Religious Variables: Ten Scales

1. Abstract

The Religious Variables: Ten Scales (commonly known as the Religious Variables Scales, or RVS) represents one of the foundational psychometric batteries developed to capture the multidimensional nature of individual religious commitment, belief, and practice. Formulated by sociologists Morton B. King and Richard A. Hunt between 1969 and 1975, the battery was engineered to operationalize and empirically assess theoretical dimensions originally outlined by pioneering theorists such as Gordon Allport, Charles Y. Glock, and Gerhard Lenski. Moving decisively away from unidimensional, single-item proxies of religiosity—such as nominal denominational affiliation or raw church attendance frequency—King and Hunt demonstrated that religious life spans distinct, quantifiable cognitive, behavioral, affective, and institutional facets.

The refined instrument consists of 59 items organized into ten distinct scales clustered across six major overarching domains: (1) Creedal Assent (7 items), assessing cognitive agreement with orthodox Christian theological propositions; (2) Devotionalism (5 items), evaluating personal, private prayer and felt intimacy with the divine; (3) Congregational Involvement, subdivided into Church Attendance (3 items), Organizational Activity (6 items), and Financial Support (5 items); (4) Religious Knowledge (8 items), examining factual literacy across biblical literature, church history, and ecclesiastical polity; (5) Orientation to Religion, comprising Growth and Striving (6 items) and Extrinsic Orientation (7 items); and (6) Religious Salience, divided into Behavioral Salience (7 items) and Cognitive Salience (5 items). Several items function on more than one scale, reflecting overlapping theoretical constructs while retaining specific factorial integrity.

Measurement across the subscales primarily uses 4-point response formats (ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” for attitudinal statements, or “seldom or never” to “regularly” for behavioral frequency), whereas the Religious Knowledge dimension utilizes a six-alternative factual inventory, and the Financial Support subscale incorporates categorized income percentages and dollar values. Standardized across mainline Protestant populations—culminating in an extensive sample of 1,356 church members in North Texas and replicated nationally on 872 United Presbyterians—the instrument demonstrates robust psychometric properties. Internal consistency reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) range from .734 (Financial Support and Extrinsic Orientation) to .852 (Devotionalism), with item-to-scale correlations spanning .39 to .74. Construct and criterion validity are substantiated by consistent associations with racial attitudes, cognitive styles, and civic engagement patterns, establishing the RVS as a seminal milestone in the psychology of religion and quantitative sociology.

2. Keywords

Religious Variables Scales, Morton B. King, Richard A. Hunt, multidimensional religiosity, Creedal Assent, Devotionalism, intrinsic-extrinsic religiosity, religious salience, psychometrics, scale validation, congregational involvement, religious knowledge

3. Authors

The Religious Variables Scales were conceived, developed, and systematically refined by two prominent scholars at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas:

• Morton B. King, Ph.D.: Professor of Sociology at Southern Methodist University (SMU). Dr. King was an influential sociologist of religion and race relations whose methodological expertise centered on survey research design, attitude measurement, and the quantitative operationalization of complex social phenomena. His initial 1967 publication, “Measuring the Religious Variable,” laid the statistical foundation for multi-item, factor-analyzed religious batteries.
• Richard A. Hunt, Ph.D.: Professor of Psychology and Religion at Southern Methodist University. Dr. Hunt’s background spanned both psychological assessment and pastoral theology, providing the theoretical and psychometric architecture necessary to link theological assertions with empirical psychological measurement. Hunt worked extensively on marital counseling inventories, pastoral selection instruments, and longitudinal evaluations of religious motivations.

Their multi-year collaborative project, conducted under the auspices of the Department of Sociology and the Perkins School of Theology at SMU, was funded through university research grants and denominational research partnerships, resulting in a landmark series of methodological papers published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion between 1969 and 1975.

