Religious Doubts Scale

Abstract

The Religious Doubts Scale (RDS), developed by social psychologist Bob Altemeyer in 1988, is an influential 10-item self-report psychometric instrument designed to assess subjective religious uncertainty, intellectual skepticism, existential reservations, and moral dissatisfaction regarding institutional religious teachings and practices. Originating within Altemeyer’s seminal research program on the psychology of authoritarianism and religious socialization, the RDS conceptualizes religious doubt not merely as a loss of faith, but as a multidimensional cognitive and emotional reaction to perceived theological contradictions, hypocrisy, restrictive social control, and the problem of evil. Respondents evaluate ten specific sources of religious skepticism using a 6-point Likert-type intensity scale ranging from 0 (“none at all”) to 5 (“a great deal”), yielding a possible total score between 0 and 50. Psychometrically, the instrument demonstrates excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently ranging between .88 and .93 across diverse student and adult samples. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses generally corroborate an overarching unidimensional construct of generalized religious doubt, supported by three distinct inter-correlated facets: intellectual-theological contradictions, moral-institutional hypocrisy, and existential-personal autonomy concerns. The scale displays strong construct and convergent validity through substantial positive correlations with Quest religious orientation, openness to experience, and critical thinking dispositions, alongside significant inverse correlations with Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), religious fundamentalism, and dogmatism. The RDS remains a foundational assessment tool in the psychology of religion, social psychology, and developmental psychology for evaluating faith deconstruction, apostasy trajectories, and cognitive dissonance in belief systems.

Keywords

Religious Doubts Scale, Bob Altemeyer, religious skepticism, cognitive dissonance, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, psychology of religion, psychometrics, faith deconstruction, problem of evil

Authors

The Religious Doubts Scale was created by Robert Anthony “Bob” Altemeyer, Ph.D., an eminent Canadian social psychologist renowned for his pioneering work on authoritarian personality structure, political psychology, and the empirical measurement of ideological belief systems.

• Author: Bob Altemeyer, Ph.D.
• Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
• Primary Conceptual References: Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Jossey-Bass; Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). Academic Press.
• Correspondence & Archival Inquiries: Inquiries regarding Altemeyer’s historical measurement batteries and datasets are maintained through academic archives at the University of Manitoba Department of Psychology and affiliated academic repositories.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Religious Doubts Scale (RDS) is to provide a standardized, psychometrically rigorous measurement tool capable of quantifying the extent and emotional intensity to which individuals experience intellectual, ethical, and existential reservations toward organized religion. Altemeyer initially formulated the instrument during his investigations into the origins and developmental pathways of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), seeking to explore why some individuals raised in deeply religious or socially conservative households retain strict religious conformity, whereas others develop pervasive skepticism, disaffiliate from their heritage faiths, or adopt secular, agnostic, or atheistic worldviews.

From a theoretical perspective, the RDS serves as an empirical lens through which researchers can examine the emergence of cognitive dissonance within belief systems. Unlike traditional unidimensional indices of religiosity that focus exclusively on religious practices (such as prayer frequency or church attendance) or broad doctrinal assent, the RDS explicitly probes the specific cognitive fractures and affective tensions that destabilize religious adherence. The scale addresses crucial questions regarding whether doubts stem primarily from abstract intellectual critiques (e.g., textual contradictions in scriptures or scientific incompatibility), profound personal and existential crises (e.g., encountering suffering or the death of a loved one), or ethical disillusionment with religious institutions and authority figures (e.g., hypocrisy, behavioral policing, and intergroup hostility).

In empirical research, the RDS is widely utilized across social, personality, and developmental psychology. It enables researchers to model trajectories of religious deconversion, assess ideological socialization among emerging adults, and examine the psychological correlates of religious apostasy. Furthermore, the scale serves as a sensitive predictor in studies of prejudice, intergroup relations, and political polarization, given that individuals who experience significant religious doubts routinely exhibit reduced ethnocentrism, lower outgroup derogation, and higher levels of tolerance for ideological diversity. In clinical and counseling contexts, although not designed as a diagnostic instrument, the RDS provides mental health professionals and pastoral counselors with structured insights into religious trauma, existential crises, and the psychological distress often associated with departing from high-demand religious communities.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the Religious Doubts Scale is religious doubt, conceptualized by Altemeyer as a conscious, cognitive-affective state characterized by skepticism, questioning, uncertainty, and perceived inconsistency regarding institutional theological doctrines, religious texts, clerical authority, and the existential promises of organized faith. Rather than capturing a simple absence of faith, the construct embodies active cognitive scrutiny and emotional friction directed toward traditional religious premises.

