The LAM Scales

Abstract

The LAM Scales, developed by psychometrician and psychologist of religion Richard A. Hunt in 1972, represent a foundational instrument designed to assess an individual’s characteristic cognitive and interpretive style regarding biblical, theological, and transcendent assertions. Arising as a methodological corrective to the pervasive fundamentalist and literalist biases embedded within early-to-mid 20th-century measures of religious commitment, the LAM framework bifurcates ideological content from epistemic structure by measuring three distinct interpretive postures: the Literal (L) style, characterized by straightforward, face-value assent to traditional theological propositions; the Antiliteral (A) style, defined by an equally direct, face-value rejection of theological claims based on empirical or naturalistic premises; and the Mythological (M) style, distinguished by symbolic, hermeneutic, and nonliteral reinterpretation of religious assertions. The standard instrument consists of 17 core theological statements (distilled from an initial pool of 25 stems derived largely from McLean’s Religious Worldviews Scale), with each proposition accompanied by three or four distinct response options keyed to the L, A, and M modalities. Administration methodologies historically incorporate either an ipsative forced-ranking format (scored either via full ranking [2-1-0] or predominant selection [1-0-0]) or non-ipsative Likert-type scalar adaptations (e.g., Poythress, 1975). Psychometric evaluations reveal robust internal consistency and split-half reliability coefficients for the Literal (ranging from .83 to .94) and Antiliteral dimensions (ranging from .71 to .95), whereas the Mythological scale exhibits moderate yet consistently lower reliability estimates (.67 to .77), reflecting inherent semantic heterogeneity and cultural specificities in symbolic discourse. Construct, convergent, and predictive validities have been substantiated across collegiate, monastic, and cross-cultural cohorts, demonstrating significant correlations with external measures of cognitive flexibility, dogmatism, and peer-perceived religious orientation. This article provides a comprehensive psychometric and theoretical review of the LAM Scales, elucidating their operational constructs, psychometric architecture, structural debates, and enduring legacy in the psychological study of religion.

Keywords

LAM Scales, Richard A. Hunt, religious interpretive styles, literalism, antiliteralism, mythological orientation, religious cognition, ipsative measurement, psychometrics of religion, symbolic religious commitment, Post-Critical Belief Scale, cognitive complexity

Authors

The primary architect of the LAM Scales is Richard A. Hunt, Ph.D., who formulated and psychometrically standardized the instrument during his tenure in the Department of Psychology at Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas. Hunt was a prominent figure in the scientific study of religion and pastoral psychology throughout the late 20th century, serving actively within the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR) and the American Psychological Association (APA, Division 36: Society for the Psychology of Religion and Spirituality). His programmatic research focused extensively on the multidimensional operationalization of religiosity, pastoral counseling assessment, clergy selection and evaluation, and the cognitive structures underlying spiritual conviction. Subsequent structural adaptations, psychometric refinements, and cross-cultural validations were advanced by notable scholars including Norman G. Poythress (1975), Chester D. Orlowski (1979), Jan M. van der Lans (1991), and William E. Northover and Luis Montoro-Gonzalez (1993).

Purpose

The primary catalyst for the development of the LAM Scales was an urgent methodological crisis identified by Hunt in the early 1970s regarding how psychological science operationalized religious faith. Hunt (1972a) observed that prevailing instruments designed to measure “religiosity” or “religious orthodoxy”—such as traditional orthodoxy inventories, churchmanship indices, and institutional assent batteries—were inherently confounded by an unexamined fundamentalistic and literalist bias. Specifically, these instruments routinely presented respondents with traditional theological statements (e.g., historical bodily resurrection, creation ex nihilo, physical miracles, personal divine interventions) and scored adherence along a unidimensional continuum ranging from absolute assent to categorical rejection. Under this paradigm, high religiosity was implicitly equated with a literal, concrete assent to dogma, whereas any disagreement with the literal formulation of the doctrine was automatically scored as low religiosity, skepticism, or atheism.