4. Purpose

Throughout the first half of the twentieth century, social scientists investigating religious dynamics routinely operationalized religious commitment via crude, reductionist single-item metrics. Researchers frequently classified participants based solely on broad denominational labels (e.g., Catholic, Protestant, Jewish) or simple frequency counts of public worship attendance. This empirical oversimplification generated conflicting, contradictory findings across psychological and sociological literature. For instance, studies examining the correlation between religion and racial prejudice produced wildly divergent outcomes: some analyses indicated that religious individuals were markedly more tolerant, whereas others concluded that churchgoers exhibited elevated rates of ethnocentrism, bigotry, and authoritarianism.

Morton King and Richard Hunt recognized that these empirical inconsistencies stemmed directly from measurement error and poor construct validity. Following theoretical formulations by Charles Y. Glock (1962) and Gerhard Lenski (1961), King and Hunt argued that religiosity is inherently multidimensional. An individual could demonstrate high fidelity to theological dogmas (creedal assent) while demonstrating negligible participation in communal church affairs, or maintain rigorous weekly attendance primarily to facilitate business networking while rejecting core spiritual doctrines. The overarching purpose of the Religious Variables Scales was to construct a psychometrically rigorous, factorially validated, multidimensional measurement battery capable of isolating and assessing these distinct, semi-autonomous facets of religious life within a single, coherent framework.

In clinical, research, and organizational contexts, the scales serve several critical functions:

• Deconfounding Psychosocial Correlates: By disentangling distinct components such as personal devotionalism, doctrinal orthodoxy, and extrinsic utility, the scales enable researchers to identify precisely which aspects of religious life predict physical health, psychological well-being, altruistic behaviors, or social attitudes.
• Investigating Prejudice and Social Attitudes: Directly addressing Gordon Allport’s paradox that religion “makes prejudice and unmakes prejudice,” the RVS permits nuanced analyses of how extrinsic motivations versus cognitive salience differentially moderate racial, political, and moral orientations.
• Ecclesial and Organizational Evaluation: Denominational leaders and pastoral psychologists utilize the individual subscales to audit congregational vitality, mapping demographic shifts across spiritual literacy, financial engagement, and personal devotional depth.
• Psychometric Benchmarking: The battery provides an empirical blueprint for cross-cultural and cross-denominational adaptations, establishing a gold-standard methodological template for subsequent inventories such as the Religious Life Inventory and the Duke University Religion Index.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct measured by the Religious Variables Scales is individual religious commitment, conceptualized as a heterogeneous, differentiated matrix of cognitive convictions, ritual behaviors, experiential devotion, factual knowledge, and motivational orientations. Rather than viewing religiosity as a unified scalar trait ranging from “non-religious” to “deeply religious,” King and Hunt operationalized ten specific subconstructs organized under six conceptual headings:

1. Creedal Assent

Reflecting Glock’s ideological dimension and Lenski’s doctrinal orthodoxy, Creedal Assent measures the extent of an individual’s explicit cognitive endorsement of traditional, mainline Christian theological doctrines. It does not measure subjective emotional warmth toward the divine, but rather formal intellectual assent to propositions concerning the inspiration of Scripture, the divinity and living reality of Jesus Christ, salvation from sin, eternal life, and personal accountability before God. Sample item: “I believe that God revealed Himself to man in Jesus Christ.”

2. Devotionalism

Deriving directly from Lenski’s (1961) devotional orientation, this dimension assesses the private, experiential, and affective realm of individual religious life conducted outside institutional confines. It captures the subjective sense of personal communion, spontaneous private prayer, seeking divine guidance in everyday decision-making, and asking for forgiveness. Unlike public ritual, devotionalism measures internalized, emotional intimacy with God. Sample item: “How often do you pray privately in places other than at church?”

3–5. Congregational Involvement

King and Hunt demonstrated that public institutional participation cannot be collapsed into a single index. They identified three distinct, separable behavioral subconstructs:

• Church Attendance: Captures physical presence at corporate worship services and frequency of participating in sacramental rituals, specifically Holy Communion or the Eucharist.
• Organizational Activity: Quantifies voluntary behavioral investment within the formal ecclesiastical apparatus, including serving on church committees, holding offices, attending evening meetings, and self-identified congregational leadership. Sample item: “How would you rate your activity in this congregation?”
• Financial Support: Measures economic commitment through self-reported percentage of personal/family income donated to the church, absolute monthly monetary contributions, regular pledged giving, and willingness to contribute beyond the basic operational budget.

