Fundamentalism Scale-Revised

Abstract

The Fundamentalism Scale-Revised (FS-R) is a standardized psychometric self-report instrument developed to evaluate an individual’s adherence to orthodox, historic Christian fundamentalist beliefs. Originally derived by psychometrician Richard L. Gorsuch and his colleagues from William E. Broen Jr.’s (1957a) 58-item Religious Attitude Inventory (RAI), the revised measure comprises 33 dichotomous (Agree/Disagree) items. The scale captures core doctrinal tenets of Christian fundamentalism, including the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible, literalist scriptural hermeneutics, the innate depravity and fallenness of humanity, the absolute necessity of substitutionary penal atonement through Jesus Christ, and the imminent reality of divine wrath, judgment, and eternal damnation. Conversely, low scores on the instrument reflect theological liberalism, modernist religious interpretative frameworks, religious universalism, and secular humanism, in which human agency, conscience, and ethical altruism are viewed as autonomous from divine intervention.

Psychometrically, the FS-R demonstrates strong face and content validity established through expert consensus panels, retaining only items with unanimous agreement regarding their alignment with fundamentalist theology. In empirical validation studies, the scale demonstrates robust internal consistency, yielding a Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20) coefficient of .76 among collegiate samples. Construct validity has been corroborated through substantial empirical correlations with Lawrence S. Wrightman’s Philosophies of Human Nature (PHN) scale, revealing that high fundamentalism scores are significantly correlated with negative views of intrinsic human goodness, diminished beliefs in human altruism, and a belief that human beings lack individual autonomy apart from transcendent divine control. Furthermore, research by Gorsuch and Smith (1983) establishes the utility of the FS-R in predicting theological attribution mechanisms, demonstrating how fundamentalist cognitive schemas govern causal attributions to God during life crises and moral dilemmas. This article provides an exhaustive psychometric, theoretical, and empirical profile of the FS-R.

Keywords

Fundamentalism Scale-Revised, Religious Fundamentalism, Richard L. Gorsuch, William E. Broen, Biblical Inerrancy, Total Depravity, Religious Attribution, Orthodoxy, Christian Modernism, Psychometrics of Religion

Authors

The Fundamentalism Scale-Revised represents an intellectual lineage connecting mid-twentieth-century factor-analytic approaches to religious attitudes with contemporary cognitive and social-psychological models of religious attribution. The principal contributors to the development and refinement of the instrument are:

• Richard L. Gorsuch, Ph.D.: Former Senior Professor of Psychology in the Graduate School of Psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, California. Dr. Gorsuch was an internationally recognized authority on the psychology of religion, psychometrics, multivariate statistics, and factor analysis. He authored foundational texts, including Factor Analysis (1983) and The Psychology of Religion (1988). Prior to his tenure at Fuller, he conducted research at Texas Christian University and Vanderbilt University.
• Craig S. Smith, Ph.D.: Clinical and research psychologist who completed his doctoral training at the Graduate School of Psychology, Fuller Theological Seminary. Dr. Smith collaborated closely with Richard Gorsuch on social-psychological studies examining religious attribution, causal locus of control, and theological determinants of human behavior.
• William E. Broen Jr., Ph.D. (Original Author): Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). In 1957, while at the University of Minnesota, Broen conducted pioneering factor-analytic investigations into the structural dimensions of religious attitudes, creating the original Religious Attitude Inventory from which the FS-R was directly derived.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Fundamentalism Scale-Revised is to provide a standardized, theoretically rigorous, and empirically sound instrument for measuring the magnitude of Christian theological fundamentalism in individual belief systems. When William E. Broen Jr. developed the parent Religious Attitude Inventory in 1957, empirical research into religious attitudes was heavily hindered by unidimensional assumptions that treated religiosity as a monolithic construct ranging simply from non-religious to deeply religious. Broen demonstrated that religious attitudes are multidimensional, isolating two primary orthogonal dimensions: a general religious affective factor termed “Nearness to God” and a distinct ideological-theological factor termed “Fundamentalism.”