Hunt argued that this methodological confounding created severe construct invalidity. It systematically disenfranchised and misclassified a substantial demographic of highly religious, philosophically sophisticated individuals—most notably adherents of liberal, neo-orthodox, and modern theological traditions—who rejected the literal veracity of traditional biblical narratives while affirming their profound existential, metaphorical, and transcendent validity. When forced to respond to an item such as “Jesus was born of a virgin” on a standard Agree/Disagree continuum, an individual who interprets the virgin birth mythologically as a poetic celebration of the divine presence in humanity, rather than an anatomical anomaly, had no viable mechanism to express their nuanced belief. Consequently, such respondents were compelled by the lack of expressive alternatives to mark “Disagree,” thereby erroneously categorizing themselves as non-religious or anti-religious.

To eliminate this systematic measurement error, Hunt designed the LAM Scales to disentangle the content or direction of religious commitment (whether an individual affirms or rejects religious values) from the cognitive style or interpretive modality (whether the individual processes religious language literally, anti-literally, or symbolically). In clinical, educational, and pastoral research, the purpose of the LAM Scales is multifaceted:

• Cognitive Differentiation in Empirical Research: Providing empirical researchers with a standardized tool capable of capturing qualitative differences in how individuals process transcendent narratives, avoiding the conflation of religious liberalism with irreligion.
• Pastoral and Theological Assessment: Enabling seminary educators, denominational boards, and spiritual counselors to assess cognitive flexibility, theological nuance, and ideological rigidity among prospective ministerial candidates and congregants.
• Clinical and Counseling Applications: Assisting psychotherapists and clinical psychologists in discerning whether a client’s religious convictions are anchored in rigid, dogmatic literalism (which frequently correlates with cognitive constriction, perfectionism, and moral scrupulosity) or an open, mythological framework capable of assimilating life crises, ambiguity, and personal suffering.
• Cross-Cultural and Interfaith Exploration: Offering a framework to explore how religious modernization, secularization, and educational attainment influence the cognitive hermeneutics of faith communities transitioning from pre-critical dogmatism to post-critical symbolic understanding.

Psychological Construct

The core theoretical architecture of the LAM Scales rests upon three discrete interpretive styles through which individuals cognize, interpret, and evaluate biblical, theological, and ultimate assertions. These three modes form the acronym LAM:

1. The Literal (L) Style

The Literal interpretive orientation represents an unmediated, concrete, and face-value assent to theological propositions. Within this cognitive modality, religious language is viewed as conveying factual, empirical, historical, and physical truths. Divine intervention, biblical inerrancy, physical miracles, and traditional eschatological topoi (such as a literal heaven, a spatial hell, and physical resurrection) are embraced without allegorical dilution. For the Literal respondent, the epistemic criterion rests upon authoritative revelation and direct divine causation: if scripture asserts an event, that event occurred within the spacetime continuum exactly as described. The psychological profile associated with the L style typically reflects high cognitive closure, elevated institutional loyalty, conventional moral reasoning, and low tolerance for theological ambiguity. In Hunt’s framework, an exemplary L response to the statement “All miracles in the Bible are true” is: “Agree, because the Bible cannot contain any false report of God’s work.”

2. The Antiliteral (A) Style

The Antiliteral interpretive orientation shares identical epistemic assumptions with the Literal style regarding the nature of language, but arrives at the diametrically opposed existential conclusion. The Antiliteral mind also presumes that religious assertions must be evaluated strictly as factual, scientific, and historical claims; however, because empirical evidence, modern natural science, and logical positivism fail to substantiate such claims, the Antiliteral orientation rejects them categorically. The A style reflects a rationalistic, naturalistic, and secular worldview wherein the supernatural is dismissed as prescientific superstition, psychological escapism, or anachronistic myth. The A style is not characterized by subtle symbolic translation; rather, it views religious texts as empirically falsified assertions. An illustrative A response to the statement “Jesus walked on water and raised the dead” is: “Disagree, since these are probably exaggerated reports of events which could be explained through our knowledge of nature.”