6. Religious Knowledge

Corresponding to Glock’s intellectual dimension, Religious Knowledge assesses objective cognitive literacy regarding biblical contents, theological movements, and ecclesial structures. Unlike Creedal Assent, this scale tests informational retention rather than personal belief. It utilizes objective multi-choice questions covering the identification of Old Testament prophets, canonical Gospels, the Twelve Disciples, Protestant Reformation figures, and denominational governance models (e.g., which churches retain bishops).

7–8. Orientation to Religion

Drawing on Gordon Allport’s and J.R. Feagin’s conceptualization of religious motivations, these two subscales measure how an individual approaches and utilizes faith in daily life:

• Growth and Striving: Captures an active, dynamic, open-ended quest for spiritual maturation, moral self-improvement, and religious self-examination, marked by deliberate efforts to read religious literature, study scripture, and apply faith principles to complex dilemmas.
• Extrinsic Orientation: Assesses a utilitarian, instrumental, self-serving approach to religion. Faith is engaged primarily as an instrumental means to extrinsic ends—such as attaining social status, building business connections, securing community prestige, fulfilling civic duty, or finding psychological solace during crises. Sample item: “The church is the most important place to form good social relationships.”

9–10. Salience

Salience evaluates the functional hierarchy and operational centrality of religion within a person’s broader psychological ecosystem—how prominently religious considerations feature in overall cognition and interpersonal behavior:

• Behavioral Salience: Assesses overt behaviors enacted outside Sunday worship services, such as proselytizing/witnessing, discussing religious questions with peers, consulting church policy statements regarding social problems, reading scripture at home, and engaging in charitable visitation.
• Cognitive Salience: Measures the subjective perceptual primacy of religious beliefs in organizing one’s worldview, interpreting reality, shaping core values, and answering existential questions regarding ultimate meaning. Sample item: “My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life.”

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework underpinning the Religious Variables Scales represents an empirical synthesis of two major twentieth-century sociological and psychological traditions: the multidimensional sociological frameworks of Charles Y. Glock and Gerhard Lenski, and the motivation-based personality theories of Gordon W. Allport.

The Sociological Foundation: Glock and Lenski

In 1962, Charles Y. Glock published a seminal theoretical monograph arguing that religious commitment cannot be treated as a unitary phenomenon because individuals express their commitment through radically different modes. Glock posited five universal dimensions:

1. Ideological: What individuals believe (theological dogmas).
2. Ritualistic: What individuals do religiously (formal worship, prayer, rites).
3. Experiential: What individuals feel emotionally (direct contact with the divine).
4. Intellectual: What individuals know about their tradition (sacred texts, history).
5. Consequential: How religious commitments influence secular everyday conduct.

Simultaneously, Gerhard Lenski (1961), in his landmark study The Religious Factor, drew a fundamental distinction between associational religiosity (the frequency of participation in the formal corporate activities of a religious group) and communal religiosity (the degree to which an individual’s primary social relationships are bounded within their religious community). Furthermore, Lenski separated institutional attendance from devotionalism, which he characterized as personal, private communication with God.

King and Hunt adopted these sociological frameworks as their starting point, subjecting them to quantitative factor analysis. Their empirical findings corroborated the distinction between Glock’s ideological (Creedal Assent), intellectual (Religious Knowledge), and ritualistic domains, but revealed that the ritualistic domain naturally fractured into distinct associational subcomponents: physical attendance, organizational leadership/labor, and financial stewardship.

The Psychological Foundation: Allport’s Motivational Continuum

To capture the internal, psychological drivers of religious adherence, King and Hunt incorporated Gordon Allport’s (1950, 1967) classic distinction between Intrinsic and Extrinsic religious orientations. Allport asserted that “the extrinsically motivated person uses his religion, whereas the intrinsically motivated person lives his religion.” Extrinsic religion is utilitarian, comfort-seeking, and sociocentric, providing social status, security, and institutional belonging. Intrinsic religion, conversely, is an ultimate, master-motive that integrates the personality and subordinates personal convenience to spiritual ideals.

