wfll'l'v' 3‘99 "F,'-. ' ‘17?! , “VIII? Ian-1's ' "" 1. ,. [Qtfi '5 :D'# , fluff 'J‘" ‘f.(( :If." »;.:.<' 1% ".l‘:‘\‘{" -“‘ [7,; ER” O. ‘f’g’f‘ 4.3% ‘ .71.: :1“, MK "v.3; M ' {LA 'I‘amhs \-_'-..:, {f '\:K .\ A1$\ Y‘EKV}. fix}: 9 31.18“"; . _ H‘.€\é‘ ‘9‘ lo‘ 5 "'5‘ .‘~.‘.'. ...: u~~.“,‘n-.u_n \.= ' "1.137.31‘.‘ ;;»-..~3_w..: .2» w I. ‘u..< ‘.C‘;:‘V~:'3~”~" \l‘,‘ .- ~.. - .7;- ‘2'...:; ‘97 V ‘ 3.x " ~ ‘ .““4“‘*~<.'-:‘-:--~'T+-i:ix ‘ 2:: A11- ‘ . . ~‘ w». .4: ~ e. r - «23‘ " _ 2.323523..- . . , )1. fur; .-~¢. .7... ‘ -. , ~ 3. ‘ . ~ .2 ...3 'Q“ It..- 731“ ." i}.gv' :‘Pfi-m . hygn-‘Nfic ,. ~ ”‘11.": '1 l . O I 0 ~01 . . ‘M, 13‘ "4,- ' . ‘- ‘~‘ 4 a ~v no. 7-. ..... I \ uquAMM‘J-F—C'V-"4 :- an» ‘f‘f.’.‘~‘ A o .- 7/4"; n "_-.rl - '.-' “’3’; "1.70). ‘. ,r/ . / 75! 4. . mauWQ1Ma “Maw“; W“. -:\' v 1- ~‘ 1 qfi‘é‘ 21$“ - ‘5 3‘ ‘_' I ‘ a _ m ‘ § \\:¥ 4 : ‘ ‘ ,‘v 51 .A 'i - . b V «xv- - t‘ \ :xs g._.~_ JL 7 is“: ’l 1:" ‘ I , (III’I .’. » . . . r 1 : rf, ' , u. - :4 ' :y r .‘ ’34.“; ’ L'rwaJ/xv w~ 3‘ “‘9. - 'r'w '9, “:4”.- 51,6,“- "'I :"v . fl “JJJH' ’r .. 1"): 'll‘ J’v‘ri‘ ,’ u t. 7’ . l . '. .ZI‘.‘ , n£;:' ‘ ‘ ' 5": l."- ' 515-557. .32.. - -' I .' ' " ., "‘ .. a?" $37 1w 3‘. .. ., ‘fi' [3‘] .. - . . "ézfi't'; ”",',"l 5. "In” %{It£~‘ a...“ :v‘r: ',IP:,."(: 41'». . .' . ’32:). "2-“ é'él’r’: , D‘II' J”! I.“ qr; o I-vI'J. ' "J . 3.. _ . M’Qflfllfl ' .f‘ r 4 I. ‘ C" n " a r — a t“; 64 ll u—uqa- l a I‘ la J w? {5.1173142 {'v ”32"” LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS, RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION, AND PURPOSE IN LIVING presented by Ronald Erwin Hopson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Psychology degree in / Major professor Elaine Doneison Date 2/27/87 , MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 MSU LIBRARIES RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. , l -- mm? 2. i995 VII—\GII: 2 PEIBONALITY CHARACI‘ERISTICS, RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION, AND HIRPCBE IN LIVING Ronald Erwin Hopson A DISSERTATION Subnitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of IXXH‘OR OF PHIIWOPHY Department of Psychology 1987 ABSTRACT PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTIQ, RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION, AND PURPOSE IN LIVING By Ronald Erwin Hopson This research attempted to explicate the relationships between religious orientation, personality, and purpose in life. Significant relationships were found between some of these variables. The religious orientation variables were not found to be significantly correlated. Basic personality variables were found to be significantly related to the religious orientation variables, suggesting that these variables may be understood as more basic personality characteristics rather than solely religious variables. Also, self-report of religious salience (the relevance of religion to the individual) was significantly related to purpose in life. various personality measures were found to be related to purpose in life, religious orientation, and religious salience. Type of conversion and direction of conversion (to or from religion) were found to be unrelated to religious orientation and behavior or attitude change subsequent to conversion. There were, however, differences in personality characteristics between converts to or from religion, and between sudden and gradual converts. These results were discussed in relation to their relevance to the practitioner in religion and psychology. I dedicate this work to m parents, Robert and Anna, and to m daughter Karis, as a representation of the motivation which their love for me has provided. iii The word "miracle" has taken on new meaning for me as a consequence of this work. Thank you, God, for this miracle you have provided. Elaine Donelson, my chairperson, has been a compassionate scholar- teacher. Whatever is of merit in this project is due to her patience, guidance, insight, and wisdom. Words are inadeqmte to express m gratitude. Bertram P. Karon is my teacher. Bert, I understand why those who suffer most find relief in their work with you. Your spirit brings hope and healing to your patients and stuients. I am blessed to know you. Lee N. June has been a role model for me. Lee, you have shown me that consistency, confidence, and integrity remain essential for true success. Your quiet spirit has been an anchor for me through this stormy process. You never doubted me, and that means more to me than you can know. Donald Olmsted remained supportive and interested in this work for many years. I am privileged to have known such a banana man in a system which so often dehimnizes. Thanks, Dr. Olmsted, you are a rare jewel in the ivory tower of academia. Suzy Pavick was consistently helpful to me in the essential details of completing the doctorate. You did not have to do it, but you did. Thanks, Suzy. Patti Johnson’s editing is the reason for the manuscript’s high qinlity. Patti, I now more clearly understand grace! my God continue to be gracious unto you as you have been to me. Rev. Sheppard, Hugh, Bill, Danny, Dad and Mom Davis, Daisy, Barbara, and Thomas, N family and friends, I do love you. Peter, your unconditionally loving spirit has been a foundation for me. I know that I could not have completed this task without you. In you I have found a brother and a true friend. Know that you are loved. iv V Donnie, you have shown me what it means to love the truth. May God continue to lead you in green pastures and beside tranquil waters. I love you. Bernard, you live Philemon 7. Thank you for refreshing the heart of your brother. My parents, Robert and Anna, are now together again in the presence of the Lord. Because of their love I have faith, and.because of my faith I live. Though I cannot say it in.my flesh, I will say it in my spirit: Thank you for your love, I will always love you. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLE 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O IWIm O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 WWW O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O l O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O Conceptions of Religious Sentiment........................... An-Xiety 8rd kisteme. O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O wnverSion.OOOOOOIOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. mmeseSOOO0.000000000IOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC WDOOOOOOCOO0.00.0000....IOOIOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Research Participants........................................ Procedure.................................................... Instrunents. Jackson Personality Inventory........................... Purpose In Life......................................... Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religion............................ Other Instrunents.. WEOOOOO0.0...0..00......O..0...O0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I-E and PIL.................................................. I-E and JPI.................................................. Conversion Type.............................................. PIL and JPI.................................................. I-E and Change............................................... Suddenness and Change........................................ I—E, JPI, and PIL............................................ Conversion, JPI, and PIL... Religious Salience........................................... Correlational Analysis....................................... vi Page vii 1 1 3 13 24 29 3O 3O 3O 31 31 32 33 37 39 39 43 47 53 56 60 60 62 70 74 vii DISQJSSIWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI00.00.0000...00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religion............................. Religion and Personality..................................... Personality and Faith Development............................ Conversion................................................... Conversion and Change........................................ Purpose-In-Living............................................ Conclusion.. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Implications for Further Research............................ APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX APPENDIX A: PEPPER??? I: Departmental Consent Form............................ Jackson Personality Inventory........................ Purpose In Life Inventory............................ Intrinsic/Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale...... Demographic Questionnaire............................ Religious Salience Questionnaire..................... Religious Affiliation Questionnaire.................. Religious Conversion Questionnaire................... Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale.............. LISI‘ OF We...coo.00000000000000.0000.00000000000000.0090. Page 77 78 83 89 93 101 107 113 119 123 124 138 141 143 144 145 148 150 152 LIST OF TABLES Table P888 1 Cut—off Points for Religious Orientation Scores.............. 37 2 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample.................... 40 3 Table of Means of PIL Scores for Extrinsic and IntrinSj-C or‘ienmtiODOOOOOOOOOO...0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... 42 4 Summary of ANOVA for Religious Orientation and mse in Life.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOI. 42 5 Summary of ANOVA for JPI Scores by Intrinsic and mrins10kligious orientationOOOOOCO0.0.0.0000...0..0...... 44 6 Duncan Multiple Range Test of Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for Intrinsic and Extrinsic OI‘ientatj-ono0..0......0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOIOOO 00000 .00 48 7 t-Tests for Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for Indiscriminate Pro- and Anti-Religious Orientation....... 49 8 Table of Means of I/E Scores for Sudden and Gradual converSionTgormkligionOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.0.0... 52 9 Summary of ANOVA for Suddenness and Direction of Conversion and Extrinsic and Intrinsic Religious Ol‘ienmtionooeooooooooocoooooeooooooooooooooooooooeoooooooooo 54 10 Summary of ANOVA of JPI Scales and PIL Scores................ 55 11 Average JPI Scale Scores for High and Low PIL................ 57 12 Smmary of ANOVA for Attitude and Behavior Change by Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious Orientation................ 58 13 Average Attitude and Behavior Change Scores by Intrinsic and Extrinsic Orientation.......................... 59 14 Average Behavior Change Scores for Converts IQ and m&ligion00......OOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00. 61 viii ix Table Page 15 Nunber of Persons Reporting Behavior or Attitude Change. . . . . . 61 16 Summry of ANOVA of JPI Scores and I/E Scores for ' hrsom High w W in PIL.O0..I.0.0IOOIOCOOOO...00.0.0.0... 63 17 Table of Means of JPI and I/E for Persons High and low in PIL.0.0.0.0.0000...0......OOOOIOOOOIOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.... 64 18 Sumnry of ANOVA for JPI by Conversion (Stdden or GmmlfiOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0...... 65 19 Table of Means of JPI Scores for Converts & Religion by Gradual or Sudden Conversion. 66 20 SunnaryofANOVAof JPI ScalesbyConversionType............ 67 21 Table of Means of JPI Scales for Conversion From hligionO0.0000000000000000000000..OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0 68 22 Sunnary of ANOVA of PIL by Sudden or Gradual mnvemion IQReligim.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 69 23 Stmnary of ANOVA of PIL by Sudden or Gradual wnverSion F‘I‘m kligionOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0....0..00.00.00. 69 24 t-Tests for Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for HighandlowImportance ofReligion............... 71 25 t-Tests for Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for High and Low Participation in Religious MtiVitieSOO00.000000...OOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 72 26 t-Tests for Differences Between the Means for High mmmrmce Ofh11£i°n0000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.... 73 27 t-Tests for Differences Between the Means for High and Low Participation in Religious Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 28 Correlation of JPI Scales with Religious Orientation. . . . . . . . . 75 29 mrr‘elatiODOfJPI mesWit}!PILCOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.0... 76 INI‘RDDIL'I‘ION Background The relationship between psychology and religion has been a subject of scholarly concern to psychologists, philosophers and clergy for many years. Scholarly writing in the psychology of religion has been ongoing (with some interruptions) since the beginning of this century (Beit-Hallahmi, 1977). Though often considered too "subjective," sacred, or private, the religious attitudes which individuals manifest has proven to be fertile ground for investigation. Such giants of psychology as G. Stanley Phll and William James were early exponents of theory and practice in the psychology of religion. James conceptualized the religious disposition as a particularly and singularly important dimension of htmn existence. Speaking about the unique role which religion plays in the emtional life of the individual, James states, "This sort of happiness in the absolute and everlasting is what we find nowhere but in religion. . ." (1961, p. 55). Similarly, Carl Jung suggested that a salient concept of one’s relationship to God was the quintessential elanent of coping with the "physical and moral blandishments of the world" (Jung, 1957, p. 72). 