3. The Mythological (M) Style

The Mythological interpretive orientation transcends the binary literalism common to both the L and A stances. Drawing upon theological hermeneutics and cognitive developmental theories, the M style recognizes that religious, metaphysical, and biblical narratives operate via metaphor, symbol, myth, and existential analogy. For the Mythological respondent, religious language does not intend to articulate empirical physics or literal historiography, but rather serves to dramatize the existential condition of humanity, illuminate ultimate reality, and point toward transcendent dimensions of being that defy direct propositional speech. Consequently, the M style neither affirms the proposition with naive literalism nor discards it with reductive rationalism. Instead, the individual reinterprets the assertion symbolically, locating its truth value in its capacity to orient human consciousness toward ultimate meaning, ethical commitment, and community solidarity. An exemplary M response to the proposition “Jesus was born of a virgin in a manner different from human beings” is: “Agree, but only in the sense that this is an ancient mythological way of talking about the Ultimate Reality as manifested in Jesus.”

Theoretical Framework

The intellectual foundations of the LAM Scales are deeply rooted in 20th-century philosophical theology, existential hermeneutics, and cognitive-developmental psychology. Hunt synthesized insights from several major intellectual traditions to formulate the scale’s construct validity:

Tillich’s Theology of Culture and Ultimate Concern

A primary theoretical wellspring for the Mythological scale is the existential ontology of theologian Paul Tillich. Tillich posited that faith is the state of being grasped by an “Ultimate Concern” and that the language of faith is necessarily symbolic because no finite entity can express the infinite directly without descending into idolatry. Tillich famously differentiated between a sign (which merely points to an external object) and a symbol (which participates in the reality and power to which it points while remaining distinct from it). When religious doctrines are treated as literal scientific or historical facts, Tillich argued that faith degenerates into literalistic idolatry. Hunt directly incorporated Tillichian nomenclature into the M-scale items, frequently invoking phrases such as “Ultimate Concern,” “Ultimate Reality,” and the “ground of being” as valid interpretive keys for biblical statements.

Bultmann’s Demythologization and Ricoeur’s Hermeneutics

The conceptual differentiation between historical reporting and existential proclamation reflects the influential program of Rudolf Bultmann, who championed the “demythologization” (Entmythologisierung) of the New Testament. Bultmann asserted that the mythological cosmological framework of the ancient world (a three-tiered universe of heaven, earth, and underworld) is untenable for modern humanity; the true purpose of the gospel narrative (the kerygma) is not to demand assent to supernatural occurrences, but to confront the individual with an existential decision regarding authentic self-understanding. Supplementing this view is Paul Ricoeur‘s hermeneutical philosophy, particularly his concept of the “second naiveté.” Ricoeur theorized a cognitive journey wherein the human mind moves from a primary or pre-critical naiveté (the Literal stance), through a critical or demythologizing critique (the Antiliteral stance), toward a post-critical “second naiveté” (the Mythological stance), wherein religious symbols are re-appropriated at a higher level of hermeneutic depth.

Piagetian Cognitive Development and Structural Faith Stages

At the intersection of psychology and theology, the LAM construct corresponds closely to cognitive-developmental models of maturity. In Jean Piaget‘s structural framework, the transition from concrete operational thought to formal operational thought is marked by the capacity to manipulate second-order representations, metaphors, and counterfactual possibilities. Translating this to religious cognition, James W. Fowler‘s subsequent model of Stages of Faith demonstrated that individuals progress from a “Mythic-Literal” stage (Stage 2), where symbols are fused with the thing symbolized, to an “Individuative-Reflective” stage (Stage 4), where critical demythologization occurs, and ultimately to a “Conjunctive” stage (Stage 5), where paradoxical, symbolic, and multidimensional realities are embraced. Hunt’s LAM Scales represented the first empirical attempt to operationalize these developmental hermeneutic transitions within a psychometric questionnaire.

