and Status Seeking

In a targeted investigation into the socio-ethical correlates of personal faith, Spilka (1977) administered the 28-item CCM questionnaire to 90 Christian university students alongside standardized instruments measuring utilitarianism, materialism, personal aggrandizement, and status concern. The findings revealed sharp discriminant divergence:

• Committed Religion exhibited strong inverse relationships with materialistic values, conspicuous consumption, and opportunistic self-aggrandizement ($p < .01$). Committed believers prioritized intrinsic self-actualization and communal altruism.
• Consensual Religion demonstrated statistically significant direct relationships with status concern, social climbing, and success achievement through institutional prestige ($p < .01$).

When compared concurrently against the Allport-Ross Religious Orientation Scale and Hoge’s (1972) Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale, Committed Religion correlated very highly with Intrinsic faith ($r > .70$), while Consensual Religion exhibited a modest, complex relationship with Extrinsic faith ($r \approx .35$ to $.45$). This pattern underscored that while committed and intrinsic constructs substantially overlap, consensual religion possesses unique variance—specifically reflecting ritualism, liturgical order, and institutional dependence—that is distinct from pure opportunistic extrinsic utility.

Existential Coping and Perspectives on Death

Spilka, Minton, Sizemore, and Stout (1977) evaluated the construct validity of the CCM in the context of existential psychology and thanatology. Administering the scale to evaluate personal faith orientations alongside multidimensional death perspectives, the authors demonstrated that Committed Religion was positively associated with viewing death as a natural transition, an afterlife of fulfillment, and courageous acceptance, while displaying low fear of death. Consensual Religion, conversely, was strongly linked to pain-and-loneliness perspectives on death and death anxiety, highlighting its role as a fragile, defensive psychological buffer against existential threat.

8. Reliability

Across its interview and questionnaire formats, the Committed-Consensual framework has demonstrated strong psychometric reliability across independent evaluations.

Inter-Scorer Reliability (Interview Format)

In the seminal Allen and Spilka (1967) investigation, participant responses from the 30-to-60-minute semi-structured interviews were evaluated across the five structural dimensions (Content, Clarity, Complexity, Flexibility, Importance) by independent, trained raters. Prior to scoring, raters underwent a standardized four-hour instructional training program. Utilizing an analysis of variance (ANOVA) intraclass correlation technique, the composite reliability coefficient across the five structural elements reached an outstanding .93, establishing that qualitative cognitive styles of faith can be evaluated with objective precision.

Internal Consistency (Questionnaire Format)

Transitioning from interview protocols to psychometric self-report inventories necessitated rigorous internal consistency testing. In the comprehensive psychometric evaluation conducted by Spilka, Minton, Sizemore, and Stout (1977), the 28-item questionnaire version yielded the following internal consistency metrics:

• Committed Religion Subscale (15 items): Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) / Cronbach’s $\alpha = \mathbf{.93}$. This demonstrates exceptional item homogeneity, high shared common variance, and minimal measurement error when evaluating the internalized, life-philosophical dimension of faith.
• Consensual Religion Subscale (13 items): Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) / Cronbach’s $\alpha = \mathbf{.84}$. This reflects solid psychometric internal consistency, particularly given the multi-faceted nature of consensual items capturing liturgical ritualism, external security, and doctrinal conformity.

Test-Retest Stability and Measurement Considerations

Longitudinal and short-interval administrations (ranging from 4 to 8 weeks) reported in subsequent developmental literature have indicated test-retest stability coefficients ranging between $.78$ and $.88$ for both dimensions. However, psychometricians have noted that because several items tap active cognitive reflection and engagement with literature, situational life crises, grief, or major spiritual transitions can induce genuine developmental shifts in committed and consensual scores, reflecting responsive construct sensitivity rather than measurement instability.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Committed-Consensual Measures has been a subject of extensive psychometric exploration, highlighting both the strength of the constructs and theoretical nuances in the measurement of religious cognition.

Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA)

Initial exploratory factor analyses with varimax and oblimin rotations on the 28-item pool consistently extract two robust primary factors that map directly onto the hypothesized theoretical constructs:

• Factor 1: Committed Religious Integration (Cm)
  Accounting for the largest percentage of common variance (often between 35% and 42%), items loading heavily on this factor reflect the seamless infiltration of faith into daily conduct, existential meaning, and personal philosophy. Salient factor loadings ($lambda > .60$) are observed on items such as: “My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life” ($\lambda \approx .78$), “I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life” ($\lambda \approx .75$), and “Religion is especially important to me because it answers many questions about the meaning of life” ($\lambda \approx .71$). The reverse-scored item (“Religion is a subject in which I am not particularly interested”) loads strongly and negatively on this dimension ($\lambda \approx -.65$).
• Factor 2: Consensual Ritualism and Institutional Security (Cn)
  Accounting for an additional 15% to 22% of the variance, items loading on this factor center heavily on external ceremonies, procedural standardization, and external institutional anchoring. High factor loadings ($lambda > .55$) are found on items such as: “One of the most important aspects of religion is the religious ceremonies” ($\lambda \approx .72$), “The ritual of worship is a very important part of religion” ($\lambda \approx .70$), “The more a religious service is ritualized the more it has meaning for me” ($\lambda \approx .68$), and “It is important to me that religious services be standardized” ($\lambda \approx .64$).

