AILSTQMLT

EXTRINSIC RELIGICUS VALUES AND PERSONALITY VARIABLES
DOGMATISM, RIGIDITY, CONCRETE THINKING
AN!) NAIUZO.'{ C(IGNI ‘IVB GRGANIZATION

By

Alice Palmer Mathews

Research on the nature of prejudice during the past three
decades has pointed up the relationship of this phenomenon to the
degree of religious influence in an individual's training. Wilson
postulated the holding of extrinsic religious values as a factor
in understanding the reported differences in prejudice level among
_religious persons. Ethnocentrism also correlated with various
personality variables reported in the literature; among them were
dogmatism, rigidity, concrete thinking, and narrow cognitive or-
ganization. The question thus posed itself whether, in fact, a
significant relationship existed between these personality vari-
ables and extrinsic religious values. Two possible factors re-
ported in the literature which could explain such hypothesized
correlations were: 1) frequency of church attendance, and 2) mem-
bership in a Bible study group. The relationship of these two
factors to the notion of intrinsic or interiorized faith is also
considered.

Groups of Michigan State University students from five
campus religious organizations and two groups from psychology
classes were given a battery of five scales: Wilson's Extrinsic

Religious Values scale, the Sanford-Gengh Fx scale (tapping

Mathews
rigidity), Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form B, a concept-definition
measure to tap the abstract-concrete thinking continuum, and a
paragraph summary of the concepts to determine the breadth of
cognitive organization.

Whole-sample analyses of these data yielded significance
beyond the .001 level for correlations between extrinsic reli-
gious values and rigidity and dogmatism, and beyond the .01 level
between extrinsic religious values and concrete thinking.

A breakdown of the entire sample into four equal quartiles
of 32 subjects each, based upon ERV scores, brought out signifi-
cant differences between Means in the hypothesized direction for
all quartiles in both the rigidity and dogmatism scales, and be-
tween some quartiles for the concrete thinking and narrow cogni-
tive organization measures.

An item-analysis of the ERV scale yielded significant diff-
erences in the eXpected direction between subjects judged high
and low on each of the four personality variables.

A matched-pairs study of the Bible study/nonestudy variable
yielded significance beyond the .005 level for measures of extrin-
sic religious values and dogmatism.

The four personality variables are presented as forms of
defense against threat, and an extrinsic religious orientation
is seen as a correlate: they functionally satisfy many of the
same psychological needs. The individual engaged in_ defending

himself against a hostile world will more likely accept the aid

Mathews
the church offers him; his orientation to an ecclesiastical in-

stitution will be extrinsic: instrumental and utilitarian.

EXTRINSIC RELIGIOUS VAL'ES ALB PERSONALITY VARIABLES
DOGMATISM, RIGIDITY, CCXCRfiTE THINKING
AND NARROW COGNITIVE ORGANIZATION

By

Alice Palmer Mathews

A 1113515
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1970

G (.7057 (p

ACKNOWLEDG} '31'4'1‘5

It is a pleasure to acknowledge my debt to Dr. Milton
Rokeach, first for his provocative classroom lectures and
published formulations which stimulated this present research,
and then for his supervision and many helpful suggestions
during the course of the investigation and writing of this
thesis. A

Appreciation is also eXpressed to Dr. John Hurley and
Dr. B. P. Karon for their willingness to read the manuscript
and to serve on the faculty committee.

And finally, my gratitude is great for the extreme
patience and supportive love of my husband and children,
without which this thesis could not have been brought to

completion.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TALBIJFJS O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 iv
1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l

A. Background:
1. Religion and Prejudice
2. Personality Variables and Prejudice:
a. Dogmatism and Prejudice
b. Rigidity and Prejudice
c. Concrete Thinking and Prejudice
d. Narrow Cognitive Organization and Prejudice
B. Statement of the Thesis.

II. A pRELIbIINARY STIJDY . Q o . . Q Q . Q g o . Q Q o . o 13

A. The Instrument
B. The Sample
C. The Scoring
D. The Results

III. LIAIN STLTDY WEARCH DESIGN 0 . o g Q o g o Q Q Q Q o 20

A. The Instrument
B. The Sample
C. The Scoring

IV.THERI£SULTS..................... 23
VODISCUSSION00.000000000000000... 39

A. ERV and dogmatism

B. ERV and rigidity

C. DEV and concrete thinking

D. ERV and narrow cognitive organization
E. Bible study and church attendance

F. Further observations

LIST OF IEFERENCES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 61

APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O .- O O O O O O 63

A. Dogmatism scale, Form E
B. Extrinsic Religious Values scale
C. Sanford-Gough Fx scale

D. Concept definitions 111

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

9.

10.

ll.

12.

l3

14.

15.

Distribution of Preliminary Study Sample . . . .~. . . 14

Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of all Variables
in Preliminary Study with Educational Differences Noted l7

Coefficients of Correlation for All Variables in Prelim-
inary Study with Educational Differences Noted . . . . 18

Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of All Variables in
Main Study by Original Groupings . . . . . . . . . . 24

Coefficients of Correlation for All Variables in Main
Study by Original GrOUDB e e e o e o o e e e e e e e o 25

Coefficients of Correlation for Extrinsic Religious
Values with Dogmatism, Rigidity, Concrete Thinking, and
Narrow Cognitive Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Difference between Means of Matched Study/non~Study
saflple e o e o e o e e e e o s e e o e o e e o e o o e 27

Sum of Chi-squares for Extrinsic Religious Values Scale
and Personality Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors of Total
Scores for Rigidity, Dogmatism, and Narrow Cognitive Or-
ganization for Quartiles I, II, III, and IV . . . . . 29

Difference of Means of Total Scores for Rigidity, Dogma-
tism, and Narrow Cognitive Organization for Quartiles I,
II. III, and IV 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 30

Definitions Given to Ten Concepts by ERV Quartiles I,
II, III, and IV 0 e e e o o o e o e e o e o e s e e e 31

Difference of Means of Definitions Given to Ten Concepts
by ERV Quartiles I, II, III, and IV . . . . .‘. . . . 32

Response Percentage to ERV Items by Subjects High and
Low in Rigidity, Dogmatism, and Concrete Thinking . .~ 35

Reaponse Percentage to ERV Items by Subjects with'Broad,
Isolated, or Narrow Organizations . . . . . . . . . . 36

Response Percentage to ERV Items by Frequency of Church
Attendance s o e e e o e e o s o e o e o o o e e e e e 37

iv

1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

A. Background

 

1. Religion and Prejudice.--The research on the nature of
prejudice triggered by the race riots of 1943 in the United
States reported consistently significant correlations between
the phenomenon of prejudice and the degree of religious influ-
ence as‘a factor in an individual's training.1- Since, however,
this factor was not entirely absent in low-prejudice groups,
Sanford concluded on the basis of a qualitative analysis of their
data that "the fact of acceptance or rejection of religion is not
as important as the way in which it is accepted or rejected."2
Allport later elaborated this with data suggesting two differen-
tiated reasons for belonging to churches: l) the "institutional"
religious outlook, in which the church provided a safe, powerful
in-group; and 2) the "interiorized" religious outlook, in which
practitioners believed sincerely in the ideals taught by the

church.8 Wilson has corroborated this by demonstrating that

 

lillpOTt. G.Va'. and Kramer, B.W., "Some Roots of Prejudice,"
J. Psychol., 1946, g2, 9-31.

2Adorno, T.w., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., and
Sanford, R.N., The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper,
1950.

'3Allport, G.W., The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, Mass:
Addison-Wesley, 1954.

2

"those who affiliate with a religious institution for utilitar-
ian, self-serving purposes--those with 'extrinsic' religious
values-~tend to be prejudiced."4 Allport stated:

I venture the Opinion that theological belief is not in it-
self a direct factor in prejudice. In all religious groups
we find every degree of prejudice, from high to low. A
fully interiorized, intrinsic faith, of whatever theological
cast, makes for low prejudice; whereas an extrinsic reli-
gious orientatign, be it orthodox or unorthodox, makes for
high prejudice.

Rosenbaum has demonstrated this hypothesized curvilinear
relationship, using frequency of church attendance as the mea-
sure of religiosity. Significantly, a majority (58.1%) of his
religious respondents demonstrated democratic tendencies, where-
as only 36.3% of the non-religious respondents were judged low
in prejudice.

Friedrichs further refined Rosenbaum's hypothesis with data
suggesting:

The relative tolerance exhibited by those not claiming
church membership as well as those attending religious
services ten or fewer times over the previous year con-
trasts with the relative intolerance of church members
and those attending between eleven and sixty times. This
would appear to contribute additional evidence in support
of those studies which have found that formal religious
activity is related inversely to tolerance of minority

groups. However, the position of those who attended more
than sixty services indicates that the relationship may

 

4Wilson,'W.C., "Extrinsic Religious Values and Prejudice,"
J. abnorm. & soc. Psychol., 1960, 69, 286-88.

5Allport, G.W., "Prejudice: Is it Societal or Personal?",
J. soc. Issues, 1962, ;§, 120-133.

6Rosenbaum, A.L., "Ethnic Prejudice as Related to Social
Class and Religiosity," Sociol. & Soc. Res., 1958,‘g§, 272-275.

3

be curvilinear, for this group of respondents exhibited
even greater tolerance than those not claiming church mem-
bership or attending less than ten times. It suggests
that the studies uncovering a simple inverse relationship
may have failed to distinguish between those approximating
the institutional norm in religious activity and those ex-
seeding it.7
Friedrichs also found that "the nature of the role an in-
dividual plays in his church relationship will modify any pre-
dictive schema based simply upon attendance or institutional
affiliation. Members of religious study groups within the sam-
ple were clearly more tolerant than members of governing boards,
Sunday school teachers, or members of church societies."8
More recently, Feagin, working with a modified form of
the Wilson ERV scale, reported that while the intrinsic and ex-
trinsic orientations are not unidimensional but independent,
only the extrinsic orientation is related to intolerance. Fur-
thermore, while orthodoxy per se is not related to either the
intrinsic or extrinsic orientation, it is positively related to
prejudice.9
Thus Allport assumes that "the inner experience of reli-

gion (what it means to the individual) is an important causal

factor in develOping a tolerant or a prejudiced outlook on

 

7Friedrichs, Robert w., "Christians and Residential Exclu-
sion: an Empirical Study of a Northern Dilemma," J. soc. Issues,
1959’ 3-5., 14-23.

81bid.

9F'eagin,Joe R., "Prejudice and Religious Types," J. for
Scient. Study of Religion, 1964, 2, 3-13.

 

11

it

1:

RC

life."10

2. Personality Variables and Prejudice.--While prejudice
is most often thought of as a sociological phenomenon, its re-
lation to cognitive functioning has not been overlooked.
Rokeach has observed;

In recent years there have appeared a number of investiga-
tions on the relation between social attitudes and cognitive
functioning (thinking, memory, and perception). In the great
majority of these studies the specific social attitude under
scrutiny was ethnic prejudice, or the authoritarianism con-
ceived to underlie it (Adorno, £3 31, 1950). Some major
findings that came out of such studies are that persons who
are high in ethnic prejudice and/or authoritarianism as com-
pared with persons who are low, are more rigid in their prob-
lem-solving behavior, more concrete in their thinking, and
more narrow in their grasp of a particular subject; they also
have a greater tendency to premature closure in their percep-
tual processes and to distortions in memory, and a greater
tendency to be intolerant of ambiguity.11

That certain personality variables correlate significantly
with measures of ethnocentrism has been demonstrated both clini-

12 Furthermore these same variables

cally and experimentally.
appear persistently in studies of religious conservatives. All-
port has more recently reported that "a certain cognitive style

permeates the thinking of many people in such a way that they are

indiscriminately pro-religious and, at the same time, highly

 

lQAllport G.w., and Ross, J.M., "Personal Religious Orien-

tation and Prejudice," J. Pers. & soc. Psychol., 1967,Ԥ, 432-443.