In refining these concepts alongside J.R. Feagin’s (1964) psychometric work, King and Hunt’s factor-analytic data suggested that Allport’s intrinsic construct was conceptually complex. They demonstrated that intrinsic religiosity in fact splits into two distinct dimensions: Cognitive Salience (the overarching philosophical centrality of faith in interpreting existence) and Growth and Striving (the dynamic, forward-looking effort toward self-actualization and moral development). Their Extrinsic subscale successfully isolated the self-serving, instrumental utility dimension, allowing for a precise evaluation of how distinct religious motivations intersect with personality variables.

7. Validity

Morton King and Richard Hunt evaluated the psychometric validity of the Religious Variables Scales primarily through construct validation, structural factor-analytic confirmation, and criterion-related predictive patterns.

Construct and Discriminant Validity

Construct validity was initially established by demonstrating that the ten scales, while intercorrelated, demonstrated sufficient empirical independence to warrant separation. In their 1972 replication study involving 1,356 respondents across four mainline Protestant denominations, King and Hunt observed that intercorrelations among the ten scales were low to moderate, confirming that the battery did not merely measure a single redundant general factor (often referred to as a “g-factor” of religiosity). For instance, the correlation between Religious Knowledge and Creedal Assent was notably weak, demonstrating that possessing high factual literacy regarding biblical texts and church history does not inherently require or imply rigid doctrinal orthodoxy. Similarly, Extrinsic Orientation exhibited very low or slightly negative correlations with Devotionalism and Cognitive Salience, validating the theoretical premise that utilitarian religious motives are distinct from internalized, experiential piety.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The explanatory utility of the RVS was systematically tested by correlating the ten dimensions with external sociodemographic, cognitive, and social attitude metrics:

• Racial Attitudes and Tolerance: King and Hunt examined the relationship between the ten religious scales and measures of racial prejudice and ethnic attitudes. Consistent with Allport’s paradox, they identified a low but statistically significant positive correlation between racial tolerance (lower prejudice) and several specific religious dimensions: Church Attendance, Organizational Activity, Religious Knowledge, Growth and Striving, and Cognitive Salience. Conversely, individuals who scored high on Extrinsic Orientation displayed higher rates of racial intolerance. Single-item indicators of church attendance had previously obscured this divergence.
• Cognitive Styles: King and Hunt correlated the scales with five cognitive style measures (including dogmatism, tolerance of ambiguity, and intellectual openness). Creedal Assent correlated positively with cognitive rigidity and dogmatism, whereas Religious Knowledge and Growth and Striving correlated positively with open-minded cognitive exploration and tolerance of ambiguity.

Subsequent Validations and Replications

In 1975, King and Hunt conducted a large-scale national replication using a geographically diverse probability sample of 872 members of the United Presbyterian Church. The ten-scale factor structure remained stable across diverse geographic regions. Later independent research by Hilty, Morgan, and Burns (1984) and Hilty and Morgan (1985) revisited the King and Hunt battery using structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Their empirical findings re-validated the robust construct validity of King and Hunt’s core dimensions—specifically distinguishing personal devotion, public church involvement, belief orthodoxy, and religious knowledge—confirming that the multidimensional architecture remains stable across diverse cohorts.

8. Reliability

King and Hunt applied rigorous psychometric standards to the construction of the RVS. While longitudinal test-retest reliability data were not gathered in the primary 1972 investigation due to the cross-sectional mail-survey methodology, internal consistency reliability was systematically evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) as a coefficient of homogeneity, alongside item-to-scale corrected correlations.

