Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept

Abstract

The Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept is an assessment instrument designed to evaluate individual differences in mental representations of the divine through a non-linguistic, pictorial modality. Grounded in the cognitive developmental tradition of Jean Piaget and extended into religious cognition by scholars such as Ronald Goldman and Ernest Harms, the measure evaluates how an individual’s conceptualization of God corresponds to cognitive developmental stages: preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational thought. Developed across two primary iterations—a 21-item stimulus set in 1990 and a refined 15-item standardized set in 1994 by Rodney L. Bassett and colleagues—the instrument employs black-and-white ink drawings printed on 5-by-7-inch cards depicting both realistic representations (e.g., a bearded patriarch, Jesus interacting with children) and abstract symbolic motifs (e.g., a cross combined with flames and a dove). Participants engage in an unconstrained selection task, identifying visual depictions that align with their internal understanding of God. Psychometric evaluations reveal that while the measure discriminates between formal operational thinkers and earlier developmental levels, it exhibits notable structural limitations, including a visual realism bias and modest discriminative power between preoperational and concrete operational operationalizations. Despite these constraints, the tool represents a foundational methodology within the psychology of religion, offering an assessment alternative for pediatric populations, individuals with communicative or intellectual disabilities, and cross-cultural contexts where verbal self-report instruments introduce construct-irrelevant variance.

Keywords

Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept, God concept, cognitive development, Jean Piaget, Ronald Goldman, psychology of religion, preoperational thought, concrete operational thought, formal operational thought, religious cognition, nonverbal assessment

Authors

The Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept was developed through collaborative empirical investigations directed by Rodney L. Bassett, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at Roberts Wesleyan University (formerly Roberts Wesleyan College), Rochester, New York.

• 1990 Development Team: Rodney L. Bassett, S. Miller, K. Anstey, K. Crafts, J. Harmon, Y. Lee, J. Parks, M. Robinson, H. Smid, W. Sterner, C. Stevens, B. Wheeler, and D. H. Stevenson (Roberts Wesleyan College).
• 1994 Revision Team: Rodney L. Bassett, K. Perry, R. Repass, E. Silver, and T. Welch (Roberts Wesleyan College).
• Correspondence & Archive: Rodney L. Bassett, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Roberts Wesleyan University, 2301 Westside Drive, Rochester, New York 14624.

Purpose

The primary objective of the Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept is to provide a psychometric method capable of detecting cognitive developmental gradations in God concepts without relying on verbal fluency, lexical comprehension, or semantic sophistication. Historically, empirical research in the psychology of religion has depended heavily on linguistic self-reports, such as semantic differential batteries, Likert-type attitude inventories, and open-ended theological interviews. Although effective for articulate adults, these verbal protocols introduce significant construct-irrelevant difficulty when administered to young children, individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders, persons with speech or language impairments, and participants from disparate linguistic or cultural backgrounds.

The instrument was designed to address three primary theoretical and practical imperatives:

• Mitigating Verbal Method Bias: Much of human religious experience, affect, and mental representation is imagistic, affective, and iconic rather than discursive. A nonverbal visual modality allows researchers to capture implicit or pre-reflective mental models that cannot be easily articulated through complex syntax.
• Developmental Differentiation: Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of Piaget, Goldman, and Harms, the scale operationalizes how cognitive structural shifts—from centration and perceptual egocentrism to operational reversibility, conservation, and ultimately hypothetical-deductive abstraction—influence how individuals visually identify the divine.
• Clinical and Specialized Assessment: The instrument provides an assessment pathway for clinical and special education populations. For instance, Bassett et al. (1994) applied the instrument to assess theological perceptions among persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities, establishing a non-stigmatizing, low-cognitive-load method for evaluating subjective religious perspectives.

Psychological Construct

The central psychological construct operationalized by this scale is the God-concept, specifically defined as the cognitive mental representation of the divine, distinct from the more affective or relational God-image. While the God-image typically reflects emotional attachment dynamics and relational schemas, the God-concept reflects the structural, intellectual, and semantic characteristics of an individual’s theological schema. In the Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept, this schema is categorized into three stages corresponding to Jean Piaget’s cognitive development framework.

1. Preoperational God-Concept

The preoperational stage, typical of children aged 4 to 7 years, is characterized by perceptual centration (focusing on a single striking visual or physical attribute), transductive reasoning (linking specific instances without logical causality), and egocentric spatial-temporal framing. In the theological domain, the preoperational God-concept is predominantly anthropomorphic, physicalistic, and immediate. The individual perceives God in concrete physical terms: a large human figure, an authority defined primarily by physical size, spatial elevation (living in the physical sky or clouds), or vivid perceptual emblems. Drawings representative of this stage emphasize physical features (e.g., an elderly man with a long beard) or simplistic, literal manifestations. Preoperational thinkers select these images because their mental representations are tied to immediate perceptual experiences rather than metaphorical abstractions.