11Rokeach, M., The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, 1960.

12Rokeach, M., "Generalized Rigidity as a Factor in Ethno-
centrism," J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1948, 42, 259-277.

prejudiced."13

a. Dogmatism and Prejudice.--Dogmatism is defined by
Rokeach as "a total ideological defense against threat and at
the same time a cognitive framework for satisfying one's need

14 It is

to know and to comprehend the world one lives in."
seen to be a general authoritarianism, or a closed way of think-
ing which could be associated with any ideology regardless of
content. FUrther studies by Rokeach "investigated whether eth-
nic and racial discrimination on the one hand and discrimination
on the basis of belief congruence on the other, are qualitatively
different forms of prejudice, or whether the former is reducible
to the latter.... The major finding in all samples was that
discriminatory preferences are made primarily on the basis of
belief congruence rather than on the basis of ethnic or racial
congruence."15

The authoritarian referent appears to be the organization
into a relatively closed system of a cognitive constellation of
beliefs and ideas. Belief thus becomes the psychological basis
for discriminating one person or group from another. Prejudice

arises then from a conditioned avoidance of belief systems not

congruent with one's own. In discussion of the constellation

 

13Allport and Ross, J. Pers. & soc. Psychol., 432-443.

14Rokeach, M., "Political and Religious Dogmatism: an
Alternative to the Authoritarian Personality," Psychol. Mono-
graph, 1956,‘22, (Whole No. 425).

lsRokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, 164.

6

of conditions conceived to make the individual or group prone to
dogmatism, Rokeach states: "by overidentification with absolute
authority or a cause, an attempt is made to defend self or group
against feelings of aloneness or isolation, self-hate and mis-
anthropy."16
In Rosenbaum's study, he assumed that "the more religious
a person is (since he would be more likely to accept the relig-
ious leader's authority) the greater would be his tendency to
accept 'authoritarian' leadership."17 His data revealed the
.opposite. Thus it was of interest to this investigator to de-
termine whether the same curvilinear relationship exists between

authoritarianism and religiosity that was demonstrated between

prejudice and religiosity.

b. Rigidity and Prejudice.--While dogmatism is a character-
istic of a total belief system, rigidity is seen as a characteris-
tic of the elements within a system. It points to difficulties
in overcoming single sets or beliefs encountered in attacking,
solving, or learning specific tasks or problems. It refers to
resistance to change of single tasks or beliefs, in contrast to

dogmatism which is resistance to change of a total system of

 

 

 

beliefs.18
16 .
Rokeach, Psychol. donqgraph.
17Rosenbaum, Social. & Soc. Res., 272-275.
18

Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, 183.

7

Brown has suggested that rigidity associated with authori-
tarianism is a kind of defensive behavior which is perceived as
warding off personal failure.19 This defensive behavior can also
be understood in terms of Rokeach's definition of rigidity as
"the inability to change one's set when the objective conditions
demand it, as the inability to restructure a field in which there
are alternative solutions to a problem in order to solve that
problem more efficiently."20

- It should be noted that while rigidity has been positively
correlated with ethnocentrism, problems remain in defining:all the
dimensions of this trait and consequently in knowing precisely
which manifestations of rigidity are, in fact, correlates of pre-
judice. Brengelmann asserts:

'The rigidity factor of Nigniewitsky appears, for example, to
be composed of characteristics like extreme response set,
striving for unrealistic or unreasonable goals, high-prejudice,
obsessionality, high intensity of motivation, and so forth....
Furthermore, rigidity appears to give rise to curvilinear re-
lationships with certainty when measured under suitable con-
ditions. From this the suggestion may be derived that drive
of one form or other is a property of rigidity.21

Chown has presented an overview of the many varied studies

of rigidity in which she concludes that each study has touched

 

19Brown, T., "Authoritarianism and Rigidity," J. Abnorm. a
Soc. Psychol., 1953, 48.

2oRokeach, J. abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., 259-277.

21Brengelmann, J.C., "Extreme Response Set, Drive Level,
and Abnormality in Questionnaire Rigidity," J. Ment. Sci., 1960,
106, 171-186.

8

only limited facets of the construct of rigidity.22 Thus while
this personality variable has been the subject of diverse defi-
nitions and research, for the purposes of the present study it
'will be considered in terms of Rokeach's aforementioned defini-

tion and as a correlate of ethnocentrism.

c. Concrete Thinking and Prejudice.--A further considera-
tion is the relationship of the foregoing variables to concrete
thinking and ethnocentrism. Rokeach suggested that "behavioral
rigidity is a consequence of concrete thinking and that both
concreteness and rigidity may he means of self-defense against
threat."23 His research verified the relationship of the two
personality variables to prejudice upon the hypothesis that
"the high-prejudiced personls thinking about given groups should
be more frequently rooted in the concrete individual objects com-
prising such groups, while the low-prejudiced person's thinking
should be more frequently in terms of the abstract principles
for which the given groups stand."24

I Gregory, in an item-analysis of his Religious Belief Scale,

reported that "what we ordinarily think of as religious conserva-

tism, orthodoxy, or ‘fundamentalism' is in reality a tendency

 

22Chown, Sheila M., "Rigidity: a Flexible Concept," Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 1959, 56, 195-223.

23Rokeach, M., "Prejudice, Concreteness of Thinking, and
Reification of Thinking," J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1951, 42, 84.

24Ibid., 83.

9

toward concreteness (as against abstractness)."25 He has found
an apparent concern with concreteness as a basic characteristic
of the religious conservative. "It is reasonable to assume that
this may be the common factor which has produced the relatively
high correlation between religious conservatism and the authori-

26 His further statement that "the whole

tarian personality."
New Testament might be said to be a protest against literalness
and concreteness in favor of the 'spirit' behind all the laws and
codes"27 once more raises the question basic to the hypothesis:
is this "tendency toward concreteness" among religious conserva-
tives a simple, linear relationship, or can abstract thinking be

found within this group, statistically predictable on the basis

of some criterion of "interiorized faith“?

d. Narrow Cognitive Organization and Prejudice.--From his
research in the area of prejudice, Rokeach has found that "the
social attitudes of high ethnocentrics [which] are resistant to
change may be attributed to the fact that they organize signifi-
cant aspects of their social world relatively more narrowly and
concretely. This is consistent with the fact that they are found
to be relatively more rigid and concrete in solving nonsocial

problems. Resistances in both social and nonsocial areas are

 

25Gregory, W.E., "Orthodoxy of the Authoritarian Person-
ality," J. soc. Issues, 1957, 45, 217-232. '

261bid.

27Ibid.

10

seen as functions of 'narrowmindedness' and both are equally
characteristic of the authoritarian personality."28 Rokeaeh
further hypothesized, following Maslow's concept of higher-and-
lower-order needs, that

narrow organizations are motivated by the lower-order safety

needs while comprehensive organizations arise to gratify

higher-order self-actualization needs. It may further be

hypothesized that organizations falling intermediate between

narrow and comprehensive--that is, isolated organizations--

represent a sort of a compromise attempt on the part of the

person which is motivated at least partially by his need for

safety on the one hand and his need for self-actualization

on the other.29

Allport has profiled the authoritarian personality in the

following terms: "need for aligning oneself with a strong author-
ity figure, and with a protective in-group. Present too are a
... conventionalism, rigid moralism, and a need for definiteness.
... The authoritarian seeks well-marked safety-islands where he
can resist the confusing cross-currents of life in a democracy."30
The parallels become apparent between the authoritarianism in-

herent in the ethnocentric and the safety needs being "met" in

narrow cognitive organization.

3, Statement of the Thesis
Looking at the religious individual in the light of per-

sistent correlations of ethnocentrism with dogmatism, rigidity,

 

28Rokeach, M., "Narrowmindedness and Personality," J. of
Pers., 1951, g9, 234-251.

zglbid.

30Allport, G.W., "Prejudice: Is It Societal or Personal?",

J. soc. Issues, 1962, 18, 120-133.

11

concrete thinking, and "narrowmindedness," one is forced to ask
whether such a person is indeed "motivated by the lower-order
safety needs." What is, in fact, the raison d'Stre of his
religious belief? What degree of safety do his religious prac-
tices provide? Allport has suggested that such an individual
'places "extrinsic" values on religion; "it is something useful
to his existence. It serves him; he does not serve it. For him
religion confers status, provides sociability, pleasant excite-
ment at Christmas and Easter, as well as comfort and support in
time of trouble and bereavement. Nothing in the extrinsic re-
ligious orientation requires the surrender of pet prejudices."31
Conversely, for others religion seems to have "intrinsic"
value, and a curvilinear relationship has been reported as these
persons score low in measures of bigotry. If, therefore, the
notion of qualitative differences in religious adherence as a
factor in prejudice can be demonstrated experimentally, then it
should follow that those variables which correlate with prejudice
(e.g. dogmatism, rigidity, concrete thinking, and narrow cogni-
tive organization) may also have a curvilinear relationship to
the degree of "interiorized faith“ the subject manifests.
The problem, thus, is to see if in fact a significant re-
lationship exists between these personality variables and ex-
. trinsic religious values and to investigate further the quality

of religious faith in question.

 

3libid.

12

Two possible factors reported in the literature which may
explain this hypothesized correlation are l)frequency of church
attendance and 2) membership in a study group. It is also of
interest to this investigator to look further at the relation-
ship of these two factors to the notion of intrinsic or inter-

iorized faith.

II. A PRELIMINARY STUDY

To see whether the preceding hypotheses were worthy of
more extensive research, a preliminary study was undertaken in

1962 with a limited sample.

A. The Instrument

The research tool used was a questionnaire battery incor-
porating four measures reported in the literature.

Part I was the Wilson Extrinsic Religious Values Scale
(hereafter referred to as the ERV scale), designed to distin-
guish between interiorized faith and an extrinsic religious or-
ientation. This instrument has "shown that extrinsic religious
orientation can be measured by a questionnaire scale with some
success, and that as measured it has a high correlation with
ethnic prejudice."32

The personality variable of rigidity was tapped by Part II
of the battery, the Fx (Cough-Sanford Flexibility) Scale, now a
part of the California Psychological Inventory.

Parts 111 and IV were procedures devised at Michigan State
College in 1950 by Rokeach, and were used to measure abstract]

concrete thinking, and broadness or narrowness of cognitive or-

ganization respectively. In Part III, each subject was asked to

 

32Ibid.

13

14

define ten religious and political concepts, e.g. capitalism,
Catholicism, Christianity, etc. Part IV of the battery con-
sisted of putting the ten concepts into one paragraph to deter-

mine the breadth of cognitive organization.

B. The Sample
In the interest of noting what other variables might also
be involved in the factors being considered, a heterogeneous

sample was derived with the distributions given in Table 1.