2 However, not all psychological theorists hold the position that religious sentiment is efficacious in hunan life. Sigmund Freud, perhaps the most important figure in psychology in this century, held great disdain for the religious disposition of humans. Freud (1938) argued, that religion -- or more accurately, a vital concept of God -- was nothing more than a projection of the "good" father and an attanpt at a systematic rationalization of the vagaries of life. The early researchers attempted to adhere to strict scientific standards in their investigations in order to demystify and Objectify this peculiarly subjective phenomena. However, this "severe empiricism" proved to be a doUble-edged sword for the psychology of religion movement. Research with less rigorous scientific methodologies began to be carried out as a reaction to the secularization of religious phenomena. Consequently, as psychology struggled to gain respectability among the sciences, this intuitive, speculative research was decried among academic psychologists (Boisen, 1953). Beit—Hallahmi (1977) outlines several reasons which Douglas (1963) and Strunk (1957) cite for the decline of the study of the psychology of religion. These reasons essentially suggest that the unique significance which religion has for each individual made objectification and integration of findings extremely difficult. There were no unifying concepts advanced by which the scientist could understand the role of religion in the psychology of human behavior. The current research is a further attempt to clarify the relationship between psychology and religion. Arising fromtthe author’s personal experiences and from Observation of many church 3 members, it becomes apparent that the role which religion plays (in the manner in which it is manifest in many lives today) is of ever- increasing importance as the haunting prospect of our oblivion 106: in the ever-present background as a result of the insanity of the nuclear "race." I am convinced that religion is peculiarly and miquely salient for dealing with the anxieties of modern life and mist be given the careful attention and study which other aspects of hunn life have received. The religious sentiment does not stand apart from the personality in some sacred area of the psyche, but, rather, it is woven into the fabric of hunan psychological rake—up. Therefore, religion must be considered in the context of the total personality. Consequently, as will become apparent later in this work, the authors’s view is that an individual’s general psychological developnent my be reflected in their religious sentiment and my, in turn, affect the degree to which the religiom sentiment my adequately meet the issues for which it is most properly suited in any individual’s life. Conceptions of Religious Sentiment The role which religious sentiment plays in the psychology of the individual has been a longstanding controversy. As cited earlier, Freud (1938), From (1967) and others (Salzman, 1953) have stagested that religion served as a neurotic defense against unlmnageable anxiety engendered by uncertainty about one’s life (Freud), or as a haven within which one may derive a sense of selfhood and meaning by surrendering to an obscure onnipotence (Fran). Gordon Allport (1950) 4 argued that, just as for many other dimensions of human life, religious sentiment may be mature (healthy) or immature (neurotic) for an adult. Allport outlines three aspects of maturity: (1) ...a variety of psychogenic interests...which concern themselves with ideal objects and values beyond the range of viscero-genic desire...; (2) ...the ability to objectify oneself, to be reflective and insightful about ones life, [and a] (3) ...unifying philosophy of life, although not necessarily religious in type...some dominant, integrative pattern.... Consequently, Allport defines the mature religious sentiment as a disposition, built up through experience, to respond favorably and in certain habitual ways, to conceptual objects and principles that the individual regards as of ultimate importance in his own life, and as having to do with what he gegards as permanent, or central in the nature of things (p. Herein we see elements of both cognition and affect contributing to the religious sentiment. The existence of religious sentiment does not necessarily imply that this sentiment contributes to psychological health and vitality. Beginning with Allport and Kramer (1946), the maladaptive dimension (particularly prejudice) of religious orientation has been frequently explored (Adorno, Frankel-Brunswik, Levinson and Sanford, 1959; Stouffer, 1955; Rokeach 1960). Allport (1954) outlined two dimensions of religion which he found related to ethnic prejudice -- these were termed intrinsic (interiorized) and extrinsic (institutionalized) and are considered polar opposites of a continuum (the concept of unidimensionality of 5 religious orientation will be discussed later). An intrinsic religious orientation is characterized by consistent adherence to particular creeds of the religion by an individual. Other needs, strong as they may be, are regarded as of less ultimate significance, and they are so far as possible, brought into harmony with the religious beliefs and prescriptions. Having embraced a creed, the individual endeavors to internalize and follow it fully. It is in this sense that one "lives" the religion. Persons with an extrinsic religious orientation "are disposed to use religion for their own ends, an interest that is held because it serves other, more ultimate utilitarian purposes (Allport, 1954, p. 32). Persons with this orientation may find religion useful primarily in the following ways -- to provide security and solace, sociability and distraction, status and self-justification. The embraced creed is lightly held or else variously shaped to fit more primary needs. In theological terms, the extrinsic type turns toward God but without turning away from self. The author feels that it is important to comment upon an apparent effect of these claims. Indeed, religious sentiment may be maladaptive and growth hindering as it is manifest in a particular life. 'Dhis should not, however, be considered as evidence against the veridicality of religious concepts. That one may "take" any concept which has been found efficacious in some situations and misapply that concept should not detract from the usefulness of that concept when applied in its proper context. This appears to be a fallacy to which many critics of religion subscribe. unfortunately, examples abound of therapists abusing the peculiar vulnerability of patients engendered by the 6 phenomena of transference. .A therapist subscribing to this a theoretical school, however, would.hardly agree that, for this reason, the therapeutic use of transference should be decried. Perhaps this fallacy is perpetuated.by the failure of research in the psychology of religion to consistently consider personality variables as they relate to religious sentiment. An extrinsic religious orientation.may be a religious manifestation of a general personality style manifested in religious dimensions of life. This is a central thesis of this research. Burke (1978) has attempted to juxtapose religious sentiment and personality comparing the intrinsic and.extrinsic dimensions as proposed by Allport (1954) with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. The basic needs for security, safety, belongingness, affection, etc., (deficiency-needs) are clearly the primary motivating needs of the extrinsically religious person. Burke argues that these needs are a necessary part of adolescent development. The degree to which they predominate in adult life suggests immaturity. In contrast, the intrinsically religious individual is motivated by needs to express personal uniqueness and potential, to love fully, create, and relate oneself to something which is ultimate needs). The more mature development of individuals who have reached the actualizing levels of Maslow’s hierarchy are manifest in the intrinsically religious person. Clearly, however, Burke does not suggest that these "higher" levels are attainable only by religious persons: A psychologically mature or self-actualizing person may be very religious, may practice a personalized and unconventional pattern of religious behavior, or may show no religious beliefs or behaviors (1978, p. 179). 7 Herein lies the point of departure between Burke and the current author. There are indeed self-actualizing persons who are not ostensibly religious. I suggest, however, that regarding matters of ultimate concern to human beings (meta-needs for meaning, purpose, relatedness to something ultimte) only those with some form of religious orientation including a vital concept of wholly other [God] in personal relationship with hunans my realize the satisfaction of these actualizing meta-needs (Maslow, 1964). Kahoe and Meadow (1981), in a theoretical discourse, have expanded upon the dimensions suggested.by'Allport. They have conceptualized a two-dimensional model of religious orientation with the extrinsic-intrinsic dimension intersecting an observance-autonomy dimension at right angles. The observance dimension is a further development of the extrinsic dimension wherein individuals are motivated to achieve a sense of belongingness in their religious practices, but once this belonging is achieved, the individual begins to behave out of a sense of loyalty to the institution or group with which they are affiliated. The opposite dimension of autonomy is a fUrther progression of the intrinsic dimension wherein religious faith is cultivated apart from (and sometimes antagonistically toward) any particular set of tenets of organized religion. Kahoe and Meadow (1981) parallel their conceptualization with Maslow, Kohlberg and Loevinger. ‘Within each of these systems, the extrinsic through autonomy progression roughly corresponds to the lower to higher levels of developnent as proposed by Maslow, Kohlberg and Loevinger. Here, again, we see a clear theoretical claim that type of 8 religious orientation corresponds to factors determining personality characteristics. MacKenzie (1947) presents a thought provoking discussion concerning the role of a religious perspective. He lays the groundwork by arguing for the veridicality of the concept of God. Given the pervasiveness of religious sentiments in all known cultures, MacKenzie states "a need implies and indeed involves the object that satisfies the need" ((1947), p.21). Consequently, since the presence of the impulse (not instinct) to worship some existence larger than and wholly other than human implies the need of some "Object" to direct one’s worship toward, this wholly other must of necessity exist. This is not a(n) ....instinct, otherwise, it would be possessed by animals. It goes beyond biological needs, otherwise religion could be explained in biological terms. If there were nothing in us that could respond to God, moral ideals, and the like, we would be hard pressed to explain this universal preoccupation with religion (Trew, 1971, p. 22). MacKenzie continues that the specific concepts of which the idea of God are composed are acquired through experience and learning. Consequently, an individual may have internalized.a warped self- deprecating concept through which he or she understands God. This accounts for the maladaptive nature of some~religious sentiment. Trew (1971) points out that the statement in John’s Gospel, "we are children of God," provides an important source of self-esteem.and meaning for mny persons. Implicit in this view is that self-esteem derived from material possessions perishes with the material possession; self-esteem derived from philosophies of hunans perishes with the author of the philosophy; self-esteem derived from knowledge discovered by humus 9 perishes when this knowledge is found to be incomplete as new discoveries are made. Thus, as the Apostle Paul so insightfully argued, "we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal" (II Corinthians 4:18, King James version). A form of religion which promotes this unassailable sense of relationship with the eternal is quintessential to the full development of the many facets of htmn existence. The self must develop so that biological needs, conscience, emotions and relationships with others are all unified into a harmonious whole. A fine vital religion can a fulfill this need (Trew, 1971, p.26). This type of religion provides one with a sense of control over destiny, a sense of justice and ultimate recompense for the vagaries of life, a raison d’etre, and an assurance of ultimate bliss which may make the horror of