Validity

The validation of the LAM Scales has traversed multiple empirical phases, encompassing investigations of construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity across diverse populations.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

In his initial validation studies, Hunt (1972a) administered the LAM Scales alongside McLean’s (1952) Religious Worldviews Scale to a standardization sample of Southern Methodist University undergraduates ($N = 173$). As hypothesized, Hunt observed strong, highly statistically significant correlations between McLean’s scale and both the Literal scale ($r = +.74$) and the Antiliteral scale ($r = -.81$). Because McLean’s instrument operationalized religiosity through traditional orthodox affirmations versus secular dismissals, the robust positive correlation with L and negative correlation with A provided robust evidence of convergent validity. Crucially, the Mythological (M) scale exhibited a near-zero correlation with McLean’s scale ($r = +.08$, non-significant). This orthogonality established vital discriminant validity: it empirically verified Hunt’s theoretical assertion that the Mythological interpretive style represents a distinct cognitive-hermeneutic construct that cannot be plotted along a conventional unidimensional “belief versus disbelief” spectrum.

Chester D. Orlowski (1979) extended the convergent validation of the LAM Scales by administering them to a cohort of 82 Franciscan friars within a Roman Catholic religious order, utilizing a multi-trait multi-method approach combining self-report with peer-observer ratings. Orlowski found that self-reported Literal scores correlated significantly with peer ratings of subject literalism ($r = +.41, p < .01$), and self-reported Mythological scores correlated significantly with peer ratings of symbolic maturity ($r = +.36, p < .01$). Conversely, peer-observer ratings for the Antiliteral scale failed to achieve statistical significance ($r = +.12$), a finding Orlowski attributed to restricted variance within an active monastic order where overt behavioral expressions of antiliteralism were systematically constrained by social and institutional norms.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Jan M. van der Lans (1991) provided rigorous evidence for the predictive and criterion-related validity of the L and M dimensions utilizing structured, qualitative cognitive interviews. Individuals identified as extreme high scorers on either the L or M scales were presented with ambiguous religious texts, parables, and metaphysical dilemmas. Verbatim protocol analyses demonstrated that high M scorers consistently exhibited significantly higher levels of cognitive flexibility, conceptual integration, and metaphorical fluency, freely identifying multiple layers of meaning within sacred texts. In contrast, extreme L scorers exhibited pronounced cognitive rigidity, relying exclusively on concrete narrative details, historical harmonizations, and external authority structures to resolve textual contradictions.

Further cross-cultural criterion validity was substantiated by Jablonski, Grzymala-Moszczynska, and van der Lans (1994) in comparative investigations across Polish and Dutch samples. In highly secularized and pluralistic Dutch cohorts, higher educational attainment and exposure to higher biblical criticism correlated robustly with elevated M scores, whereas in traditionally homogeneous Polish cohorts, ideological alignment remained predominantly bifurcated between the L and A poles, reflecting the socio-cultural mediation of cognitive hermeneutic development.

Reliability

Psychometric evaluations across multiple decades and administrative iterations demonstrate that the LAM Scales possess adequate to exceptionally strong reliability parameters, although notable psychometric variances persist across the three individual dimensions.

Original Ipsative Coefficients

In the seminal standardization study conducted by Hunt (1972a) on 173 undergraduate students (88 females, 85 males), reliability coefficients were computed utilizing Gulliksen’s variance-covariance procedure for ipsative and ranked data. Hunt documented the following internal consistency metrics:

• Literal (L) Scale: $r_{xx} = .87$
• Antiliteral (A) Scale: $r_{xx} = .92$
• Mythological (M) Scale: $r_{xx} = .77$

While the Literal and Antiliteral dimensions exhibited high internal reliability, Hunt noted that the Mythological scale’s coefficient, while psychometrically acceptable for an exploratory instrument, was noticeably lower. Hunt (1972b, 1993) attributed this attenuation to the complex linguistic and theological architecture required to articulate symbolic options, which introduces greater item-specific variance than straightforward dogmatic affirmation or denial.