TABLE 1

DISTRIBUTION OF PRELIMINARY STUDY SAMPLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

(m: 30)
nu—u—-__ T L L 1
Variable Categories
Age 20 - 30 31 - 40 41 - 50 51 - 70
9 7 9 5
Education 8-11 grde 12 grade college post-grad
2 10 6 12
Denominational ~ Baptist Catholic Methodist Other Prot. None
Preference 7 3 7 7 6
Frequency of
Church Attend'ce Once a Twice a Once a Rarely Never
week Month Month
15 3 2 6 4
Occupation Home- Office Student Blue White Profess-
maker Collar Collar ional
4 6 9 3 3 5

 

 

This sample was obtained by the seemingly haphazard method of

distributing questionnaires to family members who in turn asked

15

friends and business acquaintances to fill them out. While such
a sampling procedure may appear a bit untidy, it actually pro-
duced two beneficial results:

1) the sample thus obtained was uncontaminated by the un-
conscious bias of the investigator; and

2) the heterogeneity of the sample clarified certain dis-
tribution problems that could thus be controlled in the main
research, e.g. the skewing of the ERV scores by protocols ob-
tained from persons having no religious adherence of any sort.
Age and level of education also emerged as significant factors
in this preliminary study and could thus be controlled in the

larger research procedure.

C. Scoring

The fifteen-item ERV scale gave the subject two alternatives
to each statement involving religious feeling. One alternative in
each pair was slanted toward "the individual's acceptance of re-

ligion for its benefits to him."33

Choosing these alternatives
gave the subject a high ERV score.
The twenty-two item Fx scale was a true-false type measure
in which all "true" responses were tallied as the rigidity score.
Each of the ten concept definitions was rated as "abstract,"

"reified," or "concrete" and was assigned a numerical value from

which a mean score was derived.

 

33Wilson, J. abnorm. & soc. Psychol., 286-88.

16

The concluding paragraph was rated as "broad" if all ten
concepts were somehow related as a unit, "isolated" if all con-
cepts were mentioned but were grouped into two or more categor-
ies (e.g., political vs. religious), or "narrow" if only some
of the ten concepts were mentioned or implied. These levels

were each assigned numerical values of 3, 2, and 1 respectively.

D. The Results

 

The most significant finding was the over-all .65 correla-
tion between extrinsic religious values and rigidity, yielding
a probability well beyond the .01 level. Table 2 gives the
mean scores and the standard deviations, and Table 3 the inter-
correlations, for each of the four measures.

In an analysis of the data in various sub-categories
(according to the Table 1 sample distribution), one significant
relationship emerged: level of education was the factor yielding
the highest Chi-square value (well beyond the .01 level) for
both the ERV and rigidity scales. Of the eighteen protocols from
individuals who had completed college or post-graduate studies,
~fifteen scored below the mean on both measures, whereas nine of
the twelve protocols for individuals with only high school or
less education were above the mean on both scales.

In the youngest age group (20-30), seven out of eight pro-
tocols were below the mean on the ERV scale, but in the three
other age groups (31-40, 41-50, 51-70), the protocols were evenly

divided above and below the mean. This could be a function of

MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS 0F

17

TABLE 2

ALL VARIABLES IN PRELIMINARY STUDY
WITH EDUCATIONAL DIFFERENCES NOTED

fl

 

 

 

 

ERV Fx Abstr/Concr Broad/Narrow

Group N _ '_ _' _

X SD X SD X SD X SD
Entire 30 4.4 2.81 10.1 3.76 2.51 .33 2.14 .84
Sample
Education: 12 6.42 1.88 12.8 3.34 2.54 .30 2.25 .72
High school
or less
College 18 3.05 2.50 8.3 2.73 2.49 .36 2.06 .66
and/or
Post-grad

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note.--The following
ings: ERV, Extrinsic

Scale.

abbreviations are used in the column head-
Religious Values scale; Fx, Flexibility

18

TABLE 3

COEFFICIENTS or CORRELATIONC

FOR

ALI.VARIABLES IN PRELIMINARY STUDY
WITH EDUCATIONAL DIFFERENCES NOTED

 

 

Group

Total
sample

Education
HS/less

College
post-grad

ERV/Fx

.65..

.723.

.45’

 

 

ERV/AC

.19

-012

.18

 

ERV/BN

.18

.23

.14

 

FXIAC
.09

-.07

.12

 

Fx/BN

-010

-026

...19

 

AC/BN

-032

-014

-048.

 

Note.--The following abbreviations are used in the column head-
ings: ERV, Extrinsic Religious Values scale; Fx, Sanford-Cough
Flexibility scale; AC, Abstract/Concrete thinking measure; BN,

Broad/Narrow Cognitive Organization measure.
‘ Probability beyond .05.
“ Probability beyond .01.

c. All correlations derived by Pearson Product-moment Method.

19

changing values with aging, and the likelihood that young people
often see less need for religious ties. It could also be a
function of the sampling distribution in which four of the nine
in the youngest group have no church affiliation, two attend

only once a month, and three are regular in attendance.

III. RESEARCH DESIGN FOR THE MAIN STUDY

'A. The Instrument

The research tool used was a questionnaire battery incor-
porating the four measures used in the preliminary study with
the addition of the Dogmatism Scale, Form E. The latter was
developed by Rokeach to measure individual differences in open-
ness or closedness of belief systems, general authoritarianism,

and general intolerance.

B. The Sample

Because the inclusion of non-religious individuals in
’the sample used in the preliminary study lessened the discrimi-
nation of the ERV scale among religious subjects, and because
age and education emerged as significant factors in the previous
study, the sample for the present investigation was confined
originally to college students at Michigan State University who
were members of campus religious organizations. The following
groups permitted the administration of the questionnaire battery
during a regular weekly meeting: Campus Crusade for Christ (non-
denominational), Canterbury Club (EpiscOpalian), Inter-Varsity
Christian Fellowship (non-sectarian), Trinity Fellowship (inter-
denominational), and Wesley Foundation (Methodist). However, on
the basis of Friedrich's data on the significance of Bible study

as a factor, two beginning Psychology classes were later added

20

21

to the sample from which matched study/non-study pairs could be
constructed. The length of the battery resulted in many incom-
plete protocols. Thus the first three measures were originally
analyzed on an E_of 133, the fourth on an N of 128, and the fifth
on an N,of 99. The study/non-study variable yielded thirty-three
matched pairs with denominational adherence also controlled;
broadly, age and education were already controlled in the sample

limitation.

C. Scoring

The fifteen-item ERV scale gave the subject two alternatives
to each statement involving religious feeling. One alternative
in each pair was slanted toward the individual's acceptance of
religion for its benefits to him. Choosing these alternatives
gave the subject a high ERV score.

The twenty-two-item Ex scale was a true-false type measure
in which "true" responses were tallied as the rigidity score.

The forty-item Dogmatism scale was scored according to the
choice between six values allowed for each item. Before each
statement the subject was to write:c+l (I agree a little), +2 (I
agree on the whole), +3 (I agree very much), or -1 (I disagree a
little), -2 (I disagree on the whole), or-3 (I disagree very
much); the 0 point was excluded. For all statements, agreement
was scored as closed or dogmatic, and disagreement as open. The
total score on the Dogmatism scale is the sum of scores obtained

on all the items.

22

Each of the ten concept definitions was rated as "abstract,"
"reified," or "concrete" and assigned a numerical value according-
1y from which a mean score was derived.

The concluding paragraph was rated as "broad" if all ten
concepts were somehow related as a unit, "isolated" if all con-
cepts were mentioned but in two or more categories, or "narrow"
if only some of the ten concepts were mentioned or implied.

These levels were each assigned numerical values of l (broad),
2 (isolated), and 3 (narrow) respectively.

It should be kept in mind that high scores on all five
measures indicate the variable being tapped, e.g. the ERV scores
range from non-extrinsic (low) to extrinsic (high), Fx scores
from non-rigid (low) to rigid (high), non-dogmatic (low) to
dogmatic (high), abstract (low) to concrete (high), and broad

cognitive organization (low) to narrow (high).

IV. RESULTS

The initial statistical analysis of the data was done with-
in the seven groups from which protocols had been obtained.
Tables 4 and 5 give the mean scores and standard deviations,
and the coefficients of correlation respectively for these
groups treated as separate, and perhaps disparate, entities.

At first glance, it appears that the wide scatter in cor-
relations casts some doubt on the validity of those correlations
which were nevertheless statistically significant. Yet a closer
look at Table 5 reveals several findings of some interest.
Because of the small-sample distribution of the seven groups
tapped, significance has been tested by the use of Fisher's,&
Test of a coefficient of correlation. The Wesley Foundation
sample yielded correlations significant beyond the .01 level
for three of tne four variables tested (ERV/dogmatism, ERV/rig-
idity, and ERV/narrow cognitive organization), and approached
significance on the fourth variable (ERV/concrete thinking):
Trinity Fellowship (inter-denominational) yielded significance
beyond the .05 level on two of the four variables (ERV/dogma-
tism and ERV/rigidity); the Campus Crusade sample yielded sig-
nificance beyond the .05 level on the ERvynarrow cognitive or-
ganization variable and approach significance (.104<LO5) on the

ERY/concrete thinking variable. While the Canterbury Club

23

24

.hmoquOhmm mewssumem «o acowaoom or» .Hnn haw .aususouuom
snavmaasu hawmao>iaoasa .RU>H "noses

macaw as» aw pom: one nsowwsa>oasss usurounou egal.ouoz

 

 

an. em.a as ea. ee.~ om a~.u v.e n.ea ee.enn ea.“ mn.e on and mum
so. we." as ea. an.” «a as.» o.o~ ~.aa ee.m¢a ou.a ae.n as «as mum
so. e.a on oe. He.” as as.» ee.e amass nu.nes me." ee.n as mo>u
as. as.” m on. ee.s on we.” oe.e e.m~ n.nn~ ee.a om.e on ommmnuw
e
ea. an.a as an. ee.a as ‘so.e ss.- o.e~ os.ses oe.s me.e ea semnHMMwm
. 0
so. ee.a as -e. ee.s on He.u om.e em.ea mn.ae~ ee.s no.» as e aemmmmmm
O O C O O O C O O O nsflo
«e as a an as we a «a me a as e em on He «ea on a me a nu euaeaeeeeo
an m an M mm m. an mm mm W
soaae2\pooam z accou\aamn< z haucwmuz Enamesmon >ma z asoau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mqumDomU Adsznzo w: MODEM

w afln<8

zH<2 2H maam<nm<> and
ED monB<H>mn n=<az<fim nz< mfimcom z<flz

TABLE 5

25

. COEFFICIENTS or comaunomc ran
ALL VARIABLES IN mm STUDY BY ORIGINAL GROUPS

 

 

 

Group _N_ ERV/Dogm REV/rigid N_ ERV/Con.Th a, ERV/Nrw.0rg.
Canter- 5-5 .34 f5: .39; r: .40: r: .27
bury 0. 23 3:51.66 1,351.94 22 3.51.85 19 3:51.28
1

Wesley ‘3: .47“‘g: .55“‘ g: .32‘ 5: .70“'
Founda. 32 352.92 353.61 3° 3.51.85 19 95.37
Trinity 19 g: .56“ g: .46“ 19 5: .33 13 £:-.02
Fellow. 1:52.79 3:2.14 3.51.44 3: .08
Campus 10 ,3: .11 g: .07 10 g: .61‘ 8 g: .69"
Crusade t: .31 -1._: .199 £32.18 _t_:2.68
ICVF 13 t: .11 g; .33 13 g: .17 10 £:-.39

_t_: .37 3:51.16 55 .57 $51.41
Pay 151 g: .38 g: .06 g: .07 5: .22
#16 14 3:1.42 t: .21 14 3;: .24 12 _t_: .78
Pay 151 ‘2: .33 z: .36 g: .23 25-.29
#17 2° 151.48 _t_:l.64 2° 351.01 18 351.02

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ Probability approaching significance (.10 (.05)
Probability significant beyond the .05 level

0.