death become little more than a benign transition from one form of life in the developmental process, to another. Maslow (1970) and Burke (1978) have identified these needs which a mature religion meets as characteristic of persons striving for self actualization. Maslow also suggests that actualization and congruence may be achieved by those who are not religious in the traditional sense. Trew (1971) concludes that a healthy religious perspective (explaining ones existence and relating one to ultimate reality) does not create neurosis, but rather brings self-respect, dignity and meaningfulness to life. This is accomplished by relating the seemingly insignificant individual in a dynamic way to the creator of all things. Further, it provides a larger framework within which to view one’s life 10 and activities as they now take on eternal not just tenporal significance. Burnett (1979) argues that mature religion, though not necessarily implying a concept of God or gods, serves a central function in organizing an individual’s perception of and response to the phenomena of life. "It serves a consolidating function, providing a benchmrk against which other needs, values, and assunptions are compared" (p.310). One of the unique aspects of religious systems is their concept of deity. Considering the unique aspect of religion such as belief in deity, which is not part of non-religious philosophical systems, Williams and Cole (1968) found that religious subjects were significantly less anxious than non-religious subjects. They divided their groups into high, intermediate, and low religious subjects and found that the intermediate group tended to evidence greater insecurity (anxiety) about death than either the high or low religious groups. This distinction may be similar to the extrinsic religious orientation phenomena in which the intermediate religious individual’s commitment has not been internalized, though he or she participates intermittently in religious activities. Alexander and.Adelstein (1959) conducted an elaborate study of the relationship between death anxiety and religiosity. The groups evidenced a trend toward congruence as the consideration of death became more conscious. The religious subjects, however, scored substantially lower on measures of anxiety after a word association task emphasizing death themes. Thus the religious subjects seem to be 11 more resistant to death anxiety while the non-religious subjects tended to report indifference to feelings of anxiety associated with death. Investigation of the relationship between religion and psychological adjustment has also focused upon specific personality variables and their relationship to religion. Results are varied, Graff and Ladd (1971) investigated the relationship between self—actualization as measured by a self-report inventory (the Shostrom Personal Orientation Inventory), and a self report measure of religious commitment (Glock & Stark, 1965) and found that less religious subjects were more self-actualizing as defined by certain attributes (inner directedness, spontaneity, self-acceptance). Gorsuch and Baker (1982) deviated from the usual methodology employing college freshmen and sophomores. subjects for their study were taken from a religious wilderness camping expedition. The intrinsic and extrinsic dimension was correlated with various personality traits (anxiety, lack of self-sentiment, paranoia, guilt proneness, and frustration tension). Results indicated that intrinsic religious orientation is negatively correlated with the previously mentioned variables and extrinsic religious orientation is positively correlated with these variables. They suggests that findings to the contrary (particularly the positive relationship between religion and anxiety) are an artifact of the sample size. If the sample consists dominantly of persons with an extrinsic religious orientation, then the correlation between religion and anxiety will be positive since these individuals are more anxious than intrinsically oriented persons, according to their argument. 12 Kahoe’s (1974) findings were consistent with Baker’s and Gorsuch’s view. Sampling 518 college students, he found intrinsic religious orientation was positively correlated with a measure of responsibility and internal locus of control. Extrinsic religious orientation was associated with dogmatism and authoritarianism, and negatively correlated with intelligence or education. Kahoe advances the argument that intrinsic religious orientation is a basic pervasive personality variable. Thompson (1974) scored the Allport-Ross religious orientation inventory to establish four categories rather than two: intrinsic, extrinsic, indiscriminately pro-religious and indiscriminately anti-religious. The latter two categories were formed by scoring all pro-religious items on either scale in the positive direction (establishing the indiscriminately pro—religious scale) or in the negative direction (establishing the indiscriminately anti-religious scale). Results indicated the following in ascending order of degree of dogmatism: intrinsic, indiscriminately anti-religious, extrinsic, and indiscriminately pro-religious. One can see that results are varied and curiously seem to reflect the author’s bias. As Karon (1982) so aptly states: "This should not be, as there is only one real world." It is difficult to account for the variation of results cited above. One difficulty with the previously cited research which may contribute to the inconsistency of findings is that researchers have rarely investigated the role which religion plays in that part of human life for which it is particularly and uniquely salient —- matters of the meaning of life, the uncertainty 13 in living and one’s ultimate destiny. Here is where religion should be most closely scrutinized to understand its impact upon these areas of life. While I have suggested previously that religion must influence and be influenced by general personality functioning and development, I also suggest that, within the previously mentioned areas, religion may be the critical variable. The approach taken in this research therefore, is to examine the role of religion in general personality functioning with particular emphasis upon the role of religion in "existential" adjustment. This concept of existential adjustment will be taken to mean one’s sense of purpose in life. The previous discussion has focused upon the nature of religious sentiment and its role in the total personality. As has been stated, given that religion pertains to the ultimate in being, the area in which religion should have the greatest impact is in addressing consideration of the meaning of life. Existentialists such as Paul Tillich, Rollo May, and Viktor Frankl have placed these questions at the center of their theoretical/philosophical systems. These theorists suggest that the lack of answers to questions of our existence engender existential anxiety. Consequently, it is in relationship to this area that the investigation of the individual and his or her religion may be most revealing. The current research is intended in part to explicate some relationships between religion and existence as conceptualized by Viktor Frankl. Anxiety and Existence Anxiety is the central concept in many psychological theories (Donelson, 1973). However, the generic term anxiety may imply a 14 variety of states resulting from a variety of internal and external stimuli. Anxiety may arise from a threat to one’s physical integrity (this perhaps being the most basic physiological response which we share with other members of the animal kingdom), intellectual integrity, or psychological integrity. Thus, an individual may be threatened by a thief brandishing a weapon, a college professor challenging their intellectual insights, or a spouse anticipating divorce. Anxiety may also stem from an inability to determine an appropriate course of action. Various theorists have placed anxiety as a central explanatory concept in the genesis of maladaptive (neurotic) behavior. Freud conceptualized anxiety as originating in a threat to the child’s physical integrity due to one’s unacceptable impulses and desires which, if not repressed, would lead to severe or perhaps cataclysmic consequences (1927). The capacity for anxiety is innate in the individual and serves a self-preservative function. The prototype of this anxiety is the separation from the mother and this signal anxiety capacity persists throughout the life span --- its particular form determined by environmental circumstances. This anxiety leads to "neurotic" symptoms due to the repression of the impulses and desires which were associated with the anticipated disaster. Sullivan further develops the concept implicit in Freud’s formulation that anxiety is essentially an interpersonal phenomena. Anxiety arises from the child’s anticipation of the disapproval of significant persons (particularly the mothering one) in the environment (Sullivan, 1953). If this anxiety is too severe and incessant, the 15 individual will develop "dissociated" aspects of the self which may manifest the activities and attitudes which were met with severe disapproval early in life. Mowrer (cited by May, 1959) attempts to determine the specific class of stimuli which engender anxiety. He subscribes completely to Freud’s formulation that anxiety evokes the mechanism of repression which leads to symptom formation, however, the causal nexus within which the conflict situations arise are not instinctual but rather moral or ethical. Anxiety results from behavior which violates ethical principles. Thus, anxiety is the results of repression of the super-ego, conscience. Horney (1937) has advanced a conceptualization of anxiety which has intriguing implications for the researcher of religion. She suggests that anxiety arises from a conflict between dependency and hostility within the child. The children realistically experience their existence to be dependent upon receiving adequate nurturance and care. Beyond their baseline care, it is important that the parents create an atmosphere wherein the child experiences a modicum of frustration of interpersonal needs. Hostility results in the child when the parents do not provide adequate nurturance and/or when parents do not appropriately minimize frustration. Their hostility is accompanied by anxiety as the child is aware that, were the hostile impulses to be acted upon, it would endanger the very relationship upon which the child is totally dependent. Repression of these hostile impulses occurs and neurotic anxiety results. 16 This conceptualization may have important implications within traditional Christian religious systems. The experience of God as "father" or "parent" and maintainer of all things clearly involves significant dependency on the part of the believer. FUrther, the exigencies of life ensure that most persons experience significant frustration and trauma, some of which, within religious systems, is attributed to "God’s will." However, this attribution understandably may engender hostility and anger within the believer who has been subjected to frustration or trauna. This hostility is too threatening to experience, however, and therefore it must be repressed. What may be the result for the believer if this scenario is true? Obsessive counter-phobic adherence to rigid sometimes highly punitive religious rules (indiscriminately pro—religious)? The covert rebellion of compliance without involvement of the heart (extrinsic religious orientation)? Radical rejection of religious dogma (indiscriminately anti-religious)? Horney’s system suggest fascinating areas of exploration for the researcher of religion. The contribution which each of these theories make to the conceptual understanding of the role of anxiety suggests that religion may be a significant phenomenon within each theoretical system. The relationship of religion and anxiety, however, requires a further expansion of the concept of anxiety. Tillich (1969) develops an ontology of anxiety centered in the concept of being and non-being. The ultimate quest of every human is for self-affirmation or affirmation of being. Tillich argues, however, that, as essential and basic as is the quest for affirmation of being, 17 reconciling oneself to the reality of ultimate non-being (death) is also essential. The concept of non-being cannot be negated by a focus upon being as, for instance, sorrow may be negated by a focus upon joy. "Certainly non-being is not a concept like others. It is the negation of every concept, but as such, it is an inescapable content of thought..." (Tillich, 1971, p.35). Thus Tillich’s ontology of anxiety begins with the assertion that "...anxiety is the state in which being is aware of its possible non-being..." (p.35). This is not simply abstract knowledge but rather the awareness that non-being is a part of one’s own being. This is the natural anxiety of humanity. Anxiety is differentiated from fear as fear necessarily implies a definite object. Fear makes activity or participation possible and potentially effective precisely because the object of the fear is perceptible. However, the anxiety of non-being has no perceptible object with which to make participation possible. The anxiety of non-being is based in the negation of every Object -- both tangible and intangible. Tillich outlines three types of anxiety: 1) the anxiety of fate and death; 2) the anxiety of emptiness and meaninglessness; and 3) the anxiety of guilt and condemnation. 