Decades later, Richard L. Gorsuch and his doctoral students recognized that while Broen’s factor extraction was mathematically sophisticated, the original 58-item inventory contained redundant, dated, and psychometrically ambiguous statements. Gorsuch and his team undertook a systematic revision to produce a refined, 33-item unidimensional index that isolates theological fundamentalism without confounding it with general affective piety or devotional frequency. The primary purposes and applications of the FS-R include:

• Cognitive Schema and Attributional Analysis: In empirical social psychology, the FS-R is employed to investigate how rigid doctrinal frameworks influence social cognition, attribution theory (such as whether outcomes are attributed to personal agency, chance, demonic influence, or divine will), and moral responsibility (Gorsuch & Smith, 1983).
• Investigation of Intergroup Attitudes and Authoritarianism: The scale serves as an essential tool in testing theoretical models linking doctrinal fundamentalism to right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), ethnocentrism, prejudice toward outgroups, and resistance to progressive social change.
• Clinical and Pastoral Psychology: In clinical settings, pastoral counseling, and clinical psychology of religion, the FS-R provides diagnostic utility for assessing religious cognitive structures. It helps clinicians identify scrupulosity, guilt associated with total depravity doctrines, fear of divine retribution, and cognitive dissonance occurring when fundamentalist beliefs clash with modern psychological or medical treatments.
• Cross-denominational Comparative Research: The instrument enables researchers to map the theological variance across diverse populations, from secular university students to conservative evangelical seminarians, evaluating the effects of institutional culture on theological conservatism.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the Fundamentalism Scale-Revised is Christian Theological Fundamentalism, conceptualized not merely as intense religious devotion, but as a specific, closed, and strictly defined ideological belief system. This belief system asserts that absolute, unchanging truth has been divinely revealed and is accessible exclusively through literal interpretation of Christian scriptures. The construct operates on a theological continuum anchored by strict fundamentalist orthodoxy at the high end and modernist liberal humanism at the low end. Although evaluated via a unitary composite score, the construct encompasses five distinct, highly intercorrelated theological and cognitive facets:

1. Scriptural Inerrancy and Literalism

At the core of the fundamentalist construct is the epistemic conviction that the Christian Bible is the literal, verbally inspired, and infallible Word of God, possessing absolute authority over all spheres of human knowledge, science, morality, and history. High scorers endorse items asserting that the Scriptures must be accepted in their entirety without questioning (e.g., Item 11: “The Bible is the word of God and must be believed in its entirety”; Item 21: “No one should question the authority of the Bible”). In contrast, low scorers adopt a modernist hermeneutic, viewing biblical narratives as allegorical or historical parables rather than literal historical facts (e.g., Item 10: “The stories of miracles in the Bible are like the parables in that they have some deeper meaning or moral but are not to be taken literally”) and maintaining that scriptural texts must be subjected to continuous rational and critical scrutiny (Item 17).

2. Total Depravity and the Essential Sinfulness of Humanity

A second foundational dimension is the doctrine of anthropological fallenness or total depravity. Fundamentalist psychology posits that human nature is innately corrupted, sinful, and spiritually unclean from birth due to original sin (Item 7: “Man is born in sin”; Item 9: “Man is by nature sinful and unclean”). Under this framework, unregenerate humanity is completely incapable of moral self-perfection, communicating with God, or achieving salvation through autonomous human effort (Item 30). Low scorers reject this pessimistic anthropology, endorsing humanistic views that emphasize intrinsic human goodness, the potential for autonomous moral realization, and the presence of an inherent divine spark within humanity (e.g., Item 8: “Man”s essential nature is good”; Item 12: “Man has a spark of the divine in him which must be made to blossom more fully”).

3. Soteriological Exclusivism and Substitutionary Atonement

The construct captures strict Christological exclusivity and the penal substitutionary model of salvation. Fundamentalism maintains that Jesus Christ was fully divine and that His sacrificial crucifixion was an absolute metaphysical necessity to propitiate divine wrath and blot out human sin (Item 1: “Christ died for sinners”; Item 5: “The death of Christ on the cross was necessary to blot out man’s sin and make him acceptable in the eyes of God”). Salvation is conceptualized as occurring exclusively through unmerited grace mediated by faith in Christ, rather than human works or moral behavior (Item 3). Individuals rejecting this construct adopt an ethical, non-exclusive view of Christ, prioritizing His moral teachings and ethical role model over metaphysical divinity or sacrificial atonement (e.g., Item 31: “Christ was not divine, but his teachings and the example set by his life are invaluable”; Item 32: “The question of Christ’s divinity is unimportant; it is his teachings that matter”).