"‘ Probability significant beyond the .01 level

c. All correlations derived by Pearson Product-Moment Method.

 

26

sample did not yield .05 significance on any variable, both the
DRY/rigidity and the ERV/concrete thinking variables approached
significance (.10<:.05). Neither of the two psychology classes
nor the Inter-Varsity Fellowship samples yielded or approached
significance on any of the variables. The implications of this
difference between groups will be discussed in the next section.
The whole-sample coefficients of correlation for ERV with

the four personality variables are presented in Table 6.

TABLE 6

COEFFICIENTS or CORRELATIONC FOR EXTRINSIC RELIGIOUS VALUES
WITH DOGMATISN, RIGIDITY, CONCRETE THINKING,
AND NARROW COGNITIVE ORGANIZATION

 

 

m
ERV/Dogmatism ERV/Rigidity ERV/Conc.Th. ERV/Nrw.Cog.0rg.
N: 128 N: 128 N: 128 a: 99
£_ .42 .37 .24 .13
t, 5.19 4.47 2.77 1.29
p, .0005 .0005 .005 .20 .10

 

 

c. All correlations derived by Pearson Product-Moment Method.

A third statistical analysis was undertaken by setting up
thirty-three pairs of protocols to form a matched studyynon-study
sample. Using Fisher's t.Test of a difference between means, the
data in Table 7 were obtained. It will be noted that signifi-
cance beyond the .005 level was obtained in the hypothesized
direction between pairs on both the ERV and the Dogmatism scales.

Further statistical treatment of the data involved

27

TABLE 7

DIFFERENCE BE SEEN MEANS OF
MATCHED STUDY/NON-STUDY SAMPLE

W

 

 

 

 

 

 

ERV Dogmatism Rigidity Concr.Th. Nrw.Cog.Org.
N: 33 prs N: 33 prs N: 33 prs N5 30 prs N: 20 prs

2’ 4 64 132 15 8 67 l 46 l 6
Bt‘ldy O C O C O

SE
821) 7.06 696.06 16.9 .40 .73
85' .15 4.59 .72 .12 .19
t, 4.15 2.90 .72 .85 .53
p_ .0005 .005 .25 .20 .20 .50 .25

 

collapsing the seven groups into a single sample, from which 2x2

tables were constructed by placement above or below the mean on

each of the two scales.

and the significance level for each of the variables.

Table 8 gives the sum of the Chi-squares

In com-

puting observed values against expected values, the sum of the

Chi-squares is significant beyond the .001 level fer both ERV/Ex 1

and Eflflydogmatism, and beyond the .01 level for ERV/concrete

thinking.

A further statistical analysis of much interest was based

on a breakdown of the entire sample (N: 128) into four equal

quartiles of thirty-two subjects each, based on ERV scores.

Tables 9 and 10 give the Means and Standard Deviations and the

Difference between Means between Quartiles respectively for the

28

variables of rigidity, dogmatism, and narrow cognitive organi-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

z.t1°ne
TABLE 8
SUM OF CHI-SQUARES FOR
EXTRINSIC RELIGIOUS VALUES SCALE
AND PERSONALITY VARIABLES
‘ERV Rigidity Dogmatism Concr.Th. Nrw.Cog.0rg.
3:128 §:128 3:128 11:99
'i 5.66 9.94 147.01 1.53 1.57
2x2
t°bl°° 4 52 19 46 25 38 32 .30 26
- 22 35 13 44 17 41 19 24
5-12 14.30 20.85 7.24 .87
2, .001 .001. .01 .50 .25

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Quartile distribution, based on ERV scores, brought out
a significant difference between means for both the FX and Dogma-
tism scales. Only between Quartiles III and IV are the differences
minimal. The t_Test scores reveal significance beyond the .02
level in all but one Difference between Means for the two vari-
ables. Only in the quartile analyses for narrow cognitive organi-
zation is significant probability limited to two group comparisons

between 011 and 0111, and between 011 and QIV.
The statistical analysis of the concept definitions measure
is presented in Tables 11 and 12. Once again the quartile distri—

bution, based on ERV scores, brought out a clear trend in the mean

COGNITIVE ORGANIZATION FOR QUARTILES I, II, III AND IV

 

 

29

TABLE 9

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND STANDARD ERRORS
OF TOTAL SCORES FOR RIGIDITY, DOGMATISM, AND NARROW

 

 

 

 

Rigidity Dogmatism Nrw.Cog.0rg.

Quartile E 32 32 25
I '12 7.38 130.53 1.6
0’ 2.50 21.58 .63

0;, .45 3.88 .13

Quartile 91 32 32 22
H 3? 9.38 141.91 1.27
0;, .53 4.14 .12

Quartile N 32 32 29
111 E 11.06 158.44 1.7
r 2.33 20.24 .59

3;, .42 3.64 .11

Quartile _ N 32 32 23
1" 3E 11.66 157.16 1.7
0' 2.73 23.07 .69

0‘“ .5 4.14 .15

 

 

 

 

 

30

TABLE 10

DIFFERENCE 0F MEANS OF TOTAL SCORES
FOR RIGIDITY, DOGMATISM, AND NARROW COGNITIVE
ORGANIZATION FOR QUARTILES I, II, III AND Iv

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rigidity Dogmatism Narrow Cog.0rg.
Between _1_'._ 6.44 4.71 .54
Q! 8: QIV P. .01 .01 .50
Between _t_ 6 .01 5 .25 . 59
01 8: QIII g .01 .01 .50
Between 12. 2.88 2001 1.87
Q1 8: 011 B .01 .10<.05 .lO<.05
Between 3; 2.50 2.99 2.62
011 8: QIII P. .02 < .01 .01 .02<.Ol
Between 3 3015 2'61 2.28
011 & QIV g .01 ..02<.Ol .05<.02
Between 1', 0.92 .22 no difference
QIII 8: QIV B .50<.10 .50 in means

 

 

 

31

TABLE 11

DEFINITIONS GIVEN T0 TEN CONCEPTS
BY ERV OUARTILES I, II, 111, AND IV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Category

Quartile Abstract Reified Concrete Miscellaneous
I ‘2 5.13 0.94 0.84 2.81
031 e40 024 025 ‘ .34
II '2 4.63 0.75 0.94 3.44
N:32 q- 2.29 1.05 1.06 2.12
0h .41 .19 .19 .38
III ‘2 4.09 ‘0.66 1.0 4.06
N:32 q- 1.86 1.05 .11 2.06
fig, .33 .19 .20 .37
1V ‘2 3.78 0.97 2.0 2.78
N232 q- 2.55 1.21 1.79 2.47
0; .46 .22 .32 .44

 

32

TABLE 12

DIFFERENCE 0F MEANS
OF DEFINITIONS GIVEN TO TEN CONCEPTS
BY ERV QUARTILES I, II, III, AND IV

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abstract Reified Concrete Miscellaneous
. Between 3 2.21 e10 2.86 006
QI-QIV 2 .05 (.02 e 50 .01 e 50
Between ‘1 1.97 .91 .49 2.45
QI-QIII E e10(005 e50<e10 050 eOS<e02
Between _t_ 1012 .61 .30 1.21
QI-QII E .50(.10 .50 .50 .50<.10
Between 3 1071 .85 ~023 1018
Between 3 1.33 .76 4035 1.13
QII-QIV B e 50(010 050 (010 e01 050<e10
Between 3 055 1.09 2065 2022
QIII-QIV 2 e50 . .50(.10 e02<e01 005(002

 

33

scores for abstract, reified, and concrete definitions. While
E'Test scores yielded significance in only six of the twenty-four
Differences between Means computed, the actual difference between
means observable in Table 11 is invariably in the hypothesized
direction, with the exception of the Quartile IV miscellaneous
category.

In the first section of this paper, various investigators
were cited as providing in the literature definitions as follows:
dogmatism as "a total ideological defense against threat,"34
rigidity as “a kind of defensive behavior...warding off personal
failure,"35 concrete thinking as "a means of self-defense against
threat,"36 and narrow cognitive organization as being "motivated
by lower-order safety needs."37 The prevailing tone of these
definitions is that of security-need or threat. Fer a further
understanding of this underlying concept, the fifteen items of h
the ERV scale have been analyzed in terms of item responses by
subjects rated high and low in the personality variables under
consideration. The thirty-two subjects with the highest scores
in rigidity, dogmatism, and concrete thinking respectively were

compared with the thirty-two subjects having the lowest scores

 

34Rokeach, Psycho]. Monograph, (Whole No. 425).

35Brown, J. Abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., 1953,,48.

36Rokeach, J. Abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., 1951, 42.

37Rokeach, J. Pers., 1951, 29.

34

in each of these variables. The percentage of high rigids, high
dogmatics, etc., responding to each ERV item was computed against
the percentage of response to each item by the low rigids, 10w
dogmatics, etc., and a Chi-square of two proportions was derived
for those yielding an appreciable difference. These data are
given in Table 13 in which those items yielding a significant
difference are indicated.

Because only eight of the ninety-nine subjects completing
the broad/narrowmindedness measure had narrow organizations, this
item-analysis proceeded along slightly different lines. All pro-
tocols were divided according to the broad, isolated, or narrow
categories, and Chi-squares of two proportions were calculated
between the two percentages showing the greatest spread for
agreement with each item. These data are given in Table 14.

Since frequency of church attendance was suggested as an
indicator of interiorization of faith, an item analysis of the
ERN responses for this variable is also included. Table 15 pre-
sents the percentage in each frequency-of-attendance category of
responses to the ERV item in the extrinsic values direction. It
is immediately obvious that those "rarely" attending religious
services responded to only two items (#1 and #8) more Often in
the ERV direction than those who attended church more often.

Some miscellaneous findings not presented tabularly con-
cern the subjects in the high and low quartiles for the three
variables of dogmatism, rigidity, and concrete thinking. No

significant difference was found between quartiles in any of

 

 

35

~65.” goo. on» season acaoacacmflu a .....
ao>o~ so. on» season «aaoacwcusm a ....

ao>os no. on» 6:626; acaoaeficmeu n ...
~o>o~ no. 6:9 season «cauguaemfin u ..

Amo. VodJ ounceuuacwfim mafia—060.395 I o

«neednou as nsoauaosoam one no eassonlwso an soauaom oesoaouuun.esa new hawuunsnoam

 

 

 

Rn fine Rae and Raw Rab eofinu xmm Rem DH
eEsm wa awn 08mm Rab th Rafi Koo Xnm ed
aeeefimfl Ran $H¢ Rn Rmfl flan eeeeXmN Ran gfir ”H
an as so me so an” ..xea no men «a
sane $00 Ker Rm Kan Rue Rod Kan Run an
ROM Ram Rm» XOH Rom Rm» *5 Rm» Kan OH.