'Dhis typology is not meant to imply mutual exclusivity as all of these may be present in an individual. The anxiety of fate and death is the most basic and universal type of anxiety. The anxiety of fate stems from the realization that life is contingent in every respect. The sense that events are ultimately uncontrollable yet are contingent upon every preceding event, engenders the uncertainty of fate in the absence of a sufficiently negating 18 system (such as religion). This anxiety of death is the root and the offspring of the anxiety of fate. While stemming from the awful realization of one’s helplessness (fate), the anxiety of death is. empowered by the realization that these fateful events will ultimately culminate in one’s demise. Consequently, the individual tries anything to avoid this type of anxiety, to bring meaning to his or her existence. This is evident in the proliferation of cults among young adults. There is a frantic search for certitude which modern science has come to realize it cannot provide. This emptiness is experienced as separation and intense isolation which compels the individual to seek relationship with others. This is sometimes manifest in tenacious loyalty to a charismatic figure. As Erich Fromm (1969) so perceptibly suggests, the individual escapes from freedom, in order to escape the anxiety of meaninglessness. Everything is tried yet nothing satisfies. Abandonment to other human authority or ideals of human derivation is inadequate to meet the challenge of human’s quest for meaning. Tillich agrees with Frankl that this meaning cannot be derived from within but rather must be embraced from outside the self. Finally, the anxiety of guilt and condemnation results from persons’ refusal to exercise proper control over freedom. This concept is rooted in the responsibility which each human being has to adhere to certain principles which Frankl and Tillich agree originates wholly apart from hunans. Each hunan is responsible to answer for what she or he does with his/her freedom and for what one has done with their life. Guilt arises from the discrepancy between the self-perceived potential, 19 and the actual behavior. Thus, humankind’s freedom is limited to personal ability to make decisions; however, the consequences are beyond control. Indeed, the Apostle Paul compellingly illustrates this condition: For that which I do I allow not:for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh), dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 0 wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with my mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free for the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. That the righteousness of the law'might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (In; Holy Bible: Romans 7:15—8:14, Bishop’s Version). Persons may attempt to escape their anxiety by defiance of all negative judgments or moral rigor; however, Tillich argues that the anxiety of guilt continues to lurk in the background of the individual’s awareness and continues to compel the individual to increasingly frantic searches for exoneration. Viktor Frankl (1958) suggests another level of human existence beyond the visceral and interpersonal to which religion has particular relevance. Frankl refers to flhis existential concept as the "will to 20 meaning." It is erroneous to assume that htmns are primrily motivated by a will to pleasure (Freud) or a will to power (Adler). Human uniqueness lies in the ability to attempt to make meaning of existence. Thus, the subject of concern for students of the human condition is most properly that which manifests our uniqueness among the creation. This will to meaning may be realized only as humans commit themselves to a cause greater than themselves. It is necessary that this cause be something beyond humankind, according to Frankl. "Meaning must not coincide with being, meaning must be ahead of being; meaning sets the pace for being..."(1958, p. 29). It is imperative for those engaged in the practice of psychotherapy to assist in this pursuit of meaning. One may attempt to disguise this pursuit in various ways such as vehement adherence to a particular atheistic philosophy of life, but Frankl argues that ultimately, these philosophies must be found ineffective because they originate in humanity. Only as one achieves the will to meaning derived from something wholly other than humanity may one achieve true psychological health, Failure to do so results in noogenic neurosis. The failure to embrace this relationship of self to "wholly other" leads to existential frustration. Here is an expanded concept of anxiety which goes beyond Mowrer’s concept of anxiety. As has been previously discussed, Mowrer conceived of anxiety as resulting from failure to adhere to one’s moral principles. Hewever, Frankl’s concept of existential frustration suggests not only failure to adhere to, but also failure to acknowledge the preeminence of, these precepts. This Frankl refers to as noogenic neurosis. It is also failure in the 21 interpersonal relationship. The "cause" of the failure lies not in the most powerful being, as in Sullivan’s system, but rather in the "weaker" being (Frankl, 1960). The level of existence which Frankl postulates represents our unique humanity is a spiritual level. This is not to be misconstrued as a primarily or even necessarily religious dimension. While curiously avoiding any overt mention of religious philosophy, Frankl suggests that it is within this dimension of human existence that freedomtand responsibility become salient concepts. Thus, as humans becomes fully aware of freedom to transcend the visceral and psychologic of existence, we also face the responsibility to act on this opportunity, to establish relatedness to that which is transcendents Thus, the will to meaning is the assertion of that which is "right" within oneself. While acknowledging that "absolute right" does exist, Frankl avoids the issue of the origin of this right -- allowing the relevance of this origin only for persons who are religious. "From the psychological point of view the religious person is one who experiences not only what is spoken, but the speaker as well..." (Frankl,1966, p. 62). The existential act which affirms and embraces this ultimate meaning, manifest in a basic trust in being (purpose), is essential to life, however dormant it may be. Thus, in this manner, Shea (1975) suggests that all persons are religious. Their religious "nature", however, my be mnifest in non-religious ways (i.e. , vehement adherence to secular philosophy). The basic trust in being is realized as an individual commits to principles and values which are greater than the self. Frankl does not 22 clarify this notion of greater than oneself other than suggesting that these are principles which are veridical in and of themselves: their validity lies in their existence. In Old Testament scripture (and in Jesus’ words recorded in the Christian New Testament) this is expressed as the Great "I Am." Existential anxiety is aroused as an individual loses touch with the basic trust in being (purpose). Thus, one can see that mature religious sentiment may certainly ameliorate the condition of existential anxiety. Logotherapy is not religion. It may lead to religion by pointing the individual toward the ultimate meaning for his or her life. Thus, Frankl legitimizes religion: Logotherapy "...leaves the door to religion open and leaves it to the (person) whether or not to pass through the door..." (1977, p. 344). Frankl suggests an individual may achieve meaning in life via logotherapy or religion. Maddi (1967) delineates three components of the existential neuroses: cognitive, affective, and action components. The component of the existential neuroses is meaninglessness or chronic inability to believe in the truth, importance or usefulness...of any of the things one is engaged in or can imagine doing. The most characteristic features of affective tone are blandness and boredom, punctuated by periods of depression...As to the realm of action, activity level may be low to moderate...activities are not chosen. There is little selectivity, it being immaterial to the person what, if any, activities he pursues (p. 313). In contrast to Frankl, Maddi suggests alleviation of this condition by vehement pursuit of one’s full potential -- psychologically, biologically, and socially. The more one is able to appropriately and harmoniously realize these three aspects of himself or herself, he or she will come to acquire a sense of meaning and purpose in life. 23 Frankl would counter that the aim of self-actualization is thwarted because only by total comitment outside of oneself can one become fully human. Crunbaugh (1968) and Crunbaugh and Diabolick (1964) developed a self report inventory (the PUrpose in Life test - PIL) to represent Frankl’s thesis. They sampled two groups of persons: "normals" and a psychiatric sample. The normal group was divided into 1) successful business and professional persons, 2) Protestant parishioners, 3) college undergraduates and 4) indigent hospital patients (non-psychiatric). The psychiatric group was divided into: 1) neurotic outpatients, 2) hospitalized neurotics, 3) alcoholics (hospitalized), 4) schizophrenic black patients, 5) schizophrenic non-black patients, and 6) hospitalized patients with other psychotic diagnoses. Within the normal group, scores on the PIL (higher scores indicating greater purpose in life) corresponded in ascending order to presumed psychological health (indigents "up to" successful professionals). The blacks diagnosed as schizophrenic scored highest in the psychiatric sample, followed in descending order of scores by hospitalized schizophrenics, hospitalized neurotics, outpatiaent neurotics, hospitalized alcoholics, and hospitalized psychotics. These data suggest that a sense of meaning and purpose in life is clearly related to relative effectiveness in living. From another study, one may also infer (with perhaps greater uncertainty) that persons who are actively religious (Christian, in this case) evidence greater purpose in life than non-religious persons (Pauloutzian, 1981). This discussion concerning the nature of existential anxiety together with the previous discussion of the nature and role of 24 religion in the total personality suggest that a mature, religious orientation may successfully meet the challenges presented by an existential neurosis. Conversion The manner in which an individual becomes religious is also an important consideration related to the function of religion in an individual’s life. Scroggs and Douglas (1976) state that the conversion experience has received more attention from psychologists of religion than any other issue except mysticism. They outline several issues which are apparent in the literature concerning religious conversion. These include: 1) The definition of conversion including type of conversion; 2) nature of conversion (pathological or healthy); and 3) age at which conversion occurs. The present author suggests another important factor in the psychology of religious conversion: the degree of change (behaviorally and attitudinally) manifest as a result of the conversion. Concerning the degree of change, there has been no systematic investigation with which the present author is familiar. Spellman, Baskett and Byrne (1971) suggest that individuals may revert to pre-conversion behavior if the intense anxiety which allegedly motivated the conversion is not alleviated. Given the complex relationship between personality variables and behavior change, I suggest that the degree and durability of change may also depend upon age and personality characteristics at the time of conversion. Most early research on age of conversion found adolescence to be the most frequent period during which conversion may occur (Clark, 25 1929; Hall, 1904). Fern (1959) suggests that these results, however, may be an artifact of the sample from which the data were drawn. Data collected from congregations suggests that middle age (35-50 yrs.) was the most frequent age for new converts. The issue of relative health or sickness involved in the conversion experience is a continuing controversy. Pathological regression versus healthy regression (regression in the service of the ego) are the pivotal concepts in this controversy. Freud (1950) and Salzman (1953) argue that the conversion experience is a regressive defense to bind the intolerable anxiety arising from Oedipal strivings and the vagaries of one’s uncontrollable destiny. This defense, however, is maladaptive and ultimately ineffective. Spellman, Baskett and Byrne’s (1971) findings of higher levels of manifest anxiety among sudden converts supports this conclusion. Alternately, James (1961) and others argue that the conversion experience is a legitimate and effective dimension of hunan experience. Hood (1980) reports that intense religious experience is more frequent among persons lower on an index of psychic inadequacy (persons who are psychologically healthier) than those scoring higher on this index. Further, the finding that intense religious experience was negatively correlated with ego strength is spurious. If one removes the religion items from Barron’s ego strength scale, the negative correlation disappears since the religion items are scored negatively in terms of ego strength. Hood (1970) found that religious experience was associated with intrinsic religious orientation. So the controversy continues. The only conclusion that may be drawn is that there is, indeed, a relationship 26 between religious conversion and psychological health, perhaps more than one. The definitional issue of religious conversion turns upon the issue of sudden versus gradual conversion. Scdbie (1975) suggests a third type of conversion which may legitimately be questioned as to whether or not it is in fact conversion in the classical meaning of the term. This type of conversion is unconscious, meaning that an individual had no recollection of ever disbelieving the faith. Kildohl (1965) took the traditional viewpoint that sudden religious conversion is a less than adequate solution to intense anxiety and that as such would occur for individuals of lesser intelligence and greater psychological maladjustment (authoritarianism, hysteria, depression, and dogmatism). The results indicated that sudden converts were less intelligent (though above average) than persons of gradual religious conversion and sudden converts scored significantly higher (though within the normal range) on the MMPI hysteria scale. The other hypotheses were not supported. Spellman, Baskett and Byrne (1971) approached the prdblem of type of conversion as Kildohl did and found that sudden converts were higher on a measure of manifest anxiety than gradual converts: The results suggest that conversion might be a pseudo- solution for the sudden convert’s prOblems, since for these individuals conversion has apparently failed to bring a permanent solution, if any, in their anxiety (p. 251). Stanley (1964) derived five factors from theoretical discussions, which may be related to religious conversion: neuroticism, extraversion, amount of parental religious belief, dogmatism, and fundamentalism. He sampled 347 theology students and found religious 27 conversion positively related to extraversion, parental belief, dogmatism, and fundamentalism and negatively related to neuroticism. He made no attempt to distinguish between types of conversion (sudden, gradual, or unconscious) or degree of change manifest after this conversion. The theoretical underpinnings of Stanley’s approach is that conversion is a reasonable, effective solution to crises. Paloutzian, Jackson and Crandall (1978) took a refreshingly positive approach to the question of conversion type. Rather than assuming that sudden conversion is a pseudo-solution to disabling anxiety, they suggest that sudden and gradual conversion may result in a greater experience of meaning for the individual than unconscious conversion because of a greater degree of personal choice involved in sudden and gradual conversion. They found that sudden converts scored higher on a measure of intrinsic religious orientation than either gradual or unconscious converts. Additionally, Christians scored higher than non-Christians on a purpose-in-life inventory and persons who report having embraced a personal relationship with Jesus Christ scored higher on purpose-in-life, social interest and intrinsic religious orientation. Finally, the merits of any particular type of religious conversion must be evaluated on the basis of the person’s reported degree of satisfaction and improved ability to adapt to difficult circunstances subsequent to the conversion. Religious sentiment may supply an explanation for one’s existence and the events in one’s life which non-religious philosophies of life may not provide. As Allport and James suggest, religion provides 28 structure and a system by which life and death may be explained. Further, it provides the individual with a unique sense of individual importance and control (via prayer) over the events in one’s life, A philosophy of life void of the concept of man in personal relationship with Good.may not provide a refuge for persons facing the crises of existence‘today. The general thesis here is that those individuals who are both psychologically mature and evidence mature religious sentiment will be most successful in allaying the anxiety associated with modern living. The foregoing review of selected relevant literature has outlined various areas of relationship between religious orientation and certain aspects of living. Religious orientation has been found to be multi-dimensional with various dimensions resulting in distinctively different motivations for and ways of expressing the religious commitment. Religion also plays a particularly salient role in addressing existential questions. There is a clear relationship between religious orientation and psychological development. The manner in which an individual becomes religious has an important effect upon the lasting efficacy of his or her commitment, and in turn, is effected by individual personality traits. Finally, the degree, quality, and effect of change resulting from a religious conversion is an important factor to consider in any discussion concerning the efficacy of religious commitment. I propose in this research to examine the relationship between religious orientation, personality factors, purpose in life as conceptualized by Crumbaugh et.al. (1976) type of conversion, degree of change after conversion, and salience of religion. 29 Hypotheses People with an intrinsic religious orientation have greater purpose in life than people with an extrinsic religious orientation. People with an intrinsic religious orientation possess different predominant personality characteristics than people with an extrinsic religious orientation. There is no difference between sudden and gradual converts on the intrinsic/extrinsic dimension. There are differences in predominant personality characteristics between persons high on purpose in life and persons low on purpose in life. People with an intrinsic religious orientation will report greater attitudinal change after conversion than people with an extrinsic religious orientation. Sudden converts experience greater behavioral change after conversion than gradual converts. High vs. low purpose in living is differentially related to religious orientation and personality characteristics. There is no difference between sudden and gradual converts on the religious orientation dimension, purpose in life, or personality inventory. 29 Hypotheses People with an intrinsic religious orientation have greater purpose in life than people with an extrinsic religious orientation. People with an intrinsic religious orientation possess different predominant personality characteristics than people with an extrinsic religious orientation. There is no difference between sudden and gradual converts on the intrinsic/extrinsic dimension. There are differences in predominant personality characteristics between persons high on purpose in life and persons low on purpose in life. People with an intrinsic religious orientation will report greater attitudinal change after conversion.than people with an extrinsic religious orientation. Sudden converts experience greater behavioral change after conversion than gradual converts. High vs. low purpose in living is differentially related to religious orientation and personality characteristics. There is no difference between sudden and gradual converts on the religious orientation dimension, purpose in life, or personality inventory. METHODOLOGY Research Participants The sample consisted of 118 students attending a large midwestern university located in a large industrial state. These students were enrolled in an introductory psychology course at the university. The course requirements include participation by each student in some form of psychological research. Sheets were posted in classrooms for students to sign up as research subjects. (See Appendix B for specific instructions given to participants). Demographic information is given at the beginning of the results section. Procedure The University Committee for Research Involving Human Subjects approved the research. Research participants were instructed to report to a specific room on the campus at a designated time. subjects were handed the questionnaire packet and provided with pencils. A consent form was completed by each subject. The consent form informed the subjects of the nature of the questionnaire (see Appendix A). subjects were verbally instructed that the questionnaire would require approximately two hours to complete. The questionnaire packet as given to the research participants is included in Appendix B. 30 31 Instruments Jackson Personality Inventory. The J.P.I. (Jackson, 1976) was designed to assess personality characteristics of "normal" people. Norms for the inventory are based upon the responses of 2000 male and 2000 female students from 43 North American colleges and universities, randomly selected to represent various geographical locations. Scale construction consisted of determining constructs to be measured, developing scale definitions and gathering a large item pool. The gathering of the items was supervised by the author of the inventory, and more than 20 individuals had responsibility for preparing items finally used in the JPI. It is not indicated whether these individuals were professionals, students, or "lay" persons. Items were chosen for inclusion in the initial item pool from which the final scales were constructed based upon substantive relevance to the dimension under consideration. In addition, particular attention was directed at developing an overall pool for a dimension which represented it broadly and in a representative fashion, viewing the item pool in terms of a sample of each of a number of facets of the characteristic" (Jackson, 1976, p. 22). These items were grouped by scale and then item analyses were carried out for each scale. The forty items showing the highest differential validity were further analyzed to yield the 20 items which minimized interscale correlations and maximized scale homogeneity. The JPI consists of 320 true-false items divided equally into sixteen 20-item scales. Scores are Obtained for each scale by simple summation. Totals may also be represented by t-scores with a.mean of 32 50 and standard deviation of 10. The respondents answer on the basis of whether they consider the item true of themselves or agree with its content. For each scale, one half of the items are keyed true and one half are keyed false. The JPI requires typically 30-45 minutes to complete. The JPI scales are: Anxiety, Breadth of Interest, Complexity, Conformity, Energy Level, Innovation, Interpersonal Affect, Organization, Responsibility, Risk Taking, Self-Esteem, Social Adroitness, Social Participation, Tolerance, value Orthodoxy, and Infrequency (a validity scale) (see Appendix B). Purpose In Life, P.I.L. Crumbaugh and Maholick (1964) operationalized Frankl’s concept of noogenic neurosis and developed a 22-item test of Purpose in Life. The test items are placed on a Likert type scale from 1 to 7, e.g., "Everyday is (7) constantly new and different...(1) exactly the same as every other day." They administered this test to five groups of persons who were judged to exhibit varying levels of purpose in life (as evidenced by achievement in life). These groups were: 1) junior league females and Harvard summer school graduate students; 2) undergraduate college students; 3) psychiatric outpatients of private therapists; 4) outpatients of a public clinic; and 5) hospitalized alcoholics. These groups were predicted to have decreasing levels of purpose in life» The 22-item PIL significantly discriminated between patients and non-patients, and there was a progressive decline in mean scores from Group 1 through Group 5. Corrected odd-even reliability was .90. The authors argue that the progression of scoring from the non-patient group that was considered as possessing the greatest sense of purpose in life, to the 33 patient group which was considered as possessing the least purpose in life, exemplified the scales’ construct validity. A cross validation study (Cnmbaugh, 1968) deleted 2 of the ' original 22 items and yielded a significant but small validity, r =.38 (correlation between therapists’ ratings and patients’ scores) and reliability, r =.92. This ZO-item scale was used in this research. The Likert type scale ranged from one to five rather than seven. Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religion. Wilson (1960) developed the first empirical scale to measure Allport’s extrinsic religious dimension. Since then, the controversy over the reliability and validity of various scales derived to measure Allport’s concept has continued (Hunt & King, 1971, 1972). Allport and Ross (1968) designed a religious orientation scale with nine items purported to measure extrinsic and intrinsic orientation. This scale continues to be the most widely used though subsequent research has developed psychometrically more adequate scales (Hoge, 1972; Feagin, 1964). Feagin (1964) developed a shorter scale to measure the intrinsic/ extrinsic dimension. He factor analyzed the 21 item scale developed by Allport and Ross and discovered two major orthogonal factors. From the six items loading most highly on the first factor, Feagin formed a Factor I scale which corresponds to Allport’s intrinsic sub-scale. Similarly, from the six items loading most highly on the second factor, Feagin formed a Factor II scale which corresponds to Allport’s extrinsic dimension. Feagin’s scoring procedure also allows for the use of both scales together, scored to indicate a person’s relative 34 degree of extrinsic (high score) and intrinsic (low score) religious orientation. The use of these scales together is referred to by Feagin as the Intrinsic/Extrinsic scale. Allport’s further work with Feagin’s scale had lower reliability and validity and, in fact, is psychometrically less adequate than Feagin’s scale (Dittes, 1969). Additionally, Hood found that the correlations between Allport’s and Feagin’s scales was sufficiently high to justify using the shorter Feagin scale because the longer Allport scale added nothing to the psychometric vitality of the concept. Hunt and King (1971) wrote a disparaging review of the intrinsic/ extrinsic concept. They concluded that the intrinsic/extrinsic concept should be abandoned as a unidimensional variable. Further, they suggested that the intrinsic concept as a single religious dimension should also be abandoned "as a label and as an idea." Concerning the extrinsic concept, however, they found this to be "definitely useful" when measured by Feagin’s extrinsic scale. Fortunately, research did not cease due to this review. Hood (1970, 1971, 1978) pursued the concepts of indiscriminately pro-religious and indiscriminately anti—religious pioneered by Allport and Ross. The indiscriminately pro-religious score high on both I and E, the indiscriminately anti—religious score low on both I and E. Hood found that the categories were conceptually useful in differentiating persons on measures of mystical religious experience, stress, and repression-sensitization. Hoge (1972) pursued further development of the intrinsic 35 dimension and generated a ten-item intrinsic religious motivation scale with higher reliability and validity than Feagin’s scale. Kahoe (1974) employed.Allport’s scale. He found significant‘ results relating extrinsic religious motivation to authoritarianism and dogmatism while intrinsic religious motivation was associated with more mature personality attributes such as responsibility and internal locus of control. Interestingly, Thompson (1974) found the indiscriminately anti-religious to be lowest on a measure of dogmatism when compared with the three other groups. The intrinsic religious motivation scale developed by Hege (1972) was employed in this research to assess intrinsic religious orientation. Extrinsic religious orientation was assessed by selecting the nine extrinsic items with the highest reliability from Feagin’s (1964) study. As will be discussed later, results of the current research indicate that the intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation scales are not significantly correlated. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that a low score on the intrinsic measure means a high score on the extrinsic measure. In order to achieve the greatest precision, the indiscriminately pro and anti-religious categories will also be considered in some of the data analyses. Religious orientation will be considered also for those who report conversion from religion. This will be done in order to determine if there are any significant differences between persons who are religious and those who are not religious on the religious orientation dimension. Though this may seem to be illogical, 36 persons who are not religious may score high on either of the religious orientation measures if these measures reflect more general personality characteristics. Kahoe has demonstrated that the items may be successfully administered in a true-false format. In this study, however, to maximize the usefulness of the instrument, scoring was on a Likert type scale. The high and low categories of the intrinsic and extrinsic scales were obtained by employing the midpoint (3) of the Likert scale as a neutral point. Responses above the midpoint indicated disagreement with the statement while responses below the midpoint indicated agreement with the statement. Cut-off points were established by multiplying the number of questions contained in each scale by 3 (the midpoint). Therefore, for the extrinsic scale, the cut-off point established was 27 (9 [# of extrinsic questions] times 3 [neutral point] equals 27). The intrinsic scale cut-off point was 21 (7 [# of intrinsic items] times 3 [neutral point] equals 21). Table 1 gives cut-off points for high and low groups. High scorers on the intrinsic or extrinsic scale are called "high I or high E" regardless of their score on the opposite scale. Exceptions to this convention will be clearly indicated in the text. Please note that the cut—off points for high and low I and E may appear reversed. Due to the manner in which the instrument was scored, high intrinsic is actually a lower nunerical score than low intrinsic and high extrinsic is actually a lower numerical score than low extrinsic (see Appendix D). 37 Table 1 Cut-off Points for Religious Orientation Scores Extrinsic Intrinsic Low: Equal to or greater than 28 21 High: Equal to or less than 27 20 Max. 45 35 Theoretical Limits Min. 9 7 Other Instruments. Questions were composed by the author to ascertain information regarding demographic characteristics of sample, and nature of involvement in religious activities. Age, sex and race were obtained by asking the appropriate questions. Suddenness of conversion, direction (to or away from conventional religion) of conversion, and previous religious training were obtained by asking subjects to designate which of four statements was applicable to their experience. There were two items indicating gradual conversion and two items indicating sudden conversion to conventional religion. There was also a statement indicating no current religious affiliation. These items were duplicated for converts fggm religion (see Appendix H). Those persons who had changed their religious views within the past five years were asked to rate their degree of attitudinal and behavioral change. The categories provided to rate this change were 38 1) No change, 2) Slight change, 3) Somewhat of a change, and 4) A great deal of change. Salience of religion was also assessed. There were two aspects of religiosity making up the salience factor: importance of religion and participation in religious activities (see Appendix F). A.median split was carried out to Obtain high and low importance and participation groups. This was done to allow the sample to establish its own criteria for assignment to high or low groups. A measure of social desirability (Marlowe & Crowne, 1964) was included in the analysis. The social desirability measure was employed solely to correlate with the I/E dimension. Since these measures were found to be essentially uncorrelated (see discussion), no further analyses were done involving the social desirability scale. Any score higher than the mean score for the normative sample (x=16) was considered high social desirability (see Appendix I for Social Desirability scale). RESULTS Responses to the demographic items of the questionnaire indicated that most participants were white, 30 years of age or younger. There were slightly more females (n=68) than males (n=50). Current religious affiliation was as follows: Protestant (n=33), Catholic (n=36), Jewish (n=5), Islamic (n=1), Orthodox (n=1). Four respondents stated that they were not affiliated but consider themselves religious. Thirty-one respondents reported no current religious affiliation (see Table 2). I-E and PIL Hypothesis 1 states that people with intrinsic religious orientation (high scorers on the intrinsic scale, low scorers on the extrinsic scale) will evidence higher scores on the Purpose in Life (PIL) scale than people with extrinsic religious orientation (high scorers on the extrinsic scale, low scorers on the intrinsic scale). High and low PIL cut-off points were set at 5/7 of the corresponding cut-off points designated in the Crunbaugh and Maholick PIL test manual. These values were 80 and above for high purpose in living, 64 and below for low purpose in living. Therefore, all subjects are not included in the PIL analyses. There were 63 persons scoring high on purpose in living and 8 persons scoring low on purpose in living. Analyses specifically examining high and low purpose in living included 39 RESULTS Responses to the demographic items of the questionnaire indicated that most participants were white, 30 years of age or younger. There were slightly more females (n=68) than males (n=50). Current religious affiliation was as follows: Protestant (n=33), Catholic (n=36), Jewish (n25), Islamic (n=1), Orthodox (n=1). Four respondents stated that they were not affiliated but consider themselves religious. Thirty-one respondents reported no current religious affiliation (see Table 2). I-E and PIL Hypothesis 1 states that people with intrinsic religious orientation (high scorers on the intrinsic scale, low scorers on the extrinsic scale) will evidence higher scores on the PUrpose in Life (PIL) scale than people with extrinsic religious orientation (high scorers on the extrinsic scale, low scorers on the intrinsic scale). High and low PIL cut-off points were set at 5/7 of the corresponding cut-off points designated in the Crunbaugh and Maholick PIL test manual. These values were 80 and above for high purpose in living, 64 and below for low purpose in living. Therefore, all subjects are not included in the PIL analyses. There were 63 persons scoring high on purpose in living and 8 persons scoring low on purpose in living. Analyses specifically examining high and low purpose in living included 39 Table 2 4O Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Race: Sex: Religious White Black None 17-19 yrs. 20-30 yrs. 31-40 yrs. 41-50 yrs. Male Female Affiliation: Protestant Catholic None Other (not designated) 36 31 103 10 48 58 10 50 68 (no racial designation) Not Affiliated But... Jewish Islamic Orthodox Table 2 40 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Race: Sex: Religious White Black None 17—19 yrs. 20-30 yrs. 31-40 yrs. 41-50 yrs. Male Female Affiliation: Protestant Catholic None Other (not designated) 33 36 31 103 10 48 58 10 50 68 (no racial designation) Not Affiliated But... Jewish Islamic Orthodox 40 Table 2 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Race: White 103 Black 10 None 5 (no racial designation) Age: 17-19 yrs. 48 20-30 yrs. 58 31-40 yrs. 10 41-50 yrs. 2 Sex: Male 50 Female 68 Religious Affiliation: Protestant 33 Not Affiliated But... Catholic 36 Jewish None 31 Islamic Other (not 7 Orthodox designated) 41 only these subjects. One subject was not considered in this analysis due to failure to complete the PIL questionnaire. This hypothesis was tested by employing t-tests and analysis of variance. This hypothesis was supported. A standard t-test was carried out comparing the PIL scores of 34 subjects who scored high intrinsic/low extrinsic with 18 subjects who scored low intrinsic/high extrinsic. The t ratio was t = —2.55 (df = 50, p (.05). The mean of the extrinsic group was 76.4, the mean of the intrinsic group was 82.2 (see Table 3). Additionally, a 2x2 ANOVA was computed. This ANOVA allows for more explicit determination of the relationship between purpose in living and the religious orientation variables. The dependent variable was PIL; the independent variables were the intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation scales. There is a significant relationship between religious orientation and purpose in life. The main effect for Intrinsic scores was significant. Persons scoring high on the intrinsic religious orientation scale scored significantly higher on the Purpose in Life (PIL) inventory than persons scoring low on the intrinsic religious scale (f(1,5o) = 7.85, p (.01) (see Tables 3 and 4). The main effect for Extrinsic scores (high vs. low) was not significant. The interaction was not significant. Thus, considering the indiscriminately pro- and anti-religious categories did not provide additional information. Only the degree of intrinsic orientation mattered. Table 3 42 Table of Means of PIL Scores for Extrinsic and Intrinsic Orientation Extrinsic* High Low Total High 78.64 82.2 n=59 n:25 n=34 Intrinsic Low 76.4 81.90 n=58 n=18 n=40 Both 77.52 82.05 n=117 n=43 n=74 p (.05. Table 4 Summary of ANOVA for Religious Orientation and Purpose in Life Source Model Extrinsic Intrinsic Interaction df Sum of Squares 556.36 38.66 543.93 26.03 F 2.67 0.56 7.85 0.38 Sig. p< p< Level .05 ns .01 ns 43 I-E and JPI Hypothesis 2 states that people scoring high on a measure of intrinsic religious orientation possess different predominant personality characteristics than people scoring high on a measure of extrinsic religious orientation. This hypothesis was examined by employing 2x2 MANOVA and t-tests. In the MANOWA, the JPI scales were treated as dependent variables and the intrinsic and extrinsic categorical variables were treated as independent variables. The main effect of extrinsic religious orientation was not significant (multivariate f(;.,99) = 1.55, n.s.). The main effect of intrinsic religious orientation was statistically significant (multivariate f(16,99) : 2.14, p (.05). The interaction of the intrinsic and extrinsic variables was not significant (multivariate f(1e,99) = 1.47, n.s.). Uhivariate effects were tested though MANOVA was largely not significant, due to the exploratory nature of this research. Univariate analyses showed significant variation on several JPI scales (Table 5). High scorers on the extrinsic scale scored higher on: Anxiety (univariate f(1,114) = 8.38, p (.01), and Conformity (univariate f(1,;14) = 4.38, p (.05). Low scorers on the extrinsic scale scored higher on : Complexity (univariate f(1,11.) = 9.81, p (.01); Breadth of Interest (univariate f(1,;;4) = 4.59, p <.05); Energy Level (univariate f¢1,11‘) = 7.29, p (.01); and Innovation (univariate f(1,11.) = 4.80, p (.05). 