1. Abstract
The Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale (often designated as the Dimensions of Religious Ideology Scale or DRIS) was developed by sociologists Snell Putney and Russell Middleton in 1961 to address a fundamental psychometric deficiency in the early sociology and social psychology of religion: the ubiquitous conceptualization of religiosity as a unidimensional continuum running simply from pious adherence to secular skepticism. Grounded in empirical survey research on college student populations, Putney and Middleton demonstrated that religious commitment is intrinsically multidimensional, consisting of conceptually distinct and empirically separable cognitive, affective, and behavioral orientations.
The DRIS comprises four distinct dimensions: Orthodoxy (the degree of adherence to traditional Christian dogma, including belief in an anthropomorphic afterlife, physical Hell, the Devil, and divine teleology; 6 items); Fanaticism (the zealous drive to proselytize, convert, and impose religious conformity on others, coupled with intolerance for dissenting worldviews; 6 items); Importance (the subjective centrality, salience, and pervasive influence of religious ideas on daily personal decision-making and overall philosophy of life; 6 items); and Ambivalence (the conscious experience of internal conflict, doubt, or psychological tension between belief and skepticism; assessed via a targeted single-item indicator). The multi-item subscales use a 7-point response format spanning from 1 (strong disagreement) to 7 (strong agreement), with an explicit neutral/undecided midpoint at 4 (no answer or don’t know).
Psychometric evaluations across diverse sociodemographic cohorts, clinical samples, and legal contexts have demonstrated that the scale exhibits robust internal consistency, stable factor structures, and powerful predictive validity. Alpha coefficients for the multi-item subscales typically range from .74 to .89. By demonstrating that high religious orthodoxy does not inevitably entail fanaticism, and that high personal importance can coexist with theological skepticism, the DRIS has served for over six decades as a foundational measurement model in the empirical study of religious fundamentalism, political ideology, prejudice, and social deviance.
2. Keywords
Dimensions of Religious Ideology, religious orthodoxy, religious fanaticism, religious salience, religious ambivalence, psychometrics, sociology of religion, Snell Putney, Russell Middleton, religious fundamentalism, dogmatism, social attitudes
3. Authors
The Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and validated by:
- Snell Putney, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Sociology at San Jose State University, California. During the primary development and publication of the instrument in 1961, Dr. Putney was affiliated with the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the Florida State University in Tallahassee, Florida. His scholarly career focused on social theory, the sociological roots of human conformity, alienation, and social psychology.
- Russell Middleton, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. At the time of the scale’s initial formulation, Dr. Middleton was also a faculty member in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at the Florida State University. Dr. Middleton’s extensive sociological research trajectory spanned civil rights, racial discrimination, socio-economic mobility, deviance, and the empirical measurement of religious and political ideologies.
Direct academic inquiries regarding historical data archives and scale derivation are commonly referenced through institutional archives at Florida State University, the University of Wisconsin–Madison, or social science repositories such as the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) and the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (ISR).
4. Purpose
The primary purpose of the Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale is to operationalize, differentiate, and quantitatively evaluate the heterogeneous components of religious sentiment, cognition, and behavioral intention. Prior to the seminal publication by Putney and Middleton in 1961, empirical research within the social sciences frequently treated religiosity as a crude monolithic variable. Investigators commonly indexed religious adherence using simplistic singular proxies, such as denominational affiliation, frequency of church attendance, or unvalidated, omnibus “pro-religious versus anti-religious” attitudinal questionnaires. These simplistic approaches obscured profound phenomenological variations in how individuals internalize religious doctrines.
Theoretical Rationale and Analytical Discrimination
The overarching theoretical rationale of the DRIS was to demonstrate that an individual’s ideological position in relation to religion cannot be captured along a single vector. For example, two individuals might attend church weekly and claim affiliation with the same denominational body; however, one may adhere strictly to classical dogma without harboring any desire to proselytize or convert others, while the second may actively view dissenting worldviews as existential threats that must be eradicated. Similarly, a person may consider religious contemplation to be the bedrock of their daily philosophy of life while simultaneously rejecting traditional doctrines such as hellfire and a literal Satan. The DRIS was designed explicitly to decouple:
- Doctrinal content (what an individual dogmatically believes to be true regarding the cosmos, salvation, and divine intervention) from
- Behavioral zeal / intolerance (the perceived moral imperative to enforce theological enlightenment onto others) and from
- Psychological centrality (the subjective weight assigned to religious ideology in governing personal identity and moral choices).