80 Raw xdn find awn an 4XNH Ran Ran a

fim find RNN 08cm fion god Rn aofi “mu m

*0 3mm fidn eofimd Ken 3H9 aeseo$Nn Rm Rae h

eeeawmmfl Kan «mom eeseewmmn «0mm fine as... evmnm KEN Run 0

and gnu fiwn 44444wa and fine coogefiwu Ran an n

Rm Ran Rem eecewfimm and $wn ea.$¢n XQH gm» w

eeeeqfimn R Rev Rb 80 Run eeeoafiad Xe Ram n

$6 Raw me QRHN fine Rem eeeefimn wan XHG N

8» Ram Ran oaogwa fiwm gnu $0 Ram and u

ooceae canons oocoue .

:2 E m :3 :3: :33 x :3 .23: .425 x 63 is. 63 H
m:«x:«:8 eachocoo haacumfiz quassuoa >zfl

 

 

 

 

UZuszza Haamozoo n24 .ZmHB<20OQ .NBHnHme 2H Boa n24 =¢H= msuwhmam
Na QZQBH >mw OB_QO<BZHQMH& fimzommflm

an a4m<9

36

TABLE 14

RESPONSE PERCENTAGE TO ERV ITEMS BY

SUBJECTS WITH BROAD, ISOLATED, OR NARROW ORGANIZATIONS

 

 

 

 

ERV Broad Isolated Narrow
Items Organizations Organizations Organizations
5: 50 _:41 31:8
1 .22 .24’ .13'
2 .64 .77“ .50“
3 .14’ .22 .25'
4 .28 .26 .25
5 .24 .22... .Gassa
6 .46 .53 .38
7 .28 .19 .25
8 .12 .19 .13
9 .22“ .38“ .25
10 .34 .41 .38
~ 11 .66‘ .74 .88‘
12 .06 .12 .13
13 .36 .26“‘ .5000.
14 .74 .74 .88
15 .70 .62 .75

 

Chi-squares of Two Preportions yielded probabilities as follows:

‘ - approaching significance (.10‘(.05)
“ - significant beyond the .05 level
.90 - significant beyond the .01 level

 

37

TABLE 15

RESPONSE PERCENTAGE TO ERV ITEMS BY
FREQUENCY OF CHURCH ATTENDANCE

 

 

 

ERV Once Twice Once
Items Weekly Monthly Monthly Rarely
51:10!) 5:12 91:9 {11:12

1 .20 .17 .22 .58
2 .68 .83 .67 .50
3 .20 .08 .00 .00
4 .29 .33 .22 .08
5 .25 .25 .11 .17
6 e47 ' .41 .33 .17
7 .28 .17 .33 .00
8 .14 .08 .33 .41
9 .27 .25 .33 .25
10 .40 .08 .22 .17
11 .66 .50 1.00 .58
12 .07 .33 .11 .25
13 .31 .33 .22 .33
14 .80 .67 .55 .17
15 .81 .17 .00 .08

 

 

 

38

the three variables for those engaging or not engaging in some
sort of personal Bible study. This finding must be distinguished
from the matched pairs study/non-study finding which had been
derived from the entire N|on the basis of denominational prefer-
enCe. These present miscellaneous data emerge.from the high and
low quartiles for the personality variables in which approximate- F7
ly the same number of subjects in each quartile engage regularly .
in some sort of personal religiOus study.

Membership in religious clubs did not emerge as a signifi-

 

cant variable between the high and low quartiles for dogmatism 4-
(2: .70(.50) or rigidity (B: .20(.10), but was significant
(2: .02( .01) on the concrete thinking variable; significantly
more subjects (22) in the high concrete thinking quartile are
members of religious clubs than are subjects (12) in the low
quartile, thus corroborating the extension of Friedrichs' hypo-
thesis concerning members of church societies cited on page 3.
In all three personality variables approximately the same
number of subjects in the high and low quartiles attend church

at least once weekly.

V. DISCUSSION

Discussion of these data must begin with the question of
how well they support the basic two-part hypothesis: 1) do the
four personality variables correlating with prejudice also cor-
relate with extrinsic religious values; and 2) can those religious
subjects scoring low in these variables be predicted on the basis
of some factor such as either regular Bible study or regular
church attendance. '

In general the data presented in Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, and
12 support the first part of the hypothesis well. Consistently
rigidity, dogmatism, and concrete thinking correlated with the
extrinsic religious values scale in the sum of Chi-squares for
the sample taken as a whole, in the t_Test scores of the Quartile
analysis, and in part in the matched pairs Difference between
Means. Only the variable of narrow cognitive organization failed
to correlate consistently with extrinsic religious values.

An important consideration, however, is that of what is
actually being measured by the scales used in this study. The
principal measure is the Wilson Extrinsic Religious Values scale,
first reported in the literature in 1960 and used in the present
research in 1963. Early questions in the mind of this investiga-
tor about the limitations of this scale have been corroborated

more recently by others. Allport has observed:

39

 

40

Wilson did not attempt to measure intrinsicness of orienta-
tion, but assumed without warrant that it was equivalent to
a low score on the extrinsic measure. Further, since the
items were worded in a unidirectional way there may be an
error of response set.... Finally, the factor of educational
level plays a part... To an appreciable extent, therefore,
Wilson's high correlations may be "ascribed" to educational
level.38

A careful reading of the items included in Wilson's scale
makes it clear that only a completely non-religious person could
or should score at the bottom, the end of the scale presumed to

denote "interiorized faith." Wilson has defined his ERV re-

 

sponses as being of two general types: 1) reflecting an allegiance '@
to, and dependence upon, the external or institutional structure
of a church; and 2) reflecting a utilitarian orientation toward
religion, i.e. acceptance of religion as a means.39 Nearly
every item is weighted so that any benefit derived from one's
religious practice automatically marks one as having extrinsic
religious values.

Recognizing the limitations and faulty assumptions of
Wilson's scale, a seminar at Harvard University in the Spring
of 1963 greatly revised the ERV scale in order to tap the in-
trinsic orientation as well. Working with this more developed
scale, Feagin (1964) reported among his conclusions that extrin-
sic and intrinsic items did not fall on a unidimensional scale

but represented two independent dimensions, and further, that

 

38

 

Allport and Ross, J. Pers. & Soc. Psychol., 1967, g.
39

Wilson, J. Abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., 1960, g9.

 

41.

orthodoxy, while positively related to prejudice, was not re-
lated to either the extrinsic or intrinsic orientation.40

Allport and Ross, working in 1967 with the revised ERV
scale, reported not only the two independent dimensions of in-
trinsic and extrinsic religious orientation, but also a third:
an indiscriminately pro-religion orientation, one wide category
in which "religion is 0.x."41 Thus it becomes more apparent

that earlier categorical assumptions made by social scientists

require continual refining as the complexity of the subject un-

 

'52::

folds. The danger of eitherjbr-typc generalization is ever pre-
sent, and it therefore cannot be inferred from the data set forth
in this paper that a low score on the ERV scale denotes "interior-
ized faith" or that a low score on the Ex scale denotes flexibil-
ity (though its name suggests that). One can go no further than
to say that low scores may imply the absence of extrinsic orien-
tation or the absence of some form of rigidity. The measures of
concrete thinking and narrow cognitive organization do present
the possibilities of generalization in the direction of abstract
thinking or broad cognitive organization, but once again, such
inferences, as correlated with the ERV scale, can only be made
to the extent that abstract thinking may relate to the absence

of extrinsic religious values. The restriction of these

 

4oFeagin, Joe R., "Prejudice and Religious Types," J. for
Scient. Study of-Religion, 1964, 3, 3-13.

41Allport and Ross, J. Pers. & Soc. Psychol., 1967, g.

 

42
observations points up the theoretical difficulty of the second
part of the hypothesis herein presented. Part one, the correla-
tion of extrinsic religious values with dogmatism, rigidity, con-
crete thinking and narrow cognitive organization, presents no
problem because of the linearity of the proposition and the fact
that all scales in the battery were devised to tap this end of
each continuum. But in Part two, no attempt can be.made to infer
that those not evidencing the pejorative variable are, in fact,
the opposite of said variable. Extrinsicness can be noted as
such, but religious persons low in the ERV scale cannot be pre-
sumed to be intrinsically oriented toward religion; they may be
merely pro-religious or fall into some not-yet-defined category.
Thus Bible study or church attendance as indicators of interior-
ized faith cannot be validated beyond the point of inference that
such study or regular attendance may have something to do with
the fact that an individual scores low on measures of rigidity,
extrinsic religious values, etc. Inferences can be made, of
course, concerning the abstract thinking and broad cognitive
organization in relation to Bible study or church attendanCe be-

cause these are bi-directional measures.

A. ERV and dogmatism
Assuming Rokeach's definition of the dogmatic person or
group as being:
diaposed to accept closed systems or thinking and believing

in preportion to the extent to which they are made to feel
alone or isolated in the world they live in, and thus

In“.
i

 

‘14:... -

 

43

fearfully anxious of what the future holds in store for
them,42

an item-analysis of the ERV responses by those scoring high on
a measure of dogmatism should theoretically also reveal ERV
choices designating the "safety" aspects of religious adherence.
Thus, before analyzing the data, the four following items were
selected from the ERV scale for their obvious inclusion of the
concepts of protection and safety:

#3: A person who does not belong to some church must at
heart feel very insecure. ~

3#4: The principal reason I am a member of the church is that
it gives me a deep feeling of security in this troubled
world. '

#6: While the church serves me in a good many ways, on the
whole it seems eSpecially important to me personally be-
cause it teaches, guides, and protects me.

#9: Prayer is, above all else, a means of obtaining needed
benefits, protection, and safety in a dangerous world.

These items turn out to discriminate the high dogmatic quartile

(£332) from the low dogmatic quartile (N332) very well. Highly

dogmatic subjects chose the ERV reaponse over low dogmatic sub-

jects significantly more often as follows: Item #3,‘p: .001;

Item #4, 2: .02(.01; Item #6, 2: .01(.001; and Item #9, 2: .10(.05.
Other ERV items which discriminated significantly between

high and low dogmatism quartiles are:

#2: Religion helps to keep my life balanced and steady in
much the same way as my citizenship, friendships, and
other memberships do. (2: .001)

#5: Without the church mankind would have no concepts of
right or wrong. (2: .001)

 

42Rokeach, Psychol. Monograph, (Whole No. 425).

 

H'-

 

44

#7: The religious concept of "Brotherhood of Man" probably

refers to: a) a unity of all people regardless who they
‘ are or what they believe, or b) a unity of believers in
the faith. ("h" is the 8sz choice.) (12: .001)

#12: In which would you feel your religious life to be most
strengthened: a) as a member of a small struggling
church; or b) as a member of a big and influential
church. ("b" is the ERV response.) (2: .05(202)

#13: In one respect my church is like a lodge or fraternity:
I feel more comfortable and congenial with fellow-members
than I do with non-members. (.2: .01(.001) P‘

#15: When visiting friends in another city who never go to r
church, I would nonetheless make a definite effort my-
self to attend church on Sunday. (2: .05(.02)

Item #2 gives pause for reflection on the nature of dogma-

tism inherent in this item choice. It is hypothesized, however, N
' .9
h

 

on the basis of Rokeach's definition of the dogmatic person feel-
ing alone or isolated in the world he lives in, that such a per-

son wi11 reach out for identification with his country (citizen-

ship), friends, and organizations to which he belongs. '

Item #5, a highly significant discriminator, clearly indi-
cates the dogmatic subject's need for external authority to teach
him what is right or wrong.