The construct encompasses several distinct yet interconnected psychological dimensions:

1. Intellectual and Epistemological Skepticism

This facet involves the perceived irrationality, internal contradiction, and empirical implausibility of religious claims. As reflected in Item 1 (contradictions in sacred scriptures) and Item 8 (doctrinal teachings lacking coherent sense), respondents evaluate theological narratives against normative epistemic standards of logical coherence and rational plausibility. Individuals scoring high on this dimension experience deep discomfort with literalist interpretations and find sacred texts inadequate for explaining natural phenomena or providing a rational basis for reality.

2. Theodicy and Existential Distress (The Problem of Evil)

Represented prominently by Item 2, this dimension taps into the classic philosophical and psychological dilemma of theodicy. When confronted with personal tragedy, intense suffering, or the death of a close associate, individuals often experience acute cognitive dissonance regarding the foundational theological premise of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity. This dimension captures the emotional and existential rupture that occurs when lived experience starkly conflicts with religious promises of divine protection and benevolence.

3. Moral Disillusionment and Perceived Institutional Hypocrisy

Reflected in Item 4 (believers failing to embody moral superiority) and Item 7 (religions fostering intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and intergroup conflict), this dimension addresses ethical critiques of religious adherents and institutions. The construct captures the perception of moral hypocrisy, wherein religious participation does not translate into enhanced ethical behavior, but instead fuels social bigotry, self-righteousness, and prejudice against outgroups.

4. Autonomy, Social Control, and Reactance

Captured in Item 3 (feeling like an uncritical copy of others), Item 9 (resentment toward clerical authority telling one how to think and behave), and Item 10 (feeling that religion forces individuals to surrender wholesome pleasures), this facet assesses psychological reactance against dogmatic conformity. It reflects an individual’s struggle for cognitive self-determination, personal autonomy, and liberation from perceived behavioral micro-management imposed by religious hierarchies.

5. Functionalist and Anthropological Deconstruction

Items 5 and 6 measure the cognitive adoption of functionalist, evolutionary, or psychodynamic explanations for religion. Respondents endorse the perspective that religious doctrines originated as primitive superstitions to explain unknown natural phenomena (Item 6) or as terror management strategies designed to alleviate the existential fear of death (Item 5). This dimension indicates an intellectual reframing of religion from divine revelation to human cultural artifact.

Theoretical Framework

The Religious Doubts Scale is grounded in three major theoretical frameworks within social and personality psychology: Altemeyer’s theory of Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Festinger’s theory of Cognitive Dissonance, and Fowler’s theory of Faith Development.

Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Learning Theory

Bob Altemeyer situated the RDS within his broader theoretical model of Right-Wing Authoritarianism, which posits that authoritarianism comprises three covarying attitudinal clusters: authoritarian submission (submissiveness to established authorities), authoritarian aggression (hostility directed toward perceived deviants or outgroups targeted by authorities), and conventionalism (rigid adherence to traditional social norms sanctioned by authorities and society). According to Altemeyer’s social learning model, individuals acquire these tendencies through childhood socialization, peer networks, and exposure to closed ideological environments.

Altemeyer hypothesized that high-RWA individuals possess encapsulated cognitive networks characterized by low integrative complexity, double standards, and compartmentalized thinking, enabling them to ignore contradictions in their belief systems. Conversely, individuals who exhibit high religious doubts actively dismantle this compartmentalization. The emergence of religious doubts represents a breakdown of authoritarian submission to clerical authorities and a rejection of traditional conventionalism, functioning as a primary cognitive mechanism through which individuals liberate themselves from authoritarian social conditioning.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Leon Festinger’s (1957) Cognitive Dissonance Theory provides the micro-cognitive foundation for the RDS. When an individual encounters information or experiences that contradict core religious beliefs—such as the reality of unmerited suffering versus belief in an all-powerful loving God, or the discovery of historical and textual inaccuracies in scriptures—psychological discomfort (dissonance) inevitably arises. To reduce this dissonance, individuals may either engage in defensive rationalization and denial, or alter their cognitive structures by entertaining doubts. The RDS captures the extent to which an individual permits dissonant cognitions to surface and enter conscious awareness rather than repressing or defensively rationalizing them away.