4. Divine Retributive Justice, Wrath, and Literal Eschatology

The fundamentalist schema is heavily structured around retributive justice, absolute moral accountability, and vivid eschatological consequence. God is experienced and conceptualized as a righteous, holy judge who exercises legitimate wrath against sin (Item 13: “Sin brings forth the wrath of God”; Item 16: “The wrath of God is a terrible thing”). Furthermore, high fundamentalism affirms the concrete, spatial reality of Hell, universal final judgment, and eternal damnation for unrepentant humanity (Item 2, reverse-scored; Item 18; Item 23; Item 25; Item 28). The worldview also accommodates active spiritual warfare, including belief in personal demonic forces (Item 27: “The Devil can enter a man’s body and take control”). Conversely, low scorers endorse a benevolent, non-punitive deity (Item 33) or conceptualize God pantheistically as an abstract synonym for nature or cosmic order (Item 6).

5. Separation from Worldliness vs. Autonomous Conscience and Social Action

Finally, the psychological construct involves behavioral separatism and moral absolutism. Fundamentalism demands an ascetic separation from secular culture and worldly entertainments (Item 29: “The Christian must lead a strict life, away from worldly amusements”). It repudiates individual conscience as an ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, subordinating individual autonomy to transcendent biblical authority (Item 14, reverse-scored). Modernist and liberal respondents, by contrast, view religion as a subjective search for love, truth, and aesthetic beauty (Item 24), prioritize ethical principles like the Golden Rule over rigid dogma (Item 15), evaluate doctrines purely by their pragmatic utility in improving daily life (Item 22), and view the organized church primarily as an agency for civic and community socialization (Item 20).

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical underpinning of the Fundamentalism Scale-Revised originates at the intersection of psychometric factor theory, the psychology of religious attitudes, and social-cognitive attribution theory. Historically, the instrument is anchored in the theoretical framework pioneered by William E. Broen Jr. (1957a). In the 1950s, psychologists often treated religiosity as a single continuum. Broen hypothesized that religious beliefs could be decomposed mathematically into discrete, stable latent factors. Utilizing L. L. Thurstone’s multiple-factor methods, Broen factor-analyzed responses to a wide array of religious propositions and extracted two dominant, uncorrelated dimensions:

• Factor I: Nearness to God: An affective, experiential, and devotional dimension reflecting personal closeness, prayerfulness, and mystical relationship with God.
• Factor II: Fundamentalism: A doctrinal, cognitive, and structural dimension reflecting strict acceptance of traditional orthodox Christian dogma, literalism, original sin, and fear of divine judgment.

Broen’s empirical discovery was theoretically groundbreaking: it demonstrated that a person could score exceptionally high on personal devotion and “Nearness to God” while remaining low on “Fundamentalism,” or conversely, embrace a rigid fundamentalist doctrinal system without experiencing subjective affective communion with the divine. Richard L. Gorsuch adopted this two-factor model as the baseline for his subsequent psychometric work (Broen, 1957a; Gorsuch & Smith, 1983).

The revised instrument incorporates the cognitive-schema model of religion developed by Gorsuch and his associates. Within this theoretical paradigm, fundamentalism is conceptualized as an integrated, highly resistant cognitive schema that serves as an interpretive filter for all environmental stimuli. When an individual adopts fundamentalist tenets, these dogmatic propositions function as primary premises in a deductive cognitive network. Following Fritz Heider’s, Harold Kelley’s, and Bernard Weiner’s classical models of attribution theory, Gorsuch and Smith (1983) integrated theological fundamentalism into causal attribution research.

According to Gorsuch and Smith’s theoretical model, when individuals encounter positive or negative life events (e.g., severe illness, financial prosperity, moral failure, accidental tragedy), the causal attributions they assign—whether to God, Satan, personal agency, or random chance—are strictly moderated by their theological schema. A high fundamentalist schema, which highlights divine sovereignty, retributive punishment for sin, and cosmic spiritual conflict, prompts individuals to attribute negative outcomes to divine chastisement or demonic attack, while attributing positive outcomes to unearned divine grace. Conversely, individuals operating under a liberal or humanistic schema attribute both positive and negative events to naturalistic causes, human effort, or systemic environmental factors.