Item #7 is interest in that it is the only one in the ERV
scale tapping objective knowledge of a popular concept rather
than personal experience or feelings. The "brotherhood of man"
concept classically refers to a "unity of all peeple regardless
who they are," (the non-extrinsic response). Choosing the ERV
response ("a unity of believers in the faith") seems to indicate.
a certain "closedness" to the accepted meaning of a popular
term. That high dogmatics should make this choice significantly

more often than low dogmatics may be related to their acceptance

 

45

of closed systems of belief as defined by Rokeach.

Items #12 and #13 point up the need for identification with
an institution of impressive preportions or with a protective in-
group, both as hedges against the feeling of aloneness in a hos-
tile world.

Item #15 is interesting for several reasons, though the
possible theoretical explanations of these observations are not
yet clear. This item distinguished significantly between the high

and low subjects only on the variable of dogmatism. Highly rigid

 

lr——
\

subjects, who would be expected to perservere "come hail or high
water" in their church-going habits, were not distinguished from
lowbrigids on this item. Nor were subjects high in concrete
thinking, who would be expected to follow through on church atten-
dance as part of their rootedness to a concrete object. Nor did
this item discriminate between broad, isolated, or narrow cogni-
tive organizations. The only other variable discriminated by this
item is frequency of church attendance in which 81% of those
attending weekly, 17% of those attending twice monthly, and 0%

of those attending once monthly responded in the ERV direction.
Yet in the high and low dogmatism quartiles, 29 high dogmatics
and 26 low dogmatics attend church weekly. Thus it is not clear
why Item #15 should discriminate between subjects high and low

in dogmatism.

46

B. ERV and rigidity

Earlier in this paper (page 33), definitions of the four
personality variables were cited to point up the prevailing tone
of security needs or threat present in all of them. A look at
the ERY scale items which distinguished significantly between the
high and low quartiles for each of the variables contributes to
an understanding of the significant correlations derived.

The items in the Fx scale appear to profile an individual

 

who finds security in the familiar and the routine; his world is

 

manageably narrow and he conscientiously works to keep it tidy.
He may be viewed by others as being handicapped by the strictures
he has placed upon his life-style, but he prefers the resultant
safety to the risks of a more exuberant but less controlled and
controlable‘gggg.gg_!1!£g. It appears probable that this person
would also score high on measures of other variables tapping Se-
curity needs. Thus it is interesting to note that four of the
ERV items distinguishing high dogmatics from low also discriminate
significantly between the high and low rigidity quartiles.
Items #4, #5, and #6 all discriminated the high rigids from the
low with a probability beyond the .001 level; Item #7 reached
the .05 level of significance for the high rigids. Item #2,
which discriminated between high and low dogmatics at the .Ol(.001
level, approached significance (.10(.05) on the variable of
rigidity.

The fact that the same ERV items discriminated both high

dogmatics and high rigids from the low dogmatics and low rigids

47

corroborates the overlap already noted in the definitions of
'dogmatism as "a total ideological defense against threat" (Ro-
keach) and of rigidity as "a kind of defensive behavior warding
off personal failure" (Brown). These items, taken together, imply

the need for a positive external referent for both instruction and

 

 

F"“!
protection and fit quite neatly the general portrait of the author- 1 ,
itarian personality.
C. ERV and concrete thinking
In the introductory section of this paper, the question was a;

I‘ ‘

posed: is this "tendency toward concreteness" among religious in-
dividuals a simple, linear relationship, or can abstract thinking
he found within this group, statistically predictable on the basis
of some criterion of "interiorized faith"? The sum of Chi-squares
yielded significance between .01 and .005 (Table 8), and signifi-
cance was reached in the Difference of Means between Quartiles
distributed according to ERV scores, thus confirming the tenta-
tive hypothesis.

Goldstein and Scheerer have defined the concrete attitude
as "realistic. It does not imply conscious activity in the sense
of reasoning, awareness or a self-account of one's doings."43

Conversely, the abstract attitude is defined as one which "em-

braces more than merely the 'real' stimulus in its scepe. It

implies conscious activity in the sense of reasoning, awareness

 

43Goldstein and Scheerer, "Abstract and Concrete Behavior:
an Emperimental Study with Special Tests," Psychol. Monograph,
53, (Whole No. 239).

48

and self-account of one's doings."44 Seen in conjunction with
Wilson's criteria for extrinsic religious values (i.e., allegiance
to, and dependence upon, the institutional structure of the church)
it becomes clear that the two variables are, in fact, related

to Rokeach's view of concreteness as a "means of self-defense
against threat." Reasoning through one's religious beliefs or 37%
assuming responsibility for one's actions in the area of reli-
gious adherence are not necessarily corollaries of a dependence

upon an external or institutional structure.

INF.
‘— .

 

Further confirmation of the formulation comes from the a;
item-analysis of the ERV responses. Significant beyond the .001
level was the percentage of subjects high in concrete thinking
who agreed that "a person who does not belong to some church must
at heart feel very insecure" (Item #3). Paralleling this was the
finding of significance between the .01 and .001 levels on Item-
#6, "While the church serves me in a good many ways, on the whole
it seems especially important to me personally because it teaches,
guides, and protects me." The third ERV item discriminating be-
tween the 32 subjects on the concrete-thinking end of the contin-
uum and those 32 on the abstract end was Item #13: "In one res-_
pect my church is like a lodge or fraternity: I feel more com-
fortable and congenial with fellow-members than I do with non-
members," (2‘ .01(.001). This rootedness to the church as a

concrete entity (Item #3), the need for external guidance

 

44IhId.

49

(Item #6), and the security inherent in "belongingness" (Item I
#13) tie the formulations of Goldstein, Rokeach, and Wilson to-
gether into a comprehensive unity subsumed under Rokeach's defi-

nition of concreteness as a "means of self-defense against

 

 

threat."
5'
D. ERV and narrow cognitive organization A
Combining Rokeach's hypothesis that narrow organizations 2
are motivated by lower-order safety needs, and Wilson's hypothesis g
of extrinsic religious values reflecting dependence upon the ex- a,

ternal or institutional structure of a church, it appeared logical
to anticipate significant correlations between these two variables.
Surprisingly, in only half of the Difference of Means between

‘ERV Quartiles (Table 10) did the data relating to narrow cog-
nitive organization yield or approach significance. Returning

to look at the ERV scale items, it was found that four yielded

a significant difference between percentages of ERV response
based on bread, isolated, or narrow organizations. Item #2

("I agree that religion helps to keep my life balanced and steady
in much the same way as my citizenship, friendships and other
memberships do") was selected by 77% of those with isolated or-
ganizations, and only 50% of those with narrow organizations

(25 .05). Conversely, on item #5 ("I agree that without the
church mankind would have no concepts of right and wrong"),

only 22% and 24% of those with isolated and broad organizations

respectively reaponded in the ERV direction, whereas 63% of

50

those with narrow organizations so responded (2: .01). Signifié
cance beyond the .05 level was reached on Item #9 in which subjects
with isolated organizations agreed more often (33%) than broad-
minded subjects (22%) that "prayer is, above all else, a means of
obtaining needed benefits, protection, and safety in a dangerous
world." And finally, Item #13 ("In one respect my church is like
a lodge or fraternity: I feel more comfortable and congenial with .
fellowbmembers than I do with non-members") found agreement with
only 36% of those with broad organizations, 26% of those with iso-
lated organizations, but with 50% of those with narrow organiza-
tions (2: .01).

What then can be inferred from these items when response to
_the others did not discriminate between types of cognitive organi-
zations to any significant degree? Only on Item #2 were those
with bread or isolated organizations both greater percentagewise
in the ERV direction than those with narrow organizations. Per-
haps the words "balanced," "steady," or "other memberships" indi-
cate a breadth of contact or activity which would be unsafe for
one concerned primarily with lower-order safety needs. Item #5
is most significant in terms of percentage spread, and the con-
tent of the item implies the essentiality of an outside authority
figure (the church). A

Item #9 stresses the need for protection and safety through
prayer. Certainly Item #13 indicates a need for the safety of the
known or in-group. The last three items, #5, #9, and #13, stand

out as an important cluster of dependencies for the person

 

51

motivated by "lower-order safety needs," and it is interesting
that these are the ERV items which have discriminated signifi-
cantly the subject with narrow cognitive organization from the
others. Need for an external instructional referent, need for

protection and safety in a dangerous world, need for the comfort

and congeniality of the in-group: whatever else may be said con- F"
cerning the correlations reported in the statistical treatment f
of these data, the basic hypothesis is well-supported in the f
item-analysis, if not in the over-all correlations. ;

i

 

E. Bible study and church attendance

Part two of the hypothesis concerns Bible study and church
attendance as factors in predicting low scores in religious sub-
jects for the variables herein presented. As previously stated
in the first part of this paper, the curvilinear relationship of
prejudice to religiosity reported in the literature has been ex-
plained by Friedrichs on the basis of membership in a study group,
and by Rosenbaum on the basis of frequency of church attendance.

In the matched sample (Table 7) of those engaged in some
sort of Bible study with those not so engaged, the non-study half
(2:33) of the sample scored very significantly (2; .005) higher
on measures of extrinsic religious values and dogmatism than did

the study half (2:33) of the sample. Though significance was not
reached on the variables of rigidity and concrete thinking, the

non-study group tended to score higher on the rigidity measure

and lower on the concrete thinking measure than did the study

52

group.

On the other hand, when the upper (2:32) and lower (3:32)
quartiles for each of the personality variables were singled out
for comparison, the null hypothesis had to be accepted in every
variable regarding religious study. In fact, of those who engage
in regular Bible study, twenty are in the high concrete thinking
quartile and nineteen in the low, twenty-two in the high dogmatism
quartile and twenty in the low, and twenty in the high rigidity

quartile and sixteen in the low. While significance was not

 

reached in any of these statistics, the tendency seems to be away a?
from the hypothesis that Bible study is a predictive factor in
low scores for the variables under consideration.

Similar trends are noted in the analysis of church atten-
dance habits of those in the high and low quartiles of the per-
sonality variables: among those in the high concrete thinking.
quartile (2:32) twenty-seven attend church every week, four twice
a month, and one once monthly; the low concrete thinking quartile
has twenty-seven attending church weekly, one twice monthly, and
four once monthly. In the high dogmatism quartile, twentycnine
attend weekly, one twice monthly, and two once monthly; among the
low dogmatism quartile, twenty-six attend weekly, two twice
monthly, and four once monthly. Similar proportions obtain for
the high and low rigidity quartiles. However, it cannot be in-
ferred from these data that frequency of church attendance is
either valid or invalid as an indicator of interiorized faith.

Friedrich's data presented the hypothesized curvilinear

53

relationship based on church attendance of more than sixty times
during a year, whereas the present data do not discriminate
frequency of church attendance beyond once weekly. While sixty
times a year does not appear to be very different from the
fifty-two times a year implicit in once weekly, the differenCe
is real. Attendance once weekly can be considered a kind of ..
institutional norm. But most religious groups offer their com-
municants the Opportunity to exceed this norm through daily

masses, matins, evensongs, weekly prayer meetings, etc. Those

 

who exceed the once-weekly norm, however occasionally, indicate.
-a difference in attitude toward religious adherence from those
who make no effort in this direction.