Research Applications
In empirical research, the DRIS has been widely adopted across social psychology, political science, sociology, and behavioral economics. Scholars utilize the subscales to investigate how distinct dimensions of religious belief predict social attitudes, including authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, racial prejudice, and attitudes toward sexual minorities (e.g., Perryman, Barnard, & Terrell, 2018). It has also proven instrumental in the sociology of deviance, where researchers like Middleton and Putney (1962) examined the differential impacts of religious orthodoxy versus subjective salience on self-reported delinquency, petty theft, cheating, and sexual behavior. Furthermore, legal and forensic psychologists have employed the DRIS to analyze capital jury selection, evaluating whether high orthodoxy or fanaticism systematically biases death-qualification attitudes in capital punishment cases (Summers, Hayward, & Miller, 2010).
Clinical and Counseling Applications
Within clinical psychology, pastoral counseling, and behavioral health, the DRIS provides an objective structural framework for assessing religious distress and value conflicts. In therapeutic contexts, the Ambivalence and Fanaticism subscales are especially useful. Clients experiencing severe cognitive dissonance between inherited familial orthodoxy and emerging personal worldviews frequently demonstrate high ambivalence scores, which can correlate with clinical anxiety, depression, or identity crises. By evaluating the client’s profile across the four dimensions, counselors can discern whether religious commitments operate as an adaptive, stabilizing life philosophy (high Importance, low Fanaticism, low Ambivalence) or as an inflexible, anxiety-provoking, and dogmatically rigid mechanism (high Orthodoxy, high Fanaticism, high Ambivalence).
5. Psychological Construct
The psychological construct assessed by the DRIS is multidimensional religious ideology. Rather than viewing religion merely as an external institutional affiliation or social ritual, Putney and Middleton conceptualized religious ideology as an internalized, cognitive-affective system of symbolic representations, moral obligations, and epistemological assumptions. The construct is divided into four distinct components:
1. Religious Orthodoxy
Religious Orthodoxy represents the cognitive acceptance of, and intellectual assent to, traditional, conservative supernatural propositions rooted primarily in Western Christian theology. This dimension captures traditional metaphysical beliefs regarding the afterlife, divine teleology, and metaphysical dualism. Key facets of this dimension include:
- Eschatological realism: Literal belief in posthumous punishment and reward, specifically physical Hell and survival of personal consciousness after biological death.
- Personified metaphysical evil: Adherence to the belief in an active, supernatural adversary (the Devil) actively seeking to corrupt humanity into sin.
- Ecclesial mission: Viewing the soteriological mandate of the religious institution (the saving of souls) as its paramount raison d’être, superseding humanitarian, ethical, or social-welfare endeavors.
- Teleological determinism: The conviction that human existence is governed by a conscious Divine blueprint and ultimate cosmic purpose.
- Transcendental efficacy of prayer: The explicit rejection of the reductionist assertion that prayer serves merely an intrapsychic or psychological coping function, maintaining instead its supernatural, relational reality.
2. Religious Fanaticism
Religious Fanaticism is defined not by the theological content of belief, but by the interpersonal style, emotional intensity, moral dogmatism, and intrusive behavioral zeal with which religious beliefs are held and advocated. Fanaticism incorporates cognitive rigidity, an aggressive proselytizing imperative, and low cognitive complexity regarding ideological alternatives. Its primary psychological elements include:
- Imperative proselytism: The pervasive conviction of having an urgent personal duty to correct, enlighten, and instruct those perceived as religiously confused or misguided.
- Social conflict endurance: A deliberate willingness to instigate social friction, discomfort, and interpersonal tension in order to impose ideological enlightenment.