Internal Consistency Reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha)

The scale development criteria mandated that any retained scale achieve an internal consistency coefficient of approximately .75 or higher, coupled with demonstrable analytical power when correlated with external variables. Across the final 10 subscales, Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from a minimum of .734 to a maximum of .852:

• Devotionalism: $lpha = .852$ (5 items; highest internal consistency in the battery)
• Creedal Assent: $lpha = .834$ (7 items)
• Organizational Activity: $lpha = .831$ (6 items)
• Behavioral Salience: $lpha = .825$ (7 items)
• Church Attendance: $lpha = .821$ (3 items)
• Cognitive Salience: $lpha = .808$ (5 items)
• Growth and Striving: $lpha = .806$ (6 items)
• Religious Knowledge: $lpha = .769$ (8 items)
• Financial Support: $lpha = .734$ (5 items)
• Extrinsic Orientation: $lpha = .734$ (7 items)

Item-to-Scale Correlations

For each of the 59 items, King and Hunt computed corrected item-to-scale correlations (the correlation of each individual item with the composite score of the scale with that specific item omitted). Across all 10 scales, corrected item-scale correlations ranged between .39 and .74. Within the Devotionalism scale, items exhibited strong item-scale correlations ranging from .59 to .74. Even within the more heterogeneous Extrinsic Orientation scale, item-scale correlations remained within an acceptable range (.39 to .52). Items with item-scale correlations below the standard psychometric cutoff of .35 or displaying high collinearity were systematically pruned during early scale refinement.

9. Factor Analysis

The empirical genesis of the Religious Variables Scales represents one of the earliest large-scale applications of computer-assisted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) within the sociology and psychology of religion. The scale development proceeded across multiple distinct empirical phases between 1965 and 1972.

Initial Scale Derivation (1965–1969)

In their pilot investigation, King (1967) and King and Hunt (1969) assembled a heterogeneous pool of 91 items designed to capture 11 hypothetical dimensions derived from Allport, Glock, and Lenski. Administering this questionnaire to 575 Methodists across metropolitan Dallas, Texas, the data were subjected to principal axis factor analysis with orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique rotations. The numerical analysis confirmed eight of the original theoretical dimensions while revealing that several anticipated constructs—most notably church involvement—fractured into distinct behavioral components. Thirty-two items were eliminated due to low factor loadings ($< .40$), excessive factorial complexity (cross-loadings across multiple unrotated factors), or conceptual redundancy.

The 1972 Replication and Structural Refinement

King and Hunt (1972) repeated this empirical procedure using an expanded sample of 1,356 church members systematically drawn from four distinct denominations: Disciples of Christ ($n = 314$), Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod ($n = 344$), Presbyterian Church ($n = 346$), and United Methodist Church ($n = 339$). Factor-analytic rotation of the revised item pool produced a clear, highly replicable 10-factor solution accounting for the vast majority of common variance:

• Doctrinal/Belief Factor: A dominant first factor comprised items affirming traditional orthodox theology, loading heavily ($> .50$) onto Creedal Assent.
• Experiential/Private Factor: Items relating to private prayer, felt closeness to God, and seeking divine guidance converged cleanly onto Devotionalism.
• Three Behavioral Congregational Factors: Worship attendance, formal organizational committee work, and monetary donations separated into three distinct empirical factors, demonstrating that financial giving and committee leadership operate independently from basic Sunday attendance.
• Cognitive vs. Behavioral Salience Factors: Factor loadings supported the bifurcation of religious salience into an externalized behavioral factor (witnessing, social discussions, reading church literature) and an internalized cognitive factor (perceiving faith as the bedrock of life purpose).
• Orientation Factors: The factor analysis isolated Extrinsic utility items into an independent factor, while dynamic spiritual development items formed the coherent Growth and Striving factor.