Nevertheless, taken at face value, the data herein pre-
sented suggest that whatever correlations exist between extrin-
sic religious values and the personality variables studied, the
factors proposed to explain such relationships are not necessarily
Bible study or regular church attendance. Both church attendance
and Bible study can be mechanical and superficial means to ex-
trinsic ends, and one concludes that elusive factors of quality,
motivation, etc., are more important than the more performance

of a religious routine per se.

F. Further observations
Some consideration should be given to the diversity of
correlations seen in the seven original sub-samples. Allport

has reported that "denominational groups differ appreciably in

54

prejudice scores and in religious types."45 Rokeach demonstrated
that "value differences remain among the groups varying in reli-
gion even after social class and race have been held constant."46

Table 5 giving the coefficients of correlation for the four

personality variables with the ERV scale by original groups points

 

up some findings of interest. The seven groups appear to fall Fm

into three categories: 1) homogeneous denominational groups

(Canterbury Club - EpisCOpalian, and Wesley Foundation - Metho-

dist); 2) less homogeneous non-denominational groups (Trinity I
h?

Fellowship, Campus Crusade, Inter-Varsity Fellowship); and

3) heterogeneous non-religious groups (two beginning psychology
class sections). The correlations between the ERV scale and the
personality variables reached or approached significance in every
case among Wesley Foundation subjects and in half of the correla-
tions for the Canterbury Club subjects. In sharp contract, none

of the correlations for any of the variables even approached sig~
nificance among the heterogeneous psychology class sub-samples.
Into a somewhat nebulous middle area fell the non-denominational
religious groups. Even these, however, can be seen to form some
sort of continuum. Of these three, Trinity Fellowship most approx-
imated a denominational grouping, and not surprisingly, correlations

between ERV/dogmatism and ERV/rigidity reached significance within

 

45Allport and Ross, J. Pers. & soc. Psychol., 1967,.§.

46Rokeach, M., "Value Systems in Religion," The H. Paul Doug-
lass Lectures for 1969, Rev. of Relig. Research, 1;, 3-23.

55

this sub-sample. For Campus Crusade, whose membership is drawn
from a broader religious spectrum than that of Trinity Fellowship,
the ERV/narrow cognitive organization correlation was significant,
and the ERV/concrete thinking correlation approached significance.
Inter-Varsity members are drawn from diverse religious backgrounds
and the group homogeneity grows more out of philOSOphical dis-
cussions than from the activist endeavors of Campus Crusade. This
may account for the fact that the Inter-Varsity sub-sample, like

the two psychology classes, produced no significant correlations

 

[jut-t ."
\

between variables.

Thus a continuum emerges, ranging from highly homogenized
interest groups to completely heterogeneous groups with virtually
no communally-held background or intereSt. The question thus
suggests itself to what extent are the significant correlations
a function of homogeneous group thought and past doctrinal in-
struction?

The very fact of a denomination's existenCe tacitly attests
to its conviction that all other groups are to some degree or
another in error in either theology or polity; the inherent super-
iority and exclusiveness of the organization is manifested in
varying degrees among its members in proportion to its defensive
stance vis-S-vis other religious groups. This defensive stance
is implicit in all groups but is more visible in those groups
which emphasize their distinctiveness from all others, e.g.
Catholics, Baptists, Missouri-synod Lutherans, etc. The extremes

of the denominational continuum often reported in the literature ‘

56

can perhaps be understood in these terms. While the present
study is limited to research into personality variables and ex-
Itrinsic religious values without controlling denominational ad-
herence as a dependent variable, a further study which could be
fruitful is in the area of those personality variables present
in an individual which predispose him toward one or another de- F'
nomination. Recent research in values47 reports on the values
most esteemed by members of various religious groups. In some

social research a kind of implication is made that pejorative

 

personality variables such as dogmatism, rigidity, etc., are the

I
ll

outcrOppings of unhealthy religious training. But has the ques-
tion been equally explored concerning the personality structures
that predispose individuals to the religious adherences they
choose? The large amount of denominational line-crossing that
goes on points up the fact that many peeple are free to seek the
religious expression that most satisfies their needs. But what
of the constellation of factors that keeps others from exercis-
ing the same freedom to change? Significant at this point is
Rokeach's observation (made in describing the function of a be-

lief system) concerning the need to "understand the world insofar

 

47Rerer to: Milton Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1968.
Also: Rokeach, "Value Systems in Religion," The R. Paul
Douglass Lectures for 1969, Rev. of Relig. Research, ll, 3-23.
Also: Rokeach, "Religious Values and Social Compassion,"
The R. Paul Douglass Lectures for 1969, Rev. of Relig. Research,
2;, 24-38. '

 

57

as possible, and to defend against it insofar as necessary."48

If these simultaneous functions--"the need to know and the fear
of knowing"--govern what one believes about his own and other
groups, than the case made for prejudice, dogmatism, etc. re-
sulting from the introjection of negative religious values is
not necessarily valid. While such a line of questioning may
appear to be little more than academic shadow-boxing, the prag-
matic implications for religious organizations are real. A11-

-port and Ross have published data on differences in correlations

 

of prejudice and ERV within various denominations49; Rokeach has
presented data demonstrating differences in value systems between
denominationsso. To what extent are these values the result of
religious teaching? Or can they be seen as necessary concomitants
of lower-order safety needs that predispose one to the denomina-
tional choice most closely satisfying those needs?

Denominations would perhaps do well to examine objectively
both the personality factors and the value systems most often
evidenced by their adherents, and then to seek means of effecting
honestly and positively the meeting of the individual's safety
needs while at the same time holding out to the adherent the

greater possibility for self-actualization. Rokeach's statistics

 

 

 

48Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind.
.49Allport and Ross, J..Pers. & Soc. Psychol., 1967, 2:
50 '

Rokeach, "Value Systems in Religion," Rev. of Relig.
Research,.l;.

58

on the inverse relationship of social compassion to religious
values51 are damning; but if the correlations between ERV and
dogmatism, rigidity, concrete thinking, and narrow cognitive
_organization are valid, the condemnation of organized religion

may rest less on the prescriptive teaching of negatives than

on the failure of religious leaders to recognize the deep safety PT»
needs that motivate individuals to seek comfort and security in
religious adherence.

In a study correlating the original Wilson scale with the g

 

Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Tisdale has profiled the
high-scoring male college freshman with the following descrip-

tions:

He feels comfortable in belonging to grOups such as the
church and probably finds a feeling of security in accept-
ing religious beliefs without much question or criticism--
and, perhaps, without much comprehension either. He is
ready to avoid strife, to accept blame, to exhibit timid-
ity, and to inhibit conscious expressions of anger toward
those about him, peers and authority figures alike.... The
man with extrinsically valued religion has had a childhood
marked by a certain amount of insecurity, which may well
leave him with dependency needs that are still fairly strongly
Operative; who thus finds in his church a sort of protecting)
group in which these needs may be satisfied. This is the
person, further, who has many of the Adorno authoritarian
personality characteristics.52

In discussing the relationship of religion to prejudice,

Allport has observed:

 

T d '5:Rokez;g}71,'M.5 ggaigg, Hope, and Bigotry," Paychology
O 8!, pr. 0' 3 - ? '0

‘52Tisdale,'John R., "Selected Correlates of Extrinsic
Religious Values," Rev. of Rel. Res., 1966, 2, 78-84.

59

The reason why churchgoers on the average are more prejudiced
than nonchurchgoers is not because religion instills pre-
judice. It is rather that a large number of p80p1e, by vir-
tue of their psychological make-up, require for their economy
of living both prejudice and religion. Some, for example,

are tormented by self-doubt and insecurity. Prejudice en-
hances their self-esteem; religion provides them a tailored
security. Others are guilt-ridden; prejudice provides a
scapegoat, and religion relief. Still others live in fear

of failure. Prejudice provides an explanation in terms of
menacing outgroups; religion promises a heavenly, if not
terrestrial, reward. Thus for many individuals the functional
significance of prejudice and religion is identical. One

does not cause the other; rather both satisfy the same psycho-
logical needs. Multitudes of churchgoers, perhaps especially
in times of social anemia and crisis, embrace both supports.
According to this line of reasoning we assume that nonchurch-
goers on the whole have less psychological need for prejudice
and for religion.53

The key to the understanding of the relationships between
extrinsic religious values and the personality variables of rigid-
ity, dogmatism, concrete thinking, and narrow cognitive organiza-
tion would seem to lie in analogue to Allport's analysis of pre-
judice and religion. These personality variables are functionally
satisfying many of the same psychological needs. Rokeach has ob-
served: '

The extent to which a person has an intrinsic or extrinsic
outlook depends...on the particular quality of his experiences
with others, especially with parents in early childhood. A
person is more apt to be extrinsically oriented if his early
experiences included threat, anxiety, and punishment or if
religion was used punitively, as a club to discipline and

control him.54

Earlier it was shown (page 33) that definitions of the four

 

53Allport, G.H., "The Religious Context of Prejudice,"
J. for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1966, 2, 447-453.

54Rokeach, Beliefs._Attitudes. and Values.

 

60

personality variables overlapped considerably, that all were
means of handling safety needs in the face of threat. The indi-
vidual engaged in defending himself against a hostile world will
more likely accept the aid the church offers him; his orientation
to an ecclesiastical institution will be extrinsic: instrumental
and utilitarian. In Allport's words, "persons with this orienta-
tion may find religion useful in a variety of ways-~to provide
security and solace, sociability and distraction, status and self-
justification. The embraced creed is lightly held or else select-

ively shaped to fit more primary needs."55 y

 

It is this selective shaping of religious teachings to fit
more primary needs that leads to understanding the correlations
of religiosity with bigotry, rigidity, dogmatism, and the incon-

sistency between espoused values and conduct.

 

55Allport and Ross, J. Pers. & Soc. Psychol., 1967, g.

LIST OF‘ REFERENCES

-. «tun... q
.I
. _ “g,

 

p

LIST OF REFERENCES

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., and Sanford,
R.N. The Authoritarian Personality. New York:Harper, 1950.

Allport! G. w" and Kramer‘g.Be W."'Some ROOtB Of Prejudice," 5-“
J. Psychol., 1946, 2g, 9-31.

Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, Mass: Addison-t
Hesley, 1954.

Allport, G. W. "Prejudice: Is It Societal or Personal?", J. soc. s
Issues, 1962, lg, 120-133. hj

 

Allport, G. W. "The Religious Context of Prejudice," J. for Sci.
Stud. Relig., 1966, Q, 447-453.

Allport, G. 3., and Ross, J. M. "Personal Religious Orientation
and Prejudice," J. Pers. & soc. Psychol., 1967, g, 432-443.

Brengelmann, J. C. "Abnormal and Personality Correlates of Cer-
tainty," J. Ment. Sci., 1959, 105, 142-162.

'Brengelmann, J. C. "Extreme Response Set, Drive Level, and Ab-
normality in Questionnaire Rigidity," J. Ment. Sci., 1960,
106, 171-186.

Brown, T. "Authoritarianism and Rigidity," J. abnorm. soc.
PBXChOIQ ’ 1953’ 2.8...