Non-Ipsative and Split-Half Replications

To circumvent the statistical complexities inherent in ipsative ranking, Norman G. Poythress (1975) converted the 17 items into an independent 5-point Likert response format ($N = 142$). Poythress’s analysis yielded Spearman-Brown corrected split-half reliability coefficients of:

• Literal (L) Scale: $r_{sb} = .94$
• Antiliteral (A) Scale: $r_{sb} = .95$
• Mythological (M) Scale: $r_{sb} = .76$

Subsequent psychometric testing by Orlowski (1979) utilizing Poythress’s Likert adaptation among 82 Catholic religious order members yielded comparable, albeit slightly attenuated, Spearman-Brown reliabilities:

• Literal (L) Scale: $r_{sb} = .83$
• Antiliteral (A) Scale: $r_{sb} = .71$
• Mythological (M) Scale: $r_{sb} = .67$

The recurrence of lower internal consistency for the M scale across both ipsative and Likert formats underscores a recognized measurement constraint: because symbolic reinterpretation can adopt diverse philosophical idioms (existential, psychological, sociopolitical, or mystical), any fixed set of mythological response options inevitably captures only a fraction of a respondent’s idiosyncratic symbolic framework, thereby increasing measurement error (Greeley, 1972).

Factor Analysis

The underlying factor structure and latent dimensionality of the LAM Scales have been the subject of intensive empirical scrutiny and theoretical debate within the psychometric literature.

The Orthogonality Debate

Hunt (1972a) originally posited that the LAM Scales measured two underlying, independent dimensions: (1) an epistemic dimension spanning literalism versus symbolism, and (2) a commitment dimension spanning religious affirmation versus secular denial. If fully crossed in an orthogonal matrix, four theoretical quadrants emerge:

1. Literal-Religious (represented by the L scale)
2. Literal-Nonreligious (represented by the A scale)
3. Symbolic-Religious (represented by the M scale)
4. Symbolic-Nonreligious (unmeasured in Hunt’s original battery)

Because Hunt’s instrument omitted the fourth quadrant (an individual who appreciates religious symbols aesthetically or culturally without personally maintaining transcendent commitment), empirical factor analyses frequently encountered structural distortions.

Exploratory and Confirmatory Dimensional Findings

When Poythress (1975) conducted an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation on his non-ipsative Likert data, two dominant latent factors emerged that accounted for over 68% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Orthodox-Naturalistic Polarization: Defined by massive opposing loadings from the Literal items (positive loadings ranging from +.62 to +.88) and Antiliteral items (negative loadings ranging from -.58 to -.84). This factor represented the conventional substantive belief axis.
• Factor 2: Symbolic-Hermeneutic Processing: Defined almost exclusively by high positive loadings from the Mythological items (loadings ranging from +.45 to +.78), confirming that the M scale clustered onto a distinct cognitive factor rather than merely loading as an intermediate midpoint on the primary orthodoxy axis.

In contrast, William E. Northover, Luis Montoro-Gonzalez, and Hunt (1993) examined cross-cultural factor structures among Canadian and Spanish university students. Their principal component analyses suggested an alternative structural configuration wherein the Literal and Antiliteral orientations operated as the polar extremes of a single bipolar dimension, with the Mythological style functioning as an intermediate, non-dogmatic buffer. However, modern structural equation modeling (SEM) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) performed on conceptual descendants of the LAM scale—most notably the Post-Critical Belief Scale (PCBS) formulated by Dirk Hutsebaut and Bart Duriez—have conclusively validated a two-dimensional orthogonal model: Inclusion vs. Exclusion of Transcendence (the vertical axis) and Literal vs. Symbolic Processing (the horizontal axis), providing retrospective mathematical vindication for Hunt’s original conceptual intuitions.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The LAM Scales instrument is a structured psychometric inventory composed of 17 core theological propositions. Below is the operational specification of the instrument’s structural parameters, scoring mechanisms, and administration procedures:

• Test Type: Multidimensional cognitive-hermeneutic inventory of religious interpretive styles.
• Administration Format: Standardized self-administered questionnaire (paper-and-pencil or computer-assisted testing).
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults possessing a high school reading level or above; assumes basic familiarity with Judeo-Christian theological concepts.
• Item Architecture: 17 theological statements (stems), each paired with 3 (or in Items 4 and 8, 4) alternative interpretive responses corresponding to the Literal (L), Antiliteral (A), and Mythological (M) orientations.
• Standard Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes.
• Primary Scoring Protocols:
  • Hunt’s Preferred Predominant Option (1-0-0 Method): The respondent ranks the alternatives for each item (1 = closest to my opinion, 2 = second closest, 3 = least close). For each item, only the top-ranked choice (Rank 1) receives 1 point; all lower-ranked alternatives receive 0 points. Points are summed across all 17 items for L, A, and M separately (maximum total score = 17). This method produces minimal inter-scale correlations and classifies the individual into their primary interpretive orientation based on the highest scale sum.
  • Hunt’s Full Ranking Option (2-1-0 Method): For each item, the respondent’s first choice receives 2 points, their second choice receives 1 point, and their third choice receives 0 points (with fourth choices in Items 4 and 8 assigned 0). Scores are summed across the 17 items for each dimension (scale range: 0 to 34). This ipsative approach provides a more nuanced profile of secondary orientations but introduces non-independence of error variance.
  • Poythress’s Non-Ipsative Likert Adaptation: Each of the 17 theological stems is combined with each of its respective interpretive responses to form independent items rated on a 5-point Likert scale (-2 = Strongly Disagree, -1 = Disagree, 0 = Neutral/Undecided, +1 = Agree, +2 = Strongly Agree). This produces independent, continuous interval scores across the L, A, and M subscales.
• Interpretive Classification: Under the ipsative models, an individual is assigned a categorical classification (Literal, Antiliteral, or Mythological) corresponding to their highest absolute aggregate score. In cases where the top two scale scores are tied or within one point of each other, respondents are classified as exhibiting a mixed or transitional interpretive orientation.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The LAM Scales were officially published in 1972 in the peer-reviewed journal Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion (Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 42–52). The copyright for the original article and its psychometric contents is held by the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion (SSSR), published by Wiley-Blackwell. The scale was established as an open academic assessment instrument intended to advance empirical investigations in the psychology and sociology of religion. Non-commercial scholarly use, educational administration, and academic research adaptations generally do not require licensing fees, provided that formal academic citation of Hunt (1972a) is maintained. Researchers seeking to implement the scale in commercial, institutional, or revenue-generating diagnostic settings should contact the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion or Wiley-Blackwell’s permissions department to obtain formal authorization.

References

The following academic publications document the development, validation, critique, and structural evolution of the LAM Scales:

• Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. Harper & Row.
• Greeley, A. M. (1972). Comment on Hunt’s “Mythological-symbolic religious commitment: The LAM scales.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(3), 287–289. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384557
• Hunt, R. A. (1972a). Mythological-symbolic religious commitment: The LAM scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384339
• Hunt, R. A. (1972b). Reply to Greeley. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(3), 290–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384558
• Hunt, R. A. (1993). Response to Northover and Gonzalez. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3(3), 201–204. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0303_4
• Hutsebaut, D. (1996). Post-Critical Belief Scale: A replacement for the LAM scales. Journal of Empirical Theology, 9(2), 48–66. https://doi.org/10.1163/157092596X00142
• Jablonski, P., Grzymala-Moszczynska, H., & van der Lans, J. (1994). Interpretation of religious language among Poles and the Dutch: Cognitive competence or cultural construction? Polish Psychological Bulletin, 25(4), 283–302.
• Kalecinska-Adamczyk, E. (1995). Religion and anti-Semitism: The influence of the social approval of prejudices on the tendency to manifest them in behavior. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 26(2), 158–160.
• McLean, M. (1952). Religious world views. Motive, 12(8), 22–26.
• Northover, W. E., Montoro-Gonzalez, L., & Hunt, R. A. (1993). A cross-cultural comparison of religious belief: Canadian and Spanish students’ responses to the Hunt scale. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3(3), 187–199. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0303_3
• Orlowski, C. D. (1979). Linguistic dimension of religious measurement. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 18(3), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385775
• Poythress, N. G. (1975). Literal, antiliteral, and mythological religious orientations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 14(3), 271–284. https://doi.org/10.2307/1384893
• Ricoeur, P. (1967). The symbolism of evil. Harper & Row.
• Tillich, P. (1957). Dynamics of faith. Harper & Row.
• van der Lans, J. M. (1991). Interpretation of religious language and cognitive style: A pilot study with the LAM scale. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 1(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0102_4

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)