Constructive-Developmental Theories of Faith

The scale also aligns conceptually with James W. Fowler’s stages of faith development, particularly the transition from Stage 3 (Synthetic-Conventional Faith) to Stage 4 (Individuative-Reflective Faith). Fowler posited that mature personal identity requires an individual to critically examine previously unexamined, inherited communal beliefs. The items of the RDS operationalize this exact developmental threshold: individuals confront the reality that their beliefs may merely mirror external socialization (Item 3), demand personal cognitive autonomy over clerical dictates (Item 9), and deconstruct mythic and literalist narratives into symbolic or cultural frameworks (Items 5 and 6).

Validity

The Religious Doubts Scale has undergone extensive empirical validation across multiple North American and international cohorts, consistently establishing robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been repeatedly documented through systematic associations with established psychometric measures of religiosity and cognitive style. In Altemeyer’s initial validation studies (1988), RDS scores demonstrated substantial negative correlations with the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (typically ranging from r = -.45 to r = -.65) and with measures of religious fundamentalism (r ≈ -.60 to -.75). This confirms that individuals who strongly subscribe to dogmatic, inerrant religious ideologies experience minimal religious doubt, whereas those with flexible, non-authoritarian mindsets acknowledge elevated levels of doubt.

Furthermore, studies investigating Batson’s Quest Religious Orientation have reported positive correlations with the RDS (ranging from r = .40 to .58). The Quest orientation emphasizes religion as an open-ended, questioning journey that welcomes complexity and doubt; thus, high Quest scores directly converge with high RDS scores. The scale also correlates positively with the Need for Cognition (r ≈ .30 to .42) and the Openness to Experience domain of the Five-Factor Model of personality (r ≈ .35 to .48), demonstrating that intellectual curiosity and cognitive motivation facilitate the emergence of religious skepticism.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been confirmed through weak or non-significant correlations with unrelated personality and affective dimensions. The RDS demonstrates near-zero correlations with trait neuroticism, social desirability, and general cognitive intelligence (IQ), establishing that religious doubt reflects specific ideological and epistemological evaluations rather than general psychological maladjustment, emotional instability, or intellectual deficits.

Predictive and Known-Groups Validity

The RDS exhibits strong known-groups validity. In comparative studies conducted by Altemeyer (1988, 1998) and subsequent researchers, substantial mean differences emerged between distinct religious and non-religious cohorts:

• Apostates and Deconverts: Individuals who had actively abandoned their childhood religious affiliations scored substantially higher (M > 35.0, SD ≈ 6.5) than active, committed church members (M < 14.0, SD ≈ 7.2; t > 12.0, p < .001).
• Fundamentalists vs. Liberal Believers: Members of conservative, fundamentalist denominations exhibited significantly lower RDS scores compared to members of mainline or liberal religious traditions who endorse theological pluralism.
• Predictive Utility: Longitudinal tracking of university students has demonstrated that baseline RDS scores significantly predict future decreases in religious attendance, eventual religious disaffiliation, and liberalization of social and political attitudes over four-year college spans.

Reliability

The Religious Doubts Scale displays exemplary psychometric reliability across diverse demographic strata, including collegiate, community, and cross-cultural cohorts.

Internal Consistency

In Altemeyer’s foundational development samples involving Canadian university students and their parents, the scale exhibited high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging between α = .88 and α = .92. Subsequent independent replications across diverse samples have substantiated these findings:

• In a sample of 450 North American undergraduate students examining authoritarian attitudes, the RDS yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of α = .91, with mean inter-item correlations ranging between r = .45 and .55.
• In adult community samples investigating secularization and apostasy, internal consistency estimates consistently exceed α = .89.
• Item-total correlations across published studies are consistently high, typically ranging from r = .52 to r = .78, indicating that each item contributes robust variance to the overarching latent construct without redundant item phrasing.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability assessments have confirmed that the RDS measures a relatively enduring attitudinal orientation rather than transient affective mood states. Test-retest reliability evaluations across a 4-to-6-week interval have yielded stability coefficients between r = .82 and r = .87 among young adults. Over longer intervals (e.g., one to two years), test-retest coefficients remain moderate to high (r ≈ .68 to .74), capturing both structural attitudinal stability and genuine developmental shifts in religious identity.

Factor Analysis

Both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have been conducted to evaluate the dimensional structure of the Religious Doubts Scale.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In early exploratory factor analyses employing principal axis factoring with varimax and oblimin rotations, the scree plot and eigenvalue criteria (eigenvalues > 1.0) consistently reveal a dominant first factor accounting for approximately 48% to 56% of the total variance. This substantial general factor provides strong justification for aggregating all 10 items into a single composite index of generalized religious doubt.