Chown, Sheila M. "Rigidity: A Flexible Concept," Psychol. Bull.
1959,.§§, 195-223.

Feagin, Joe R. "Prejudice and Religious Types," J. for Sci. Stud.
Relig. ’ 1964’ _4” 3-13.

Friedrichs, Robert W. "Christians and Residential Exclusion: an
Empirical Study of a Northern Dilemma," J. soc. Issues, 1959,

Goldstein and Scheerer. "Abstract and Concrete Behavior: an Ex-
perimental Study with Special Tests," Psychol. I'.onqg_., 53,
(whole No. 239).

Gregory, '3. E. "Orthodoxy'of the Authoritarian Personality,"
J. soc. Issues, 1957, 2Q, 217-232.

61

62

Rokeach, M. "Generalized Rigidity as a Factor in Ethnocentrism,"
J, abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1948, 33, 259-277.

Rokeach, M.. "A Method for Studying Individual Differences in
'Narrowmindedness'," J. Pers., 1951, 29, 219-233.

Rokeach, M. "Narrowmindedness and Personality," J. Pers., 1951,
.2__o-, 234-251.

Rokeach, M. "Prejudice, Concreteness of Thinking, and Reification
of Thinking," J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1951, 29, 83-91.

Rokeach, M. "Political and Religious Dogmatism: an Alternative .
to the Authoritarian Personality," Psychol. Monogr., 1956,
29, (Whole No. 425).

Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Rokeach, M. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Inc., 1968.

Rokeach, M. "Value Systems in Religion," The R. Paul Douglass
Lectures for 1969, Rev. ReIig. Res., 11, 3-23.

Rokeach, M. "Religious Values and Social Compassion," The H. Paul
Douglass Lectures for 1969, Rev. Relig. Res., 11, 24-38.

Rokeach, M. "Faith, Hope, and Bigotry," Psychology Today, Apr.,
1970, 33-37, 58.

Rosenbaum, A. L. "Ethnic Prejudice as Related to Social Class and
Religiosity," Sociol. & soc. Res., 1958, 33, 272-275.

Tisdale, John R. "Selected Correlates of Extrinsic Religious
Values," Rev. Relig. Res., 1966,lz, 78-84.

Vanecko, James J. "Religious Behavior and Prejudice: Some Dimen-
sions and Specifications of the Relationship," Rev. Relig.
Res., 1966,Ԥ, 27. ,

Wilson, w. Cody. "Extrinsic Religious Values and Prejudice,"
J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1960, 92, 286-88.

 

APPENDICES

In“.
I

 

APPENDIX A

THE DOGMATISM SCALE, FORM E

The following is a study of what the general public thinks and '
feels about a number of important social and personal questions.'
The best answer to each statement below is your personal opinion.
We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view;
you may find yourself strongly agreeing with some of the state-
ments, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps un-
certain about others; whether you agree or disagree with any
statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as you L.
do. Mark each statement in the left hand margin according to how
much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one.

Write +1, 42, +3, or -1, -2, -3, depending on how you feel in
each case:

 

41: I agree a little -1: I disagree a little
+2: I agree on the whole -2: I disagree on the whole
43: I agree very much - -3: I disagree very much

1. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in
common.

2. The highest form of government is a democracy, and the
highest form of democracy is a government run by those
'who are most intelligent.

3. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worth-
, while goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the
freedom of certain political groups.

4. It is only natural that a person would have a much better
acquaintance with ideas he believes in than with ideas he
Opposes.

5. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.

6. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome
place.

7. Most people just don't give a "hoot" for others.

8. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how
to solve my personal problems. '

63

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

64

It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of
the future.

There is so much to be done and so little time to do it
in.

Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't
stop.

In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat my-
self several times to make sure I am being understood.

In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in
what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what
the others are saying.

It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward. if

 

The main thing in life is for a person to want to do i3
something important.

While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secret
ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein, Beet-
hoven, or Shakespeare.

If given a chance I would do something of great benefit
to the world.

In the history of mankind there have been probably just
a handful of really great thinkers.

There are a number of people I have come to hate because
of what they stand for.

A man who does not believe in some great cause has not.

_ really lived.

21.
22.
23.
24.

25.

It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or
cause that life becomes meaningful.

Of all the different philosOphies which exist in this
world, there is probably only one which is correct.'

A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes is
likely to be a pretty "wishy-washy" sort of person.

To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous
because it usually leads to betrayal of our own side.

When it comes to differences of opinion in religion, we

25.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

65

'must be careful not to compromise with those who believe

differently from the way we do.

In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if
he considers primarily his own happiness.

The worst crime a person could commit is to attack pub-
licly the people who believe in the same thing he does.

In times like these it is often necessary to be more on .
guard against ideas put out by people or groups in one's E
own camp than by those in the opposing camp.

A group which tolerates too much difference of opinion
among its own members cannot exist for long.

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who .
are for the truth, and those who are against the truth. 4

 

My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to
admit he is wrong.

A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is
beneath contempt.

Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth
the paper they are printed on.

In this complicated world of ours, the only way we can
know what is going on is to rely on leaders or experts
who can be trusted.

It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's
going on until one has had a chance to hear the Opinions
of those one respects.

In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends
and associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as'
one's own.

The present is all too often full of unhappiness. It is
only the future that counts.

If a man is to accomplish his mission in life, it is some-
times necessary to gamble "all or nothing at all."

Unfortunately, a good many peeple with whom I have dis-
cussed important social and moral problems don't really

understand what is going on.

Most people just don't know what's good for them.

APPENDIX B

THE EXTRINSIC RELIGIOUS VALUES SCALE

Below are some statements about religion. Each has two possible
endings. Will you please read each of these statements and mark
an X beside the ending which best fits your feeling about the
statement. It may be hard to decide which ending to choose for
some of the statements, and you may want to mark both, but please
mark only one ending for each statement, selecting the one you
most nearly agree with. There are no "right" or "wrong" choices,
and there will be many religious people who will select each
possible ending to the statements:

1. When saying the Lord's Prayer in unison at church, my mind is
more likely to be on:
.;:_ the fact that many of us are saying the same prayer.
the meaning of the prayer for me personally.

2. Religion helps me to keep my life balanced and steady in much
the same way as my citizenship, friendships and other member-
ships (10 e

‘ I agree.

I disagree.

3. A person who does not belong to some church must at heart feel
very insecure.
‘ I this is almost certainly a true statement. _
I think this statement is not necessarily true.

4. The principal reason I am a member of the church is that it
gives me a deep feeling of security in this troubled world.
_:_.Yes, this is true.

No, I do not agree.

5. Without the church mankind would have no concepts of right
and wrong.
_:_ I agree.
I disagree.

6. While the church serves me in a good many ways, on the whole
it seems especially important to me personally because:
'___ it gives me an opportunity to find myself and express my
aspirations., ' ‘
_1_ it teaches, guides, and protects me.

66

 

...,v .
—d~ .

“has

67

7. The religious concept of "Brotherhood of Man" probably refers
to:
a unity of all people regardless who they are or what they
believe.
‘ a unity of believers in the faith.

8. One reason for my being a church member is that such a member-
ship helps to establish a person firmly in the community.
_:_ Yes, this is one reason.
____This reason does not apply to me.

9. Prayer is, above all else, a means of obtaining needed benefits,
protection, and safety in a dangerous world.
_:_ On the whole, I agree.
____ 0n the whole, I disagree.

10. Some people say that they can be genuinely religious without
being a member of any church. '
___'Yes, I agree that they can.
_1_ I do not believe this.

11. When I enter a cathedral or a large beautiful church I am'more
likely to feel:
_:;_respect for the majesty and greatness it represents.
some other personal religious emotions of my own.

12. Imagine yourself in the two following situations. In which
would you feel your religious life to be most strengthened?
___ As a member of a small struggling church.

_:__As a member of a big and influential church.

13. In one respect my church is like a lodge or fraternity: I
feel more comfortable and congenial with fellow-members than
I do with non-members.
_:_.Yes, I agree with this statement.
No, I cannot agree with it.

14. I have received specific benefits for myself and my family as
a result of prayer.
_:;_Yes, I can agree with this statement.
No, I cannot agree with it.

15. When visiting friends in another city who never go to church,
I would nonetheless make a definite effort myself to attend
church on Sunday.

_:_’Probably yes. ,
___ Probably no. .

Note: The asterisk (‘) indicates the alternative for each item that
is considered to reflect the extrinsic religious value. The total
score is simply the number of items on which the extrinsic religious
value alternative is chosen.

 

APPENDIX C

SANFORD—GOUGH Ex SCALE

Please write "true" or "false" in front of each of the following
statements according to the way you feel they describe you:

1.
2.
3.

4.

5.
6.
7.

8.

9.

10.

11.
12.

130'

14.
15.
16.

17.
18.

19.

I am often the last one to give up trying to do a thing.
There is usually only one best way to solve most problems.

I prefer work that requires a great deal of attention to
detail.

I often become so wrapped up in something I am doing that
I find it difficult to turn my attention to other matters.

I dislike to change my plans.in the midst of an undertaking.
I never miss going to church.

I usually maintain my own Opinions even though many other
people may have a different point of view.

I find it easy to stick to a certain schedule, once I
have started it.

I do not enjoy having to adapt myself to new and unusual
experiences. '

I prefer to stop and think before I act even on trifling
matters.

I try to follow a program of life based on duty.

I usually find that my own way of attacking a problem is
best, even though it doesn't always seem to work in the
beginning.

I am a methodical person in whatever I do.

I think it is usually wise to d9 things in a conventional
way.

I always finish tasks I start, even if they are not very
important.

I often find myself thinking of the same tune or phrases
for days at a time. '

I have a work and study schedule which I follow carefully.

I usually check more than once to be sure that I have
locked a door, put out the light, or something of the sort.

I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it.
68

 

69

_20. I believe that promptness is a very important personality
characteristic.

21. I am always careful about my manner of dress.

22. I always put on and take off my clothes in the same

0rd er s

 

 

APPENDIX D

CONCEPT DEFINITIONS AND ORGANIZATION

On this page are listed a number of terms used very frequently

these days. I am interested in finding out whether differences PH
in opinions are due to the fact that different people do not mean
the same thing when they use these terms. Would you please write
down next to each term what you understand to be its meaning.
Don't spend more than a minute or so on each term. You don't
have to worry about being too precise in your definitions. Just
let me know as briefly as possible what you understand to be the
general meaning of each of these terms. It is important that you ‘fi
define every term: £5

1. ATHEISM:

2. CAPITALISM:

3. CATHOLICISM:
4. CHRISTIANITY:
5. COMMUNISM:

6 . DB‘IOCRACY :

7. FASCISM:

8. JUDAISN:

9. PROTESTANTISM:
10. SOCIALISM:

 

As you can probably see, the terms which you have just defined
refer to important social problems existing in the world today.
To some extent all of these are related to each other. Next I
would like you to write a paragraph on the back of this sheet in
which you describe in what way all of these terms might be inter-
related with each other. Do not worry about how well organized
your paragraph is, because that isn't important to this research.
Just tell me in what way these terms are related to each other.
If you do not think all terms are very much related, then just
write about those terms which you think egg'related and skip the

rest. Do not take more than five minutes to complete.

70

FEB 25 1971

HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

Hill
0

312931

500

05

Will"
37