2. Concrete Operational God-Concept

The concrete operational stage, typically observed between ages 7 and 11, involves operational structures that allow for mental reversibility, conservation of physical quantities (volume, mass, number), and hierarchical classification (class inclusion). However, these operations remain tied to observable reality. In this developmental period, the God-concept shifts from crude physicalism toward institutional, historical, relational, and narrative representations. God is conceptualized as an active agent embedded in historical narratives, personal relationships, or benevolent social roles (e.g., Jesus interacting warmly with children, a protector performing miracles). While concrete thinkers recognize that God cannot be fully captured by physical size alone, their understanding remains grounded in tangible interactions, ethical reciprocity, and realistic human archetypes rather than purely transcendent metaphysics.

3. Formal Operational God-Concept

Formal operational thought, generally emerging around age 12 and extending into adulthood, is defined by hypothetico-deductive reasoning, systematic propositional logic, and the capacity for abstract thought. In theological cognition, this transition enables the individual to separate physical representations from divine essence. God is conceptualized as transcendent, omnipresent, infinite, and non-corporeal. At this stage, concrete depictions of the divine are often recognized as inadequate or anthropomorphic; consequently, formal thinkers show a strong preference for complex symbolic motifs (e.g., an empty cross, triune flames, a descending dove, or geometric/cosmic metaphors) that point beyond their literal components toward multivalent theological meanings.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept rests at the intersection of developmental psychology, iconic semiotics, and empirical theology. Three primary theoretical paradigms inform the scale’s design.

Piagetian Cognitive Developmentalism and Religious Thinking

The instrument directly operationalizes Jean Piaget’s stage theory of cognitive growth (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). In the 1960s, British educationalist Ronald Goldman extended Piaget’s framework into the psychology of religion in his seminal works Religious Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence (1964) and Readiness for Religion (1965). Goldman argued that religious thinking does not develop autonomously from general cognition; rather, children apply the same domain-general operational tools to biblical narratives and theological concepts as they do to physical phenomena. Just as a child cannot master the conservation of volume prior to concrete operational structures, a child cannot interpret religious parables, metaphors, or metaphysical doctrines without formal operational abstraction. Goldman posited that prior to formal operations, children’s theological concepts are dominated by “crude anthropomorphisms” and logical distortions. The Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept was conceived as a non-linguistic test of this developmental continuity.

Graphic Representation and Iconic Development

The instrument also integrates the work of Ernest Harms (1944), who conducted developmental studies of children’s spontaneous drawings of God. Harms delineated three major developmental phases of religious expression:

• The Fairy-Tale Stage (Ages 3–6): Characterized by imaginative, mythological, and anthropomorphic motifs (e.g., God as an emperor, giant, or celestial entity).
• The Realistic Stage (Ages 7–12): Characterized by institutionalized religious symbolism, historical narrative scenes, and visual realism (e.g., priests, altars, Jesus on the cross).
• The Individualistic Stage (Adolescence and Beyond): Characterized by diverse, abstract, introspective, and highly symbolic representations.

However, Bassett and colleagues’ methodology diverges from Harms in an important respect: rather than asking participants to produce drawings (which introduces confounding variables associated with fine motor coordination, graphic skill, and visual-spatial execution), the Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept employs a receptive recognition paradigm. Participants review professionally drafted ink drawings and select those that match their internal representation. As developmental researchers have demonstrated (Bassett, 1977; Kosslyn, Heldmeyer, & Locklear, 1977), a child’s internal cognitive model often exceeds their spontaneous motor ability to render it on paper. Providing standardized stimulus cards was intended to bypass these mechanical motor constraints.

Dual-Coding and Semiotic Considerations

From a cognitive processing perspective, the scale aligns with Allan Paivio’s dual-coding theory (1990). Mental representations of religious concepts may be stored in linguistic-propositional networks (verbal code) or imagistic-perceptual networks (nonverbal iconic code). The Nonverbal Measure bypasses the verbal logogen system, accessing the nonverbal imagen system directly. This makes it a valuable complementary tool for investigating how visual-metaphoric processing functions alongside formal doctrinal socialization.

Validity

The validity profile of the Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept presents a combination of developmental utility and significant psychometric challenges, as outlined in empirical evaluations (Bassett et al., 1990, 1994).

Construct and Developmental Validity

In the original 1990 investigation, construct validity was operationalized by examining whether visual card preferences varied predictably across chronological age brackets (4–6 years for preoperational; 8–10 years for concrete operational; 12 years to adulthood for formal operational). However, using chronological age as an index of cognitive operational capacity introduces notable confounds, as cognitive milestones do not advance uniformly with age (Rosenthal & Zimmerman, 1972). Furthermore, initial analytical strategies that treated ordinal developmental groups as linear interval variables within standard analysis of variance (ANOVA) models introduced statistical limitations.