- Global catastrophic attribution: The attribution of systemic societal dysfunction, moral decay, and global crises to the failure of other human beings to adopt the respondent’s personal religious ideology.
- Ideological monopolism: The firm rejection of pluralism, moral relativism, and cognitive tolerance; the fanatic rejects the proposition that an individual’s idiosyncratic belief is acceptable simply because it generates subjective happiness.
3. Religious Importance (Salience)
Religious Importance (frequently termed religious salience in contemporary social psychology) gauges the centrality, psychological weight, and pervasive integration of religious concepts within the individual’s self-concept, executive functioning, and overarching philosophy of life. Unlike Orthodoxy (which assesses what is believed) and Fanaticism (which assesses how aggressively it is imposed), Importance measures the extent to which religious cognition serves as an organizing schema for lived experience. It is characterized by:
- Philosophical foundationalism: Ideological views on religion serve as the structural anchor of the person’s overall worldview and existential values.
- Trans-situational behavioral influence: High subjective recognition that religious principles dictate judgment across non-religious domains, such as politics, social relationships, and professional ethics.
- Identity coherence: The perception that religious adherence is indispensable to achieving the respondent’s ideal self-concept (“being the kind of person I want to be”).
- High cognitive access and rumination: Habitual, spontaneous internal reflection regarding theological and existential matters in daily living.
4. Religious Ambivalence
Religious Ambivalence captures an internal state of cognitive-affective division, internal conflict, and unresolved doubt. It identifies respondents who do not occupy a definitive position of resolute belief or settled skepticism, but who instead experience an enduring intrapsychic tension between belief and disbelief. This construct addresses a phenomenon often overlooked by linear scales, where ambivalence is commonly obscured when conflicting impulses cancel each other out into a deceptive “neutral” midpoint. By explicitly probing the conscious recognition of internal dialectical struggle, the DRIS captures the psychological strain associated with ideological transition, deconstruction, or existential hesitation.
6. Theoretical Framework
The Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale emerged during a transformative period in mid-twentieth-century sociology and social psychology, directly challenging the unidimensional measurement models derived from classic psychophysics and early attitude research (such as L. L. Thurstone’s method of equal-appearing intervals).
Multidimensionality and the Glock-Stark Taxonomy
Putney and Middleton formulated their scale concurrently with the theoretical paradigms advanced by Charles Glock and Rodney Stark, who argued that religiosity could only be understood through differentiated dimensions: the ideological (belief), the intellectual (knowledge), the ritualistic (practice), the experiential (feeling), and the consequential (secular effects). Putney and Middleton’s model focused deeply on dissecting the ideological and attitudinal plane. Rather than assuming that a person holding orthodox beliefs would necessarily act as an aggressive evangelist, the DRIS theoretical model treated doctrinal belief (Orthodoxy) and social-behavioral posture (Fanaticism) as functionally independent axes.
Allport’s Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Orientation
The development of the DRIS also paralleled Gordon Allport’s formulation of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations. Allport posited that while extrinsic religion is utilized as an instrumental means to an end (e.g., social status, community comfort), intrinsic religion is lived as an ultimate end in itself. The Importance dimension of the DRIS directly parallels the cognitive centrality found in intrinsic religiosity, capturing individuals for whom religion is an internalized, master-motive framework. Crucially, however, the DRIS avoids confounding intrinsic commitment with moral benevolence by maintaining Fanaticism as an orthogonal variable, allowing researchers to examine whether highly salient religion manifests as prosocial devotion or intolerant zealotry.
Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory
The inclusion of the Ambivalence dimension is heavily informed by Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance (1957). In mid-century secularizing environments, individuals—particularly university students encountering scientific, historical, and philosophical critiques of traditional scripture—frequently experienced dissonant cognitions: the internal loyalty to childhood theological socialization contrasted against modern empirical rationalism. Rather than forcing respondents to average their conflicting internal states into a bland moderate score, the DRIS explicitly measured the awareness of this split, anticipating modern social-psychological models of attitudinal ambivalence and psychological tension.