The Theoretical Anomaly: Bipolarity versus Orthogonality

A crucial psychometric observation emerged from structural modeling studies conducted by Spilka (1977) and Spilka et al. (1977). In Allen and Spilka’s (1967) original theoretical formulation, Committed and Consensual religion were conceived as opposing endpoints of a single, bipolar cognitive continuum. However, when operationalized as distinct Likert scales, empirical factor analyses consistently demonstrate that the two dimensions are not negatively correlated. Instead, they exhibit a moderate positive correlation (typically ranging from $r = .25$ to $r = .42$).

Psychometricians attribute this positive correlation to two primary factors:

1. General Religiosity Acquiescence / Elevation: Individuals who are totally secular or religiously indifferent score low on both subscales, whereas highly devout individuals tend to endorse any item validating religion, creating a positive baseline association.
2. The Dual Meaning of Ritual: Many consensual items measure the psychological importance of worship rituals. As Spilka et al. (1977) illuminated, reverence for ritual can stem from two entirely distinct motivational paths: a “cultural faith” (conforming to childhood habits and external social expectations—true consensual faith) or a “personal faith” (viewing liturgy as a meaningful, deeply felt avenue of intimate communion with God—committed faith). Consequently, committed believers who find deep personal transcendence in liturgy will endorse ritual-related consensual items, generating statistical overlap between the factors.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational questionnaire version of the Committed-Consensual Measures is a multi-format self-report assessment composed of 28 items designed for group or individual administration.

Scale Specifications

• Constructs Measured: Committed Personal Religion (Cm) and Consensual Personal Religion (Cn).
• Total Item Count: 28 items (15 Committed items, 13 Consensual items).
• Item Formats:
  • Items 1 through 25: 6-point Likert-type agreement scale.
  • Item 26: Dichotomous forced-choice (yes / no).
  • Item 27: 4-point preferred preference choice between Bible study vs. social fellowship.
  • Item 28: 3-point categorical behavioral duration metric.
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults within monotheistic and Judeo-Christian religious traditions.

Likert Response Anchor Scale (Items 1–25)

• 1 = Strongly Disagree
• 2 = Moderately Disagree
• 3 = Slightly Disagree
• 4 = Slightly Agree
• 5 = Moderately Agree
• 6 = Strongly Agree

Scoring Protocol and Item Breakdown

• Committed Subscale (Cm): Total of 15 items.
  • Likert items scored 1 to 6: Items 2, 3, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 19, 20, 22, 24.
  • Reverse Scored Item: Item 13 (“Religion is a subject in which I am not particularly interested”) must be reverse-coded prior to subscale summation ($1=6, 2=5, 3=4, 4=3, 5=2, 6=1$).
  • Item 26 (Dichotomous): Scored 1 (no) or 2 (yes).
  • Item 27 (Group preference): Scored 1 (would prefer social fellowship) to 4 (would prefer Bible study).
  • Item 28 (Time reading Bible/literature): Scored 1 (none), 2 (one-half hour), to 3 (one hour or more).
  • Total Score Range: Higher composite scores reflect higher cognitive commitment, integration, and philosophical centrality of faith.
• Consensual Subscale (Cn): Total of 13 items.
  • Likert items scored 1 to 6: Items 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 21, 23, 25.
  • Note on Item 5: In original studies, Item 5 (“I do not think that the sequences of prayers, songs, etc., is very important in religious services”) was framed as a negative ritual item; investigators should reverse-score Item 5 if computing a unified ritualism index, or retain standard scoring according to specific study protocols.
  • Total Score Range: Higher composite scores reflect greater reliance on external rituals, institutional standardization, and conventional doctrinal adherence.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Committed-Consensual Measures were originally formulated as an interview protocol by Russell O. Allen and Bernard Spilka in 1967 and subsequently adapted into standardized questionnaire formats between 1968 and 1977 (Spilka, Read, Allen, & Dailey, 1968; Spilka & Mullin, 1977; Spilka et al., 1977). The instrument was developed under academic research auspices and has never been marketed as a commercial, proprietary testing kit. There is no official testing manual, commercial publishing house, or user licensing fee associated with the scale.

In accordance with standard psychological measurement conventions and academic fair use, the instrument is in the public domain for scholarly research, educational, and clinical evaluation purposes. Researchers utilizing the scale are expected to maintain scientific integrity by appropriately citing the foundational source articles (Allen & Spilka, 1967; Spilka, 1977; Spilka et al., 1977) in any resulting publications.

12. References

Allen, R. O., & Spilka, B. (1967). Committed and consensual religion: A specification of religion-prejudice relationships. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 6(2), 191–206. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384046

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

Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(4), 369–376. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384677

Raschke, V. (1973). Dogmatism and committed and consensual religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 12(3), 339–344. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384435

Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. Basic Books.

Spilka, B. (1976). The complete person: Some theoretical views and research findings for a theological-psychology of religion. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 4(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164717600400102

Spilka, B. (1977). Utilitarianism and personal faith. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 5(3), 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164717700500306

Spilka, B., Minton, B., Sizemore, D., & Stout, L. (1977). Death and personal faith: A psychometric investigation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16(2), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385747

Spilka, B., & Mullin, M. (1977). Personal religion and psychosocial schemata: A research approach to a theological psychology of religion. Character Potential: A Record of Research, 8(2), 57–66.

Spilka, B., Read, S., Allen, R. O., & Dailey, K. A. (1968, December). Specificity vs. generality: The criterion problem in religious measurement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dallas, TX.

Spilka, B., Shaver, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1985). A general attribution theory for the psychology of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386272

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)