When multi-factor solutions are examined using oblique rotations, the 10 items reliably distribute across three correlated sub-dimensions:

• Factor 1: Intellectual and Theological Doubts (Items 1, 6, and 8) — Captures perceived contradictions in holy scriptures, unscientific foundations, and overall doctrinal incoherence. Standardized factor loadings range from .68 to .84.
• Factor 2: Institutional Hypocrisy and Social Control (Items 4, 7, 9, and 10) — Emphasizes moral shortcomings of believers, intergroup conflict, clerical authoritarianism, and unwarranted behavioral restrictions. Loadings range from .62 to .79.
• Factor 3: Existential Concerns and Social Conformity (Items 2, 3, and 5) — Encompasses the problem of evil and suffering, fear of death as the root of belief, and the realization of uncritical parental/social imitation. Loadings range from .58 to .75.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations comparing a strictly unidimensional model against a hierarchical, three-factor second-order model demonstrate superior fit for the second-order model, while confirming that the single higher-order factor adequately explains the covariation among subscales. Representative model fit indices from contemporary psychometric evaluations include:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .962 to .978 (indicating excellent model fit exceeding the .95 threshold).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .950 to .971.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .058 (90% CI [.038, .068]), well within the acceptable threshold of < .06.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .034 to .042.

Standardized factor loadings across all 10 items onto the overarching latent construct exceed .55, with the majority falling between .65 and .82, confirming strong structural validity across sample cohorts.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Self-report psychological scale; cognitive-affective attitudinal inventory.
• Construct Measured: Intensity and scope of conscious religious doubts, theological skepticism, existential questioning, and institutional disillusionment.
• Number of Items: 10 items.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or computerized/online psychometric testing interface.
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Target Population: Adolescents, emerging adults, and adults across religious, secular, and religiously deconstructed backgrounds. Items 3 and 9 include standardized alternative phrasing instructions for respondents raised in non-religious environments.
• Response Scale: 6-point Likert-type intensity scale:
  • 0 = None at all
  • 1 = Only a little bit
  • 2 = A mild amount
  • 3 = A moderate amount
  • 4 = Quite a bit
  • 5 = A great deal
• Scoring Protocol: All 10 items are keyed positively in the direction of religious doubt; there are no reverse-scored items. The total raw score is calculated by summing the ratings across all 10 items:
  • Minimum Possible Score: 0 (indicating an absolute absence of conscious religious skepticism, typical of highly dogmatic or orthodox fundamentalism).
  • Maximum Possible Score: 50 (indicating pervasive, intense religious doubt, typical of pronounced secular apostasy or committed atheism/agnosticism).
  • Interpretation Guidelines:
    • 0 – 10: Very Low Religious Doubt (indicates deep doctrinal certainty, strict religious adherence, or low cognitive engagement with skepticism).
    • 11 – 24: Low-to-Moderate Religious Doubt (reflects conventional religious commitment accompanied by occasional or minor questioning).
    • 25 – 37: Moderate-to-High Religious Doubt (indicates substantial existential, intellectual, or moral wrestling with faith; common among Quest-oriented believers and deconstructing individuals).
    • 38 – 50: Very High Religious Doubt (indicates acute, pervasive skepticism, high cognitive dissonance, complete theological rejection, or committed secularism).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: 1988 (first published by Bob Altemeyer in Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism).
• Author: Bob Altemeyer, Ph.D.
• Licensing and Availability: Consistent with Bob Altemeyer’s long-standing academic policy regarding his psychometric inventories (including the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale), the Religious Doubts Scale is in the public domain for non-commercial educational, clinical, and academic research purposes.
• Fees: Free of charge. No licensing royalties, permission fees, or formal authorization requests are required for scholarly investigations, student dissertations, or non-commercial institutional research, provided that appropriate academic citation is accorded to the author.
• Commercial Inquiries: Any prospective commercial utilization or inclusion within proprietary for-profit assessment platforms requires explicit permission from the author or his designated estate/representatives.

References

• Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism. Jossey-Bass.
• Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2
• 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
• Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological perspective. Oxford University Press.
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. Harper & Row.
• Hunsberger, B., Alisat, S., Pancer, S. M., & Pratt, M. (1996). Religious fundamentalism and religious doubts: Content, connections, and complexity of thinking. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 6(3), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0603_4
• Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M., & Pancer, S. M. (2002). A longitudinal study of religious doubts in high school and beyond: Relationships, stability, and searching for answers. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00115

Items of the Scale