The theoretical framework also interfaces directly with Gordon Allport and J. Michael Ross’s (1967) conceptualization of intrinsic versus extrinsic religious orientations, and later developments by Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger (1992) regarding the Religious Fundamentalism Scale (RFS). While Altemeyer and Hunsberger defined fundamentalism in cross-religious, process-oriented cognitive terms (i.e., the belief that one’s religion possesses the single, complete, inerrant truth that must be vigorously defended against evil forces), the Gorsuch and Smith FS-R remains intentionally content-specific. It operationalizes fundamentalism as the concrete doctrinal content of American Protestant orthodox conservatism, making it uniquely sensitive to the specific theological mechanics of Christian dogmatism.

Validity

The Fundamentalism Scale-Revised exhibits substantial psychometric validity established across several decades of empirical administration, content evaluation, and correlational analyses.

Content and Face Validity

The content validity of the FS-R was established through a structured panel review conducted by Richard L. Gorsuch and three advanced graduate researchers in the psychology of religion. The panel critically evaluated all items within the fundamentalism domain of William E. Broen’s (1957a) original 58-item Religious Attitude Inventory. Rather than relying solely on statistical item-total correlations, the panel applied a rigorous unanimity criterion: an item was retained in the revised 33-item inventory only if all four raters unanimously judged it to possess clear face validity, contemporary semantic clarity, and direct theoretical relevance to historical Christian fundamentalism. Items judged archaic, convoluted, or emotionally ambiguous were purged, maximizing the content purity of the resulting 33-item instrument.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Empirical evidence for construct validity was established in extensive validation protocols conducted by Lawrence S. Wrightman and his research associates across multiple higher education institutions, including Belmont College, Wheaton College (a prominent evangelical liberal arts institution in Illinois), and Central Michigan University. Wrightman administered Broen’s fundamentalism inventory alongside the Dimensions of the Philosophies of Human Nature (PHN) Scale (Wrightman, 1964, 1974), which evaluates core assumptions regarding human goodness, cynicism, altruism, and autonomy.

The empirical findings revealed highly significant, theoretically congruent correlations between the Fundamentalism Scale and the dimensions of human nature:

• Negative View of Human Nature: Among male students at Central Michigan University, fundamentalism scores correlated significantly with a pessimistic, cynical view of human nature (r = .32, p < .01). Individuals holding fundamentalist beliefs systematically viewed human beings as morally flawed, deceitful, and untrustworthy, precisely aligning with the theoretical construct of original sin and total depravity.
• Lack of Altruism: Fundamentalism correlated inversely with the belief that humans are innately unselfish or altruistic (r = .31, p < .01). High scorers viewed human actions as fundamentally driven by selfish, sinful motives absent divine redemption.
• Denial of Human Autonomy and Independence: Scores on the Fundamentalism Scale demonstrated a robust correlation with the view that individuals lack true personal independence and are non-autonomous agents subject to external forces (r = .36, p < .005 at Central Michigan; r = .29, p < .01 at Wheaton College).
• These patterns were replicated with comparable magnitudes across female student cohorts at both secular and Christian institutions, substantiating the cross-sample generalizability of the construct.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

Predictive and criterion-related validity was demonstrated in Gorsuch and Smith’s (1983) landmark investigation published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. The authors administered the FS-R to 164 undergraduate students enrolled across nursing, social science, and religious studies courses to examine how theological positions interact with outcome valences to generate causal attributions to God. The FS-R demonstrated powerful predictive validity: high fundamentalist scorers were significantly more likely than low scorers to attribute tragic and moral outcomes to direct divine sanction, exhibiting predictable attributional shifts dictated by their theological schemas. Furthermore, known-groups validity is evidenced by dramatic mean differences between secular collegiate populations (Texas Christian University: M = 15.34, SD = 5.12) and conservative confessionally aligned Christian colleges (M = 23.94, SD = 5.29), reflecting a massive and statistically significant divergence (t > 10.0, p < .0001) that verifies the scale’s sensitivity to theological orthodoxy.