To establish stronger construct validity, the 1994 revision administered independent, standardized Piagetian cognitive assessment batteries to classify participants objectively:

• Preoperational vs. Concrete Operational: Classified using empirical tests of conservation (conservation of volume, mass, and number).
• Concrete Operational vs. Formal Operational: Classified using standardized paper-and-pencil batteries developed by Lunzer (1965), which assess analogical class inclusion (e.g., “leather is to soft, shoe or hide as hard, clay or house is to brick”) and mathematical sequence completion (e.g., “27, 18, 12, ?, 5½”).

When evaluated against these verified cognitive milestones, non-parametric analysis via the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance revealed significant overall differences in drawing selection frequencies across developmental stages. However, post-hoc examination of residuals indicated that this variance was driven primarily by formal operational thinkers accepting abstract symbolic stimuli and systematically rejecting simplistic, anthropomorphic stimuli. The measure demonstrated solid discriminant validity for identifying formal operational cognition, but its ability to differentiate preoperational from concrete operational thinkers was weak. In the 15-item revision, five drawings differentiated formal operational subjects and two differentiated preoperational subjects, but no single drawing cleanly differentiated concrete operational thinkers from both adjacent stages.

Methodological Critiques and Confounding Factors

Psychometric evaluations have raised critical questions regarding the scale’s construct representation:

• The Visual Realism Confound: Developmental studies of children’s drawings (Krampen, 1991; Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) establish that children progress through distinct graphic stages: synthetic incapacity, intellectual realism (drawing what is conceptually known, such as two eyes on a profile), and finally visual realism (drawing strictly what is perceptually visible from a single perspective, appearing around ages 8–12). Because the majority of cards in the Nonverbal Measure were professionally executed using visual realism, the stimuli may not align with the internal graphic representations of preoperational or concrete operational children. This structural feature introduces a formal operational bias.
• Stylistic Rejection vs. Theological Rejection: Formal operational participants frequently rejected certain cards (such as a geometric, simplistic drawing of a crowned figure) not because they rejected the underlying theological theme of divine sovereignty, but because the artistic rendering resembled a young child’s drawing. This introduces a stylistic confound into the measurement of religious cognition.
• Socialized Recognition vs. Internal Concept: Because this is a forced-choice recognition task rather than a projective production task, participant responses may reflect recognized religious imagery from Sunday school materials rather than authentic personal representations of the divine.

Reliability

Given the categorical, unconstrained visual-selection format of the Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept, conventional indices of internal consistency, such as Cronbach’s alpha, cannot be computed across the item set. Instead, psychometric stability must be evaluated through stability across developmental cohorts, test-retest replication, and stimulus concordance across study iterations.

In the primary empirical literature, reliability was examined by assessing stimulus stability across the 1990 (conservative Protestant sample) and 1994 (heterogeneous Christian and clinical sample) studies:

• Longitudinal Category Stability: Three identical visual cards were evaluated in both the 1990 and 1994 investigations under standardized conditions. Two of these three drawings demonstrated stable developmental classification across independent cohorts: the realistic drawing of an elderly bearded man was consistently preferred by preoperational participants, and the abstract composite drawing featuring a cross, flames, and a dove was consistently preferred by formal operational participants.
• Instability of Concrete Stimuli: The third anchor stimulus—a realistic rendering of Jesus interacting with young children—exhibited notable instability. In the 1990 cohort, it was selected by the highest percentage of concrete operational thinkers; however, in the 1994 sample, it failed to achieve preferential selection by any single cognitive group. This finding highlights the measurement instability of concrete operational religious visual representations.
• Administration Standardization: The high procedural standardization of the stimulus presentation (fixed card size, standardized viewing sequences, and neutral verbal instructions) provides solid administration reliability by minimizing examiner-induced bias.

Factor Analysis

Because the Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept employs a discrete card-sorting selection method yielding dichotomous choice indicators (selected vs. not selected) across an unconstrained count, standard continuous linear Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) procedures were not performed during its initial standardization.

Taxometric Grouping and Criterion-Related Structural Analysis

The structural composition of the instrument was derived through empirical item sorting against criterion-classified developmental cohorts. In the 1994 revision, 54 candidate drawings were administered across three developmentally verified cohorts (33 preoperational, 35 concrete operational, and 36 formal operational females classified via conservation and Lunzer batteries):

• Five drawings were categorized into the Preoperational Dimension based on statistically elevated selection probabilities among preoperational thinkers.
• Five drawings were categorized into the Concrete Operational Dimension based on elevated selection frequencies among concrete thinkers.
• Five drawings were categorized into the Formal Operational Dimension based on preferential endorsement by formal thinkers.