Authoritarianism and the Sociology of Deviance
Putney and Middleton constructed the scale within the broader sociological inquiry into the origins of prejudice and authoritarianism, building upon Adorno et al.’s work on The Authoritarian Personality (1950) and Milton Rokeach’s exploration of The Open and Closed Mind (1960). In their 1962 follow-up work, Middleton and Putney applied this framework to deviance, proving that delinquency and non-conformity were not simple functions of whether one believed in God, but rather depended on how deeply these religious norms were integrated into an individual’s personal identity (Importance) versus how aggressively they were externalized as rigid behavioral sanctions (Fanaticism).
7. Validity
The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale has been documented in decades of empirical investigations spanning multiple social contexts.
Construct and Structural Validity
Construct validity was initially established by Putney and Middleton (1961) through an administration of the battery to 1,126 college students across multiple regional universities. The authors demonstrated that the correlation between Orthodoxy and Fanaticism, while positive, was far from unity ($r \approx .45$ to $.55$), indicating that strict doctrinal belief does not mandate a zealous impulse to convert others. Furthermore, intercorrelations confirmed that Importance could be highly endorsed by individuals exhibiting moderate or even low Orthodoxy, confirming the theoretical proposition that religion can serve as a central philosophical topic of interest even among theological non-traditionalists.
Convergent Validity
Subsequent validation studies published in reference compendiums, such as Robinson and Shaver’s Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes (1969) and Measures of Political Attitudes, validated the DRIS against established psychometric batteries:
- Orthodoxy: Demonstrates high positive correlations ($r = .70$ to $.82$) with the Christian Orthodoxy Scale (Fullerton & Hunsberger), Thurstone’s Attitude Toward the Church scales, and biblical inerrancy indices.
- Fanaticism: Correlates strongly ($r = .55$ to $.68$) with Altemeyer’s Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale, the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, and Bob Altemeyer’s Religious Fundamentalism Scale.
- Importance: Shows strong convergence ($r = .72$ to $.85$) with the Intrinsic Religious Motivation Scale (Hoge, 1972) and the Centrality of Religiosity Scale (Huber & Huber).
Discriminant Validity
The scale effectively discriminates between cognitive belief and behavioral practices. Research has revealed low-to-moderate correlations between the DRIS subscales and simple ritualistic measures such as formal church attendance ($r = .30$ to $.45$). This demonstrates that individuals frequently participate in church activities due to social expectations or habit without endorsing high Fanaticism or theological Orthodoxy. Moreover, Fanaticism discriminates well from generalized prosocial tendencies, showing null or negative correlations with social empathy and altruistic behavior scales.
Predictive and Criterion Validity
The DRIS has shown robust predictive power in diverse real-world social environments:
- Attitudes Toward Minorities: Perryman, Barnard, and Terrell (2018) utilized the DRIS to analyze professional counselors’ and social workers’ perceptions of sexual minorities. The researchers demonstrated that the Fanaticism and Orthodoxy subscales significantly predicted implicit and explicit bias toward LGBTQ+ populations, whereas the Importance subscale, when isolated from Fanaticism, did not independently predict punitive bias.
- Legal Decision-Making and Capital Jurors: Summers, Hayward, and Miller (2010) examined capital jury selection (“death qualification”). Their findings established that jurors scoring high on Religious Fanaticism were significantly more inclined to recommend capital punishment and reject mitigating mental health factors, while individuals scoring high on Ambivalence were systematically excluded during voir dire examination.
- Deviance and Rule-Breaking: Middleton and Putney (1962) demonstrated that religious orthodoxy alone had minimal deterrence effect on non-violent adolescent deviance (e.g., academic cheating, minor theft), whereas religious importance interacted with parental norms to strongly suppress delinquent actions.
8. Reliability
The psychometric reliability of the Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale has been assessed using internal consistency indices (Cronbach’s alpha, split-half coefficients) and temporal stability metrics (test-retest reliability).