Confirmatory Re-evaluations

Subsequent structural equation evaluations conducted by Hilty, Morgan, and Burns (1984) and Hilty and Morgan (1985) re-examined King and Hunt’s correlation matrices using modern confirmatory factor analysis (LISREL). Their structural models corroborated the fundamental ten-factor architecture, demonstrating satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices and affirming that the operational separation of devotional, associational, intellectual, and motivational dimensions remains statistically justified.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Multidimensional self-report psychological and sociological survey inventory
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or digital self-administered questionnaire
• Number of Scales: 10 distinct subscales clustered under 6 primary conceptual headings
• Total Item Count: 59 items (several items serve on multiple scales; 32 original items from the pilot pool were discarded)
• Administration Time: Approximately 25 to 30 minutes
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (standardized on congregational members aged 16 years and older)
• Response Formats:
  • Attitudinal Items (Creedal Assent, Extrinsic, Cognitive Salience, etc.): 4-point Likert-type scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree.
  • Behavioral Frequency Items (Devotionalism, Behavioral Salience, Church Attendance): 4-point frequency scale: 1 = Seldom or never, 2 = Occasionally, 3 = Fairly regularly (or fairly frequently), 4 = Regularly.
  • Religious Knowledge Items: Multiple-choice inventory consisting of 6 nominal options per item, scored objectively as correct or incorrect.
  • Financial Support Items: Structured categorical scales measuring percentage of income contributed (e.g., 1% or less to 10% or more) and average monthly contributions (e.g., under $5 to$50 and up).
• Scoring Procedures:
  • The scales are additive and unweighted.
  • Raw numerical values for items belonging to each subscale are summed to generate an unweighted subscale raw score.
  • Items are not collapsed into a single global composite score; rather, researchers interpret the 10 distinct subscale scores as an individual or congregational profile.
  • Several items load onto more than one scale (for example, items appearing in both Growth and Striving and Cognitive Salience), reflecting shared theoretical variance.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Religious Variables Scales were developed and published across a series of landmark articles between 1969 and 1975, with the primary definitive replication study appearing in 1972:

• Publication Year: 1972 (primary definitive replication battery); earlier preliminary formulations published in 1967 and 1969; national replication published in 1975.
• Copyright & Intellectual Property: The instruments were originally published in academic journals published by the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR), specifically the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Under standard academic fair-use doctrines and psychometric conventions of that era, the items were placed in the public scientific domain for non-commercial scholarly and academic research purposes.
• Usage Fees: There are no licensing fees, royalties, or commercial paywalls required for academic, clinical, or educational utilization of the Religious Variables Scales.
• Permissions: Researchers wishing to reproduce, adapt, or deploy the scales in scholarly studies, theses, or congregational audits may do so freely, provided appropriate scholarly attribution and bibliographic citation are given to King and Hunt (1972, 1975). Commercial publishers incorporating the full scale into proprietary commercial testing batteries should contact the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion or the copyright holding journals.

12. References

Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion: A psychological interpretation. Macmillan.

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

De Jong, G. F., Faulkner, J. E., & Warland, R. H. (1976). Dimensions of religiosity reconsidered: Evidence from a cross-cultural study. Social Forces, 54(4), 866–889. https://doi.org/10.2307/2576785

Feagin, J. R. (1964). Prejudice and religious types: A focus study of southern fundamentalists. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 4(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385199

Glock, C. Y. (1962). On the study of religious commitment: Review of recent research bearing on religious and character formation. Religious Education, 57(S4), S98–S110. https://doi.org/10.1080/003440862057S407

Glock, C. Y., & Stark, R. (1966). Christian beliefs and anti-Semitism. Harper & Row.

Hilty, D. M., & Morgan, R. L. (1985). Construct validation for the religious involvement inventory: Replication. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386278

Hilty, D. M., Morgan, R. L., & Burns, J. E. (1984). King and Hunt revisited: Dimensions of religious involvement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 23(3), 252–266. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386041

King, M. B. (1967). Measuring the religious variable: Nine proposed dimensions. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 6(2), 173–190. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384044

King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1969). Measuring the religious variable: Amended findings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 8(2), 321–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384346

King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1972). Measuring the religious variable: Replication. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(3), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384534

King, M. B., & Hunt, R. A. (1975). Measuring the religious variable: National replication. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14(1), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384587

Lenski, G. (1961). The religious factor: A sociological study of religion’s impact on politics, economics, and family life. Doubleday.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)