44 Table 5 Summary of ANOVA for JPI Scores by Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious Orientation Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Anxiety Model 3 198.03 3.90 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 136.71 8.38 p (.01 Intrinsic 1 1.46 0.09 n.s. Interaction 1 59.73 3.66 n.s. Breadth of Interest Model 3 158.07 2.73 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 88.58 4.59 p (.05 Intrinsic 1 41.12 2.13 n.s. Interaction 1 18.24 0.95 n.s. Complexity Model 3 93.01 3.60 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 84.52 9.81 p (.01 Intrinsic 1 10.95 0.11 n.s. Interaction 1 10.91 1.27 n.s. Conformity Model 3 96.89 1.76 n.s. Extrinsic 1 80.15 4.38 p (.0 Intrinsic 1 6.30 0.34 n.s. Interaction 1 20.78 1.13 n.s. Energy Level Model 3 123.46 3.08 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 97.31 7.29 p (.01 Intrinsic 1 33.90 2.54 n.s. Interaction l 0.02 0.00 n.s. Innovation Model 3 107.47 1.99 n.s. Extrinsic 1 86.40 4.80 p (.0 Intrinsic 1 0.14 0.01 n.s. Interaction 1 22.26 1.24 n.s. 37 Table 1 Cut-off Points for Religious Orientation Scores Extrinsic Intrinsic Low: Equal to or greater than 28 21 High: Equal to or less than 27 20 Max. 45 35 Theoretical Limits Min. 9 7 Other Instruments. Questions were composed by the author to ascertain information regarding demographic characteristics of sample, and nature of involvement in religious activities. Age, sex and race were obtained by asking the appropriate questions. Suddenness of conversion, direction (to or away from conventional religion) of conversion, and previous religious training were Obtained by asking subjects to designate which of four statements was applicable to their experience. There were two items indicating gradual conversion and two items indicating sudden conversion to conventional religion. There was also a statement indicating no current religious affiliation. These items were duplicated for converts fggm religion (see Appendix H). Those persons who had changed their religious views within the past five years were asked to rate their degree of attitudinal and behavioral change. The categories provided to rate this change were 38 1) No change, 2) Slight change, 3) Somewhat of a change, and 4) A great deal of change. Salience of religion was also assessed. There were two aspects of religiosity making up the salience factor: importance of religion and participation in religious activities (see Appendix F). A.median split was carried out to obtain high and low importance and participation groups. This was done to allow the sample to establish its own criteria for assignment to high or low groups. A measure of social desirability (Marlowe & Crowne, 1964) was included in the analysis. The social desirability measure was employed solely to correlate with the I/E dimension. Since these measures were found to be essentially uncorrelated (see discussion), no further analyses were done involving the social desirability scale. Any score higher than the mean score for the normative sample (x=16) was considered high social desirability (see Appendix I for Social Desirability scale). RESULTS Responses to the demographic items of the questionnaire indicated that most participants were white, 30 years of age or younger. There were slightly more females (n=68) than males (n=50). Current religious affiliation was as follows: Protestant (n=33), Catholic (n=36), Jewish (n=5), Islamic (n=1), Orthodox (n=1). Four respondents stated that they were not affiliated but consider themselves religious. Thirty-one respondents reported no current religious affiliation (see Table 2). I-E and PIL Hypothesis 1 states that people with intrinsic religious orientation (high scorers on the intrinsic scale, low scorers on the extrinsic scale) will evidence higher scores on the Purpose in Life (PIL) scale than people with extrinsic religious orientation (high scorers on the extrinsic scale, low scorers on the intrinsic scale). High and low PIL cut-off points were set at 5/7 of the corresponding cut—off points designated in the Crumbaugh and Maholick PIL test manual. These values were 80 and above for high purpose in living, 64 and below for low purpose in living. Therefore, all subjects are not included in the PIL analyses. There were 63 persons scoring high on purpose in living and 8 persons scoring low on purpose in living. Analyses specifically examining high and low purpose in living included 39 Table 2 40 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Race: Age: Sex: Religious White Black None 17-19 yrs. 20-30 yrs. 31-40 yrs. 41-50 yrs. Male Female Affiliation: Protestant Catholic NOne Other (not designated) 103 10 48 58 10 50 68 33 36 31 (no racial designation) Not Affiliated But... Jewish Islamic Orthodox 41 only these subjects. One subject was not considered in this analysis due to failure to complete the PIL questionnaire. This hypothesis was tested by employing t-tests and analysis of variance. This hypothesis was supported. A standard t-test was carried out comparing the PIL scores of 34 subjects who scored high intrinsic/low extrinsic with 18 subjects who scored low intrinsic/high extrinsic. The t ratio was t = -2.55 (df = 50, p (.05). The mean of the extrinsic group was 76.4, the mean of the intrinsic group was 82.2 (see Table 3). Additionally, a 2x2 ANOVA was computed. This ANOVA allows for more explicit determination of the relationship between purpose in living and the religious orientation variables. The dependent variable was PIL; the independent variables were the intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation scales. There is a significant relationship between religious orientation and purpose in life. The main effect for Intrinsic scores was significant. Persons scoring high on the intrinsic religious orientation scale scored significantly higher on the Purpose in Life (PIL) inventory than persons scoring low on the intrinsic religious scale (f(1,5o) = 7.85, p (.01) (see Tables 3 and 4). The main effect for Extrinsic scores (high vs. low) was not significant. The interaction was not significant. Thus, considering the indiscriminately pro- and anti-religious categories did not provide additional information. Only the degree of intrinsic orientation mattered. Table 3 42 Table of Means of PIL Scores for Extrinsic and Intrinsic Orientation Extrinsic* High Low Total High 78.64 82.2 n=59 n:25 n=34 Intrinsic Low 76.4 81.90 n=58 n=18 n=40 Both 77.52 82.05 n=117 n=43 n=74 p (.05. Table 4 Summary of ANOVA for Religious Orientation and Purpose in Life Source Model Extrinsic Intrinsic Interaction df Sum of Squares 556.36 38.66 543.93 26.03 F 2.67 0.56 7.85 0.38 Sig. Level p<.05 ns p<.01 ns 42 Table 3 Table of Means of PIL Scores for Extrinsic and Intrinsic Orientation Extrinsic¥ High LOW Total High 78 . 64 82 . 2 n=59 n:25 n=34 Intrinsic Low 76 . 4 81 . 90 n=58 n=18 11:40 Both 77.52 82.05 n=117 n=43 n: 74 p < .05. Table 4 SW3 0f WA for Religious Orientation and Purpose in Life H— 423 Suof Squares F Sig. Level 43 I-E and JPI Hypothesis 2 states that people scoring high on a measure of intrinsic religious orientation possess different predominant personality characteristics than people scoring high on a.measure of extrinsic religious orientation. This hypothesis was examined by employing 2x2 MANOVA and t-tests. In the MANOVA, the JPI scales were treated as dependent variables and the intrinsic and extrinsic categorical variables were treated as independent variables. The main effect of extrinsic religious orientation was not significant (multivariate f(1s,99) = 1.55, n.s.). The main effect of intrinsic religious orientation was statistically significant (multivariate f(15,99) : 2.14, p (.05). The interaction of the intrinsic and extrinsic variables was not significant (multivariate f(15,99) = 1.47, n.s.). Univariate effects were tested though MANOVA was largely not significant, due to the exploratory nature of this research. Univariate analyses showed significant variation on several JPI scales (Table 5). High scorers on the extrinsic scale scored higher on: Anxiety (univariate f(1,114, : 8.38, p (.01), and Conformity (univariate f(1,11‘) = 4.38, p (.05). Low scorers on the extrinsic scale scored higher on : Complexity (univariate f¢1,11;) = 9.81, p (.01); Breadth of Interest (univariate f(1,1;4) = 4.59, p (.05); Energy Level (univariate f(1,114) = 7.29, p (.01); and Innovation (univariate f(1,11‘) = 4.80, E (.05). 44 Table 5 Summary of ANOVA for JPI Scores by Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious Orientation Source df Sun of Squares F Sig.Level Anxiety Model 3 198.03 3.90 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 136.71 8.38 p (.01 Intrinsic 1 1.46 0.09 n.s. Interaction 1 59.73 3.66 n.s. Breadth of Interest Model 3 158.07 2.73 ,p (.05 Extrinsic 1 88.58 4.59 p (.05 Intrinsic 1 41.12 2.13 n.s. Interaction 1 18.24 0.95 n.s. Complexity Model 3 93.01 3.60 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 84.52 9.81 p (.01 Intrinsic 1 10.95 0.11 n.s. Interaction 1 10.91 1.27 n.s. Conformity Model 3 96.89 1.76 n.s. Extrinsic 1 80.15 4.38 p (.05 Intrinsic 1 6.30 0.34 n.s. Interaction 1 20.78 1.13 n.s. Energy Level Model 3 123.46 3.08 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 97.31 7.29 p (.01 Intrinsic 1 33.90 2.54 n.s. Interaction 1 0.02 0.00 n.s. Innovation Model 3 107.47 1.99 n.s. Extrinsic 1 86.40 4.80 p (.0 Intrinsic 1 0.14 0.01 n.s. Interaction 1 22.26 1.24 n.s. Table 5, cont. 45 Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Responsibility Model 3 76.39 2.39 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.13 0.01 n.s. Intrinsic 1 32.65 3.06 n.s. Interaction 1 23.49 2.20 n.s. Risk Taking Model 3 97.96 1.42 n.s. Extrinsic 1 63.32 2.76 n.s. Intrinsic 1 10.09 0.44 n.s. Interaction 1 11.84 0.52 n.s. Self—Esteem Model 3 103.6 1.81 n.s. Extrinsic 1 41. 2.15 n.s. Intrinsic 1 18. 0.96 n.s. Interaction 1 24. 1.28 n.s. Interpersonal Affect Model 3 100.3 2.55 n.s. Extrinsic 1 39.5 3.01 n.s. Intrinsic 1 14. 1.07 n.s. Interaction 1 28.52 2.17 n.s. Organization Model 3 39.16 0.89 n.s. Extrinsic 1 7.4 0.51 n.s. Intrinsic 1 18. 1.29 n.s. Interaction 1 3.7 0.25 n.s. Social Adroitness Model 3 0.89 0.04 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.80 0.10 n.s. Intrinsic 1 0.16 0.02 n.s. Interaction 1 0.03 0.00 n.s. Table 5, contd. 46 Source df Sun of Squares F Sig . Level Social Participation Model 3 74.31 1.51 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.01 0.00 n.s. Intrinsic 1 52.26 2.19 n.s. Interaction 1 56.26 3.44 n.s. Tolerance Model 3 28.15 1.06 n.s. Extrinsic 1 24.36 2.76 n.s. Intrinsic 1 3.17 0.36 n.s. Interaction 1 0.77 0.09 n.s. value Orthodoxy Model 3 468.61 10.26 p (.01 Extrinsic 1 13. 9 0.88 n.s. Intrinsic l 218. 7 14.34 p (.01 Interaction 1 113.39 7.45 p (.01 46 Table 5, contd. Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Social Participation Model 3 74.31 1.51 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.01 0.00 n.s. Intrinsic 1 52.26 2.19 n.s. Interaction 1 56.26 3.44 n.s. Tolerance Model 3 28.15 1.06 n.s. Extrinsic 1 24.36 2.76 n.s. Intrinsic 1 3.17 0.36 n.s. Interaction 1 0.77 0.09 n.s. Value Orthodoxy Model 3 468.61 10.26 p (.01 Extrinsic 1 13. 9 0.88 n.s. Intrinsic 1 218. 