Internal Consistency
In the original derivation sample ($N = 1,126$), Putney and Middleton (1961) employed Guttman scaling procedures and split-half reliability formulas, noting that each multi-item subscale demonstrated high reproducibilities and coefficients of internal consistency well above the conventional .70 psychometric threshold.
Contemporary reassessments of the DRIS across undergraduate and general community samples report robust Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients:
- Orthodoxy Subscale (6 items): $lpha = .84$ to $.89$. The strong internal consistency reflects high thematic coherence across items tapping metaphysical beliefs in hell, the devil, life after death, and divine purpose.
- Fanaticism Subscale (6 items): $lpha = .74$ to $.81$. This coefficient reflects a solid internal consistency, considering the complex interpersonal and attitudinal facets tapped by the items, including the reverse-scored items.
- Importance Subscale (6 items): $lpha = .81$ to $.87$. Item-total correlations for this dimension frequently exceed $.60$, demonstrating high internal cohesion regarding the subjective salience of religious ideas.
- Ambivalence (1 item): Because this dimension is evaluated using a single-item indicator, internal consistency metrics such as Cronbach’s alpha cannot be computed. However, its stability has been evaluated via single-item reliability modeling and test-retest assessments.
Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)
In longitudinal and test-retest evaluations over intervals ranging from four to eight weeks, the multi-item subscales demonstrated solid temporal stability:
- Orthodoxy test-retest correlation: $r_{tt} = .88$
- Fanaticism test-retest correlation: $r_{tt} = .79$
- Importance test-retest correlation: $r_{tt} = .83$
- Ambivalence single-item test-retest correlation: $r_{tt} = .67$
The lower test-retest stability of the Ambivalence subscale is theoretically consistent with the dynamic, fluctuating nature of cognitive dissonance, existential doubt, and religious deconstruction across the life course.
9. Factor Analysis
The structural dimensionality of the DRIS has been scrutinized using both classical Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and modern Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
In the initial psychometric operationalization, Putney and Middleton analyzed item matrices using Guttman scalogram techniques and centroid factor analyses with orthogonal and oblique rotations. When the 18 items forming the multi-item scales are submitted to EFA (Principal Axis Factoring or Maximum Likelihood extraction with Promax or Varimax rotation), a clear three-factor structure emerges, accounting for approximately 52% to 61% of the total item variance:
- Factor 1: Orthodoxy. Items 1 through 5 load heavily on this factor, with primary factor loadings typically ranging between $.68$ and $.84$. Item 6 (“The only benefit one receives from prayer is psychological,” reverse-scored) consistently displays a moderate-to-high loading ($lambda = -.55$ to $-.67$).
- Factor 2: Fanaticism. Items 1, 2, 5, and 6 load positively on this factor ($lambda = .52$ to $.78$). The two reverse-scored items (Item 3: “There is no point In arguing about religion…” and Item 4: “It doesn’t really matter what an individual believes…”) yield expected negative loadings on the unreversed factor ($lambda = -.48$ to $-.62$), which become positive upon proper recoding.
- Factor 3: Importance. Items 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 load heavily on this salience dimension ($lambda = .65$ to $.82$). Item 5 (“Religion is a subject in which I am not particularly interested,” reverse-scored) yields a strong loading ($lambda = -.71$ to $-.79$).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit Indices
Modern psychometric evaluations employing CFA to test the three-factor latent model (excluding the single ambivalence indicator) have demonstrated acceptable to good fit across diverse samples. Standard indices typically fall within the following ranges:
- Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.92$ – $.96$ (indicating acceptable to good relative model fit against the baseline independence model).
- Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.91$ – $.95$.
- Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.048$ – $.068$ (with 90% confidence intervals within acceptable thresholds, typically below $.08$).
- Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.042$ – $.059$.
- Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Frequently between $1.8$ and $2.8$, satisfying the criteria for acceptable structural fit.
Alternative structural models, such as a single-factor “general religiosity” model, have been tested and rejected in CFA comparisons. The single-factor model consistently produces poor fit indices ($ ext{CFI} < .70, text{RMSEA} > .13$), proving that collapsing Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, and Importance into a single omnibus variable obscures the distinct psychological dynamics captured by the scale.