Reliability

The internal consistency and measurement precision of the Fundamentalism Scale have been evaluated using classical test theory methodologies appropriate for dichotomous survey instruments.

Internal Consistency

Because the FS-R utilizes a binary, forced-choice response format (Agree vs. Disagree), internal consistency reliability is properly evaluated via the Kuder-Richardson Formula 20 (KR-20), the mathematical equivalent of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha for dichotomously scored items. In psychometric testing conducted by Richard L. Gorsuch at Texas Christian University (N = 50; 32 males, 18 females), the complete set of fundamentalism items derived from Broen’s inventory demonstrated a KR-20 reliability coefficient of .76. For a 33-item dichotomous attitude scale administered to a relatively homogeneous collegiate sample, a reliability coefficient of .76 reflects satisfactory to strong internal consistency, confirming that the retained items tap into a unified underlying doctrinal continuum without excessive measurement error.

Standard Error of Measurement and Score Dispersion

Across empirical administrations, the scale exhibits stable standard deviations, which ensures dependable score dispersion and discriminative capability:

• Texas Christian University Sample (Secular/Mainline Environment): N = 50; Mean = 15.34; Standard Deviation = 5.12. With an observed KR-20 of .76, the estimated Standard Error of Measurement (SEM) is approximately 2.51 score points.
• Christian College Sample (Conservative Evangelical Environment): N = 164; Mean = 23.94; Standard Deviation = 5.29 (Gorsuch & Smith, 1983). The corresponding estimated SEM is approximately 2.59 score points.

The near-identical standard deviations across widely divergent educational contexts indicate that the instrument maintains consistent measurement precision across both secular and highly orthodox Christian subcultures, without demonstrating ceiling or floor truncations.

Factor Analysis

The structural validity and dimensional architecture of the Fundamentalism Scale-Revised are grounded in the original factor-analytic investigations executed by William E. Broen Jr. (1957a, 1957b) and subsequent verification by Gorsuch and Smith.

The Original Two-Factor Extraction

Broen assembled an initial pool of 133 religious statements representing a comprehensive spectrum of Catholic, Protestant, modern, and fundamentalist perspectives. Following preliminary item refinement, Broen administered a 58-item Religious Attitude Inventory to 142 students at the University of Minnesota. The inter-item correlation matrix was subjected to Thurstone’s centroid factor analysis method, followed by orthogonal graphical rotation toward simple structure. The mathematical analysis revealed two dominant, invariant common factors accounting for the majority of common variance:

• Factor I: Nearness to God: Defined by high positive loadings on items expressing personal divine fellowship, inner peace through prayer, feelings of divine presence, and love for God. Items reflecting theological doctrine loaded minimally on this dimension.
• Factor II: Fundamentalism: Defined by heavy loadings on statements asserting total depravity, eternal punishment in Hell, divine wrath, scriptural infallibility, substitutionary atonement, and ascetic avoidance of worldly amusements. Factor II proved completely orthogonal (uncorrelated) to Factor I in the rotated matrix.

Factor Loadings and Item Selection

In Broen’s unrotated and rotated factor matrices (deposited with the American Documentation Institute, Document No. 5066; Broen, 1957b), items loading saliently on the Fundamentalism factor exhibited loadings consistently ranging from |.40| to |.78|. For example, propositions such as “Christ died for sinners,” “Man is born in sin,” and “The wrath of God is a terrible thing” exhibited primary positive loadings exceeding .60 on Factor II, while loading near zero on Factor I. Conversely, statements rejecting eternal damnation or conceptualizing Christ’s significance as merely ethical loaded negatively on Factor II.

Gorsuch’s Unidimensional Refinement

When Gorsuch and his doctoral committee reviewed Broen’s 58 items, they deliberately extracted the 33 items that loaded exclusively on Factor II (Fundamentalism) while discarding items that exhibited complex factor cross-loadings or captured general affective devotion (Factor I). By isolating items with unanimous rater consensus on construct relevance, Gorsuch established the FS-R as an essentially unidimensional scale. The retained items consist of 20 direct fundamentalist statements (keyed “Agree”) and 13 modernist/liberal theological statements (keyed “Disagree”), providing balanced dimensional coverage and counteracting acquiescence response bias.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Fundamentalism Scale-Revised is a brief, objective self-report questionnaire designed for paper-and-pencil or computerized administration. Below is a structured summary of its technical characteristics, administration parameters, and scoring protocols:

• Instrument Type: Standardized self-report attitude questionnaire / psychological scale.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically collegiate age and older). While the scale explicitly utilizes Christian theological terminology and constructs, it is psychometrically suitable for administration to secular, agnostic, non-affiliated, and religious populations.
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration; self-administered via paper, survey software, or clinical intake portals.
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes.
• Item Count: 33 items.
• Response Format: Forced-choice dichotomous response format consisting of two options:
  • A = Agree
  • D = Disagree
• Special Administration Instructions: The scale includes an explicit cognitive instruction addressing individuals who hold non-theistic, agnostic, or atheistic worldviews. Because non-believers might encounter cognitive ambiguity when evaluating propositions such as “Sin brings forth the wrath of God” (where disagreeing could theoretically be misinterpreted as asserting that sin exists but God does not punish it), respondents are explicitly instructed: “If you do not believe in the existence of a God, show your disagreement with the concept by circling the disagree when you come to such a statement.”
• Scoring Protocol:
  • Each item is scored either 0 or 1.
  • Directly Scored Items (Fundamentalist Orientation): Endorsing Agree (A) yields 1 point; endorsing Disagree (D) yields 0 points. There are 20 direct items: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30.
  • Reverse-Scored Items (Liberal / Humanist Orientation): These items are denoted with an asterisk (*). For these items, endorsing Disagree (D) yields 1 point; endorsing Agree (A) yields 0 points. There are 13 reverse-scored items: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 22, 24, 31, 32, 33.
• Total Score Range: 0 to 33. Higher total scores denote greater adherence to strict Christian theological fundamentalism, biblical inerrancy, and divine retribution, whereas lower total scores denote a liberal, modernist, humanistic, or secular orientation toward religion and human nature.
• Normative Reference Values:
  • Secular / Mainline University Cohort: Mean = 15.34 (SD = 5.12).
  • Conservative Christian College Cohort: Mean = 23.94 (SD = 5.29).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Fundamentalism Scale-Revised was developed through academic research conducted by Richard L. Gorsuch and Craig S. Smith, with primary empirical publication occurring in 1983 in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Gorsuch & Smith, 1983). The parent instrument was published by William E. Broen Jr. in 1957.

The instrument is considered an open academic measurement tool accessible for non-commercial scholarly research, psychological investigation, and educational use without licensing fees. The scale items, scoring directions, and administration guidelines were placed in the public scientific domain through scholarly publication and archival documentation (American Documentation Institute, Document No. 5066; Broen, 1957b). Researchers and clinicians wishing to employ the scale in published empirical investigations are expected to maintain academic fair use by formally citing the primary works of Broen (1957a) and Gorsuch and Smith (1983). Commercial distribution or inclusion in proprietary software systems requires permission from the copyright holders of the original journals and sponsoring academic associations.

References

• Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212
• Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5
• Broen, W. E., Jr. (1957a). A factor-analytic study of religious attitudes. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54(2), 176–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047514
• Broen, W. E., Jr. (1957b). Religious Attitude Inventory: The original correlation matrix, the unrotated factor matrix, and the Religious Attitude Inventory with keys for scoring (Document No. 5066). American Documentation Institute: Auxiliary Publications Project, Photoduplication Service. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress.
• Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39(1), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.39.020188.001221
• Gorsuch, R. L., & Smith, C. S. (1983). Attributions of responsibility to God: An interaction of religious beliefs and outcomes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22(4), 340–352. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385771
• Hood, R. W., Jr., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. (1996). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Lee, R. R. (1965). Theological belief as a dimension of personality (Doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 26(06), 3510.
• Smith, C. S. (1983). Sanctioning and causal attributions to God: A function of theological position and actors’ characteristics (Doctoral dissertation, Fuller Theological Seminary, Professional School of Psychology). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44(06B), 2016.
• Wrightman, L. S. (1964). Measurement of philosophies of human nature. Psychological Reports, 14(3), 743–751. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1964.14.3.743
• Wrightman, L. S. (1974). Assumptions about human nature: A social-psychological approach. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Items of the Scale