Non-parametric omnibus testing using the Kruskal-Wallis procedure confirmed significant between-group divergence in card selection rates across the developmental dimensions. However, residual structural analyses (such as those detailed by Lehman, 1995) indicated that the underlying mathematical structure approximates a unidimensional formal-abstraction continuum rather than three independent orthogonal developmental stages. The formal operational category exhibits clean latent differentiation, whereas the boundary between the preoperational and concrete operational dimensions remains blurred due to shared visual and anthropomorphic elements.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The administration parameters, physical characteristics, and scoring procedures for the 15-item Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept (Bassett et al., 1994) are outlined below:

• Instrument Type: Nonverbal pictorial recognition and developmental sorting test.
• Stimulus Materials: A standardized deck of 15 black-and-white ink drawings, each printed individually on standardized 5-by-7-inch matte cardstock cards.
• Target Population: Children (ages 4 and older), adolescents, adults, clinical populations, individuals with communicative or speech impairments, and individuals with intellectual disabilities.
• Subscale / Dimensional Structure:
  • Preoperational Subscale: 5 stimulus cards emphasizing immediate perceptual, literal, or physicalistic depictions of the divine.
  • Concrete Operational Subscale: 5 stimulus cards depicting institutional, historical narrative, or concrete relational themes.
  • Formal Operational Subscale: 5 stimulus cards presenting non-anthropomorphic, transcendent, or abstract theological symbols.
• Administration Format: Individual, examiner-administered protocol in a quiet environment. Cards are laid out before the examinee one at a time in a standardized, randomized sequence.
• Response Modality: Completely nonverbal. The participant points to, gathers, or separates cards.
• Administration Instructions: The examiner presents the complete set of cards and instructs the participant: “Look carefully at each of these pictures. Point to or pick up as many—or none—of these pictures that most remind you of God.”
• Scoring and Quantification:
  • Dichotomous tracking: Each card is scored as 1 (selected) or 0 (not selected).
  • Dimension Subscale Sums: Total selections are tallied within each theoretical stage (Preoperational score range: 0–5; Concrete Operational score range: 0–5; Formal Operational score range: 0–5).
  • Classification Assignment: The developmental category receiving the highest proportion of participant endorsements is identified as the participant’s primary nonverbal God-concept stage.
• Analytical Requirements: When assessing group developmental differences, researchers typically utilize the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test followed by post-hoc pairwise comparisons (e.g., Newman-Keuls or Mann-Whitney tests with adjusted alpha levels). Treating selection scores as parametric, continuous interval data is not recommended.

Permissions, Fee, and Test Year

The Nonverbal Measure of God-Concept was originally developed in 1990 and subsequently refined in 1994. The instrument was developed within an academic research setting and is not commercially distributed by a commercial testing corporation. There are no mandatory commercial testing fees or licensing charges for non-profit academic research use.

Because the physical stimulus materials consist of specific black-and-white ink drawing plates, researchers seeking to use the standardized cards must secure authorized research reproductions. Inquiries, permission requests, and requests for physical copies of the stimulus cards should be directed to the primary developer:

Rodney L. Bassett, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
Roberts Wesleyan University
2301 Westside Drive
Rochester, New York 14624, USA

References

Bassett, E. (1977). Production strategies in the child’s drawing of the human figure: Towards an argument for a model of syncretic perception. In G. Butterworth (Ed.), The child’s representation of the world (pp. 49–59). Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2547-5_4

Bassett, R. L., Miller, S., Anstey, K., Crafts, K., Harmon, J., Lee, Y., Parks, J., Robinson, M., Smid, H., Sterner, W., Stevens, C., Wheeler, B., & Stevenson, D. H. (1990). Picturing God: A nonverbal measure of God concept for conservative Protestants. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 9(1), 73–81.

Bassett, R. L., Perry, K., Repass, R., Silver, E., & Welch, T. (1994). Perceptions of God among persons with mental retardation: A research note. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 22(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164719402200105

Goldman, R. (1964). Religious thinking from childhood to adolescence. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Goldman, R. (1965). Readiness for religion: A basis for developmental religious education. Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Harms, E. (1944). The development of religious experience in children. American Journal of Sociology, 50(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1086/219539

Kosslyn, S. M., Heldmeyer, K. H., & Locklear, E. D. (1977). Children’s drawings as data about internal representations. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 23(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(77)90099-2

Krampen, M. (1991). Children’s drawings: Iconic coding of the environment. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9679-7

Lehman, R. (1995). Statistics in the behavioral sciences: A conceptual approach. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Lunzer, E. A. (1965). Problems of formal reasoning in test situations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 30(2), 19–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1165751

Paivio, A. (1990). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. Basic Books.

Rosenthal, T. L., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1972). Modeling by exemplification and instruction in training conservation. Developmental Psychology, 6(3), 392–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032585

Items of the Scale