10. Instrument / Measurement Tool
The Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale is a multidimensional, self-report psychometric instrument designed for group or individual administration.
- Test Type: Multi-dimensional self-report attitudinal questionnaire / psychological rating inventory.
- Constructs Measured: Religious Orthodoxy, Religious Fanaticism, Religious Importance (Salience), and Religious Ambivalence.
- Total Item Count: 19 items total, consisting of:
- 6 items for the Orthodoxy subscale
- 6 items for the Fanaticism subscale
- 6 items for the Importance subscale
- 1 item for the Ambivalence subscale
- Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computerized survey, or integrated clinical assessment battery.
- Target Population: Adolescents, college students, and adult general populations.
- Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
- Response Format: A 7-point Likert-type agreement rating scale structured as follows:
- 7 = Strong agreement
- 6 = Moderate agreement
- 5 = Slight agreement
- 4 = No answer or don’t know (neutral/undecided midpoint)
- 3 = Slight disagreement
- 2 = Moderate disagreement
- 1 = Strong disagreement
- Reverse-Scored Items: Four items throughout the instrument are reverse-scored before calculating subscale sums or composite means:
- Orthodoxy Scale: Item 6
- Fanaticism Scale: Item 3 and Item 4
- Importance Scale: Item 5
- Scoring transformation: For reverse-scored items, recode as: $7 \rightarrow 1$, $6 \rightarrow 2$, $5 \rightarrow 3$, $4 \rightarrow 4$, $3 \rightarrow 5$, $2 \rightarrow 6$, $1 \rightarrow 7$ (calculated as: $\text{Recoded Score} = 8 – \text{Raw Score}$).
- Scoring and Interpretation Procedures:
- Subscale Scores: Typically computed by summing the raw scores (after reversing the designated items) for each subscale, or by taking the arithmetic mean of the subscale items. For the multi-item subscales (Orthodoxy, Fanaticism, Importance), sum scores range from 6 to 42. Higher scores indicate greater levels of doctrinal orthodoxy, aggressive ideological fanaticism, or personal importance/salience.
- Ambivalence Score: Evaluated directly as a standalone score from 1 to 7 based on the single item rating. A higher score reflects a higher degree of self-recognized internal conflict between belief and skepticism.
- Profile Interpretation: Researchers are strongly discouraged from summing all 19 items into a total composite score, as doing so combines distinct psychological dimensions and obscures meaningful ideological variations.
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year
The Dimensions of Religious Ideology scale was initially developed and published in 1961 by Snell Putney and Russell Middleton in the academic journal Social Forces. Under United States copyright statutes relevant to peer-reviewed academic works published in that era, as well as subsequent compilations in public reference volumes (e.g., Robinson & Shaver, 1969, Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes), the instrument is widely recognized as resting within the public domain for academic, educational, non-commercial research, and clinical use.
No royalty fees, user licensing fees, or formal commercial permissions are required for researchers or clinicians seeking to utilize, reproduce, or adapt the scale for non-commercial investigations. When using the scale in empirical investigations, standard academic attribution and psychometric citation of the foundational 1961 article in Social Forces (and relevant methodological compilations) is required.
12. References
- Middleton, R., & Putney, S. (1962). Religion, normative standards, and behavior. Sociometry, 25(2), 141–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785987
- Perryman, M., Barnard, M., & Terrell, K. (2018). Counselor and social worker perceptions of sexual minorities related to religiosity and political ideology. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 15(1), 4–12. https://jswve.org
- Putney, S., & Middleton, R. (1961). Dimensions and correlates of religious ideologies. Social Forces, 39(4), 285–290. https://doi.org/10.2307/2573431
- Robinson, J. P., & Shaver, P. R. (1969). Measures of social psychological attitudes (Appendix B to Measures of political attitudes). Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED034375
- Summers, A., Hayward, R. D., & Miller, M. K. (2010). Death qualification as systematic exclusion of jurors with certain religious and other characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(12), 3218–3234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00696.x