7 14.34 p (.01 Interaction 1 113.39 7.45 p (.01 47 High scorers on the intrinsic scale scored higher on value Orthodoxy (univariate f(1,114)) = 14.34, p (.01) than low scorers on the intrinsic scale. Duncan post-hoe analyses were then conducted comparing those persons who scored high on the intrinsic scale and low on the extrinsic scale (intrinsic) with persons who scored low on the intrinsic scale and high on the extrinsic scale (extrinsic) (Table 6). There were 34 and 18 persons respectively in these groups. The high intrinsic group scored higher than the extrinsic group on the following scales: Breadth of Interest (I = 12.8, E = 9.8, t = —2.37, p (.05); Complexity (I = 11.5, E = 9.72, p = -2.37, p (.05); Energy Level (I = 13.3, E = 10.2, t = 2.88, p (.01); value Orthodoxy (I = 11.5, E = 9.0, t = —2.34, p (.05). The extrinsic group scored higher than the II ...L uh uh intrinsic group on the following scales: Anxiety (E I = 12.0, t = 2.23, p (.05); and Conformity ( E: 10.6, high I II no H fl I - 2.03, p (.05). Comparing those persons who scored high on both the intrinsic and extrinsic scales (indiscriminately pro-religious), with those persons who scored low on both the intrinsic and extrinsic scales (indiscriminately anti—religious) yielded the following results (Table 7): Self-Esteem (Pro = 12.6, Anti = 14.6, t = 2.01, p (.05); and.value Orthodoxy (Pro : 10.1, Anti = 6.6, t = 3.4, p (.01). Conversion Type Hypothesis 3 states that there is no difference between sudden and gradual converts on the religious orientation dimension. The hypothesis of "no difference" was advanced due to the plethora of 47 High scorers on the intrinsic scale scored higher on value Orthodoxy (univariate f(1,114)) = 14.34, p (.01) than low scorers on the intrinsic scale. Duncan post-hoe analyses were then conducted comparing those persons who scored high on the intrinsic scale and low on the extrinsic scale (intrinsic) with persons who scored low on the intrinsic scale and high on the extrinsic scale (extrinsic) (Table 6). There were 34 and 18 persons respectively in these groups. The high intrinsic group scored higher than the extrinsic group on the following scales: Breadth of Interest (I = 12.8, E = 9.8, t = -2.37, p (.05); Complexity (I = 11.5, E = 9.72, t = -2.37, p (.05); Energy Level (I = 13.3, E = 10.2, t = 2.88, p (.01); value Orthodoxy (I = 11.5, E = 9.0, p = —2.34, p (.05). The extrinsic group scored higher than the intrinsic group on the following scales: Anxiety (E 14.4, I = 12.0, N t = 2.23, p (.05); and Conformity ( E: 10.6, high I 8.1, E : .03, p (.05). Comparing those persons who scored high on both the intrinsic and extrinsic scales (indiscriminately pro-religious), with those persons who scored low on both the intrinsic and extrinsic scales (indiscriminately anti-religious) yielded the following results (Table 7): Self-Esteem (Pro = 12.6, Anti = 14.6, t = 2.01, p (.05); and value Orthodoxy (Pro = 10.1, Anti = 6.6, t = 3.4, p (.01). Conversion Type Hypothesis 3 states that there is no difference between sudden and gradual converts on the religious orientation dimension. The hypothesis of "no difference" was advanced.due to the plethora of Table 6 48 Duncan Multiple Range Test of Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for Intrinsic and Extrinsic Orientation High I High E Low E Low I Critical Sig. JPI Scales Mean Mean Range Level Anxiety 12.00 14.44 2.19 p (.05 Breadth of 12.82 9.83 2.32 p (.05 Interest Complexity 11.52 9.72 2.53 p (.05 Conformity 8.11 10.61 2.40 p (.05 Energy Level 13.32 10.22 2.16 p (.05 Innovation 14.11 12.27 2.68 n.s Responsibility 13.50 12.22 1.60 n.s Risk Taking 9.70 9.00 2.87 n.s. Self-Esteem 12.88 12.27 2.82 n.s. Interpersonal 13.61 14.16 1.98 n.s Affect Organization 12.20 11.72 2.30 n.s. Social Adroitness 10.38 10.77 1.49 n.s. Social 10.94 12.22 2.45 n.s Participation Tolerance 12.23 11.16 1.75 n.s. Value Orthodoxy 11.50 9.00 2.14 p (.05 48 Table 6 Duncan Multiple Range Test of Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for Intrinsic and Extrinsic Orientation High I High E Low E Low I Critical Sig. JPI Scales Mean Mean Range Level Anxiety 12.00 14.44 2.19 p (.05 Breadth of 12.82 9.83 2.32 p (.05 Interest Complexity 11.52 9.72 2.53 p (.05 Conformity 8.11 10.61 2.40 p (.05 Energy Level 13.32 10.22 2.16 p (.05 Innovation 14.11 12.27 2.68 n.s Responsibility 13.50 12.22 1.60 n.s Risk Taking 9.70 9.00 2.87 n.s Self-Esteem 12.88 12.27 2.82 n.s Interpersonal 13.61 14.16 1.98 n.s Affect Organization 12.20 11.72 2.30 n.s Social Adroitness 10.38 10.77 1.49 n.s. Social 10.94 12.22 2.45 n.s Participation Tolerance 12.23 11.16 1.75 n.s. Value Orthodoxy 11.50 9.00 2.14 p (.05 Table 7 t-Tests for Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for Indiscriminate Pro- and Anti-Religious Orientation Group Anxiety Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Breadth of Interest Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Complexity Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Conformity Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately'Anti Energnyevel Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately'Anti Innovation Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Responsibility Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately'Anti Risk Taking Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 12.76 10.75 10.20 10.77 10.40 11.97 11.40 12.17 13.24 14.95 12.64 11.47 8.84 10.97 1.84 -0047 -1094 1.10 -0.83 -1.68 1.26 —1.78 Sig. Level Table 7, contd. Group N Mean t Sig. Level Self-Esteem Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.60 Indiscriminately Anti 40 14.65 -2.01 p (.05 Interpersonal Affect Indiscriminately Pro 25 13.80 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.87 1.97 n.s. Organization Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.36 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.00 1.41 n.s. Social Adroitness Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.42 0.12 n.s Social Participation Indiscriminately Pro 25 9.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.65 -1.12 n.s. Tolerance Indiscriminately Pro 25 11.12 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.72 -0.80 n.s. Value Orthodoxy Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.16 Indiscriminately Anti 40 6.62 3.44 p (.01 Table 7, contd. Group N Mean p Sig. Level Self-Esteem Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.60 Indiscriminately Anti 40 14.65 -2.01 p (.05 Interpersonal Affect Indiscriminately Pro 25 13.80 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.87 1.97 n.s Organization Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.36 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.00 1.41 n.s Social Adroitness Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.42 0.12 n.s Social Participation Indiscriminately Pro 25 9.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.65 -1.12 n.s Tolerance Indiscriminately Pro 25 11.12 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.72 -0.80 n.s. value Orthodoxy Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.16 Indiscriminately Anti 40 6.62 3.44 p (.01 Table 7, contd. Group Mean g Sig. Level Self-Esteem Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.60 Indiscriminately Anti 40 14.65 -2.01 p (.05 Interpersonal Affect Indiscriminately Pro 25 13.80 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.87 1.97 n.s Organization Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.36 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.00 1.41 n.s Social Adroitness Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.42 0.12 n.s Social Participation Indiscriminately Pro 25 9.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.65 -1.12 n.s Tolerance Indiscriminately Pro 25 11.12 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.72 -0.80 n.s Value Orthodoxy Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.16 Indiscriminately Anti 40 6.62 3.44 p <-01 Table 7, contd. Group N Mean p Sig. Level Self—Esteem Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.60 Indiscriminately Anti 40 14.65 -2.01 p (.05 Interpersonal Affect Indiscriminately Pro 25 13.80 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.87 1.97 n.s Organization Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.36 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.00 1.41 n.s Social Adroitness Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.42 0.12 n.s Social Participation Indiscriminately Pro 25 9.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.65 -1.12 n.s Tolerance Indiscriminately Pro 25 11.12 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.72 -0.80 n.s value Orthodoxy Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.16 Indiscriminately Anti 40 6.62 3.44 p (.01 51 research and theoretical speculation that sudden conversion is a less adequate and psychologically unhealthy phenomena. Therefore, this prediction is less likely to be accurate than the prediction of the difference between sudden and gradual converts. There were originally eight categories, four each for assessment of conversion L9 and £299 religion: gradual conversion (1) with or (2) without previous religious training; sudden conversion (3) with or (4) without previous religious training. Thus, the eight categories were collapsed into two categories each for p9 and fggm religion. Training dimension was collapsed (1 & 2 for gradual conversion, and 3 & 4 for sudden conversion) due to too few cases in each of the original eight categories (see Table 8 for sample sizes). The comparison was between religious orientation (as dependent variable) and suddenness and direction of conversion (as independent variables). This hypothesis was supported. The main effect of suddenness of conversion was not significant (multivariate f(:,ao) = .41, n.s.). Predictably, the main effect of direction of conversion (to or from) was significant (multivariate f(z,.g) : 50.12, p (.01). The interaction of direction and suddenness was not significant (multivariate f(2,ao) = 0.93, n.s.). Please note the multivariate effects are not represented in tables. The main effect of suddenness of conversion upon the extrinsic score was not significant (univariate f(1.9o) = .41, n.s.). The main effect of suddenness upon the intrinsic score was not significant (univariate f(1,9o) = .51, n.s.). Those converting 39 religion scored significantly higher on both the 43 I-E and JPI Hypothesis 2 states that people scoring high on a measure of intrinsic religious orientation possess different predominant personality characteristics than people scoring high on a measure of extrinsic religious orientation. This hypothesis was examined by employing 2x2 MANOVA and t-tests. In the MANOVA, the JPI scales were treated as dependent variables and the intrinsic and extrinsic categorical variables were treated as independent variables. The main effect of extrinsic religious orientation was not significant (multivariate f(1o,99) = 1.55, n.s.). The main effect of intrinsic religious orientation was statistically significant (multivariate f¢15,99) = 2.14, p (.05). The interaction of the intrinsic and extrinsic variables was not significant (multivariate f(1s,99) = 1.47, n.s.). Univariate effects were tested though MANOVA was largely not significant, due to the exploratory nature of this research. Univariate analyses showed significant variation on several JPI scales (Table 5). High scorers on the extrinsic scale scored higher on: Anxiety (univariate f(1,11.) : 8.38, p (.01), and Conformity (univariate f(1,114) = 4.38, p (.05). Low scorers on the extrinsic scale scored higher on : Complexity (univariate f(1,13.) = 9.81, p (.01); Breadth of Interest (univariate f(1,114) = 4.59, p (.05); Energy Level (univariate f(1.114) = 7.29, p (.01); and Innovation (univariate f(1,11q) = 4.80, E (.05). 44 Table 5 Summary of ANOVA for JPI Scores by Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious Orientation Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Anxiety Model 3 198.03 3.90 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 136.71 8.38 p (.01 Intrinsic 1 1.46 0.09 n.s. Interaction 1 59.73 3.66 n.s. Breadth of Interest Model 3 158.07 2.73 ,p (.05 Extrinsic 1 88.58 4.59 p (.05 Intrinsic 1 41.12 2.13 n.s. Interaction 1 18.24 0.95 n.s. QQQplexity Model 3 93.01 3.60 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 84.52 9.81 p (.01 Intrinsic 1 10.95 0.11 n.s. Interaction 1 10.91 1.27 n.s. Conformity Model 3 96.89 1.76 n.s. Extrinsic 1 80.15 4.38 p (.0 Intrinsic 1 6.30 0.34 n.s. Interaction 1 20.78 1.13 n.s. Eneggy Level Model 3 123.46 3.08 p (.05 Extrinsic l 97.31 7.29 p (.01 Intrinsic l 33.90 2.54 n.s. Interaction 1 0.02 0.00 n.s. Innovation Model 3 107.47 1.99 n.s. Extrinsic 1 86.40 4.80 p (.0 Intrinsic 1 0.14 0.01 n.s. Interaction 1 22.26 1.24 n.s. Table 5, cont. 45 Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Responsibility MOdel 3 76.39 2.39 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.13 0.01 n.s. Intrinsic 1 32.65 3.06 n.s. Interaction 1 23.49 2.20 n.s. Risk Takigg Model 3 97.96 1.42 n.s. Extrinsic 1 63.32 2.76 n.s. Intrinsic 1 10.09 0.44 n.s. Interaction 1 11.84 0.52 n.s. Self-Esteem Model 3 103.6 1.81 n.s. Extrinsic 1 41. 2.15 n.s. Intrinsic 1 18. 0.96 n.s. Interaction 1 24. 1.28 n.s. Interpersonal Affect Model 3 100.3 2.55 n.s. Extrinsic 1 39.5 3.01 n.s. Intrinsic 1 14. 1.07 n.s. Interaction 1 28.52 2.17 n.s. Organization Model 3 39.16 0.89 n.s. Extrinsic 1 7.4 0.51 n.s. Intrinsic 1 18. 1.29 n.s. Interaction 1 3.7 0.25 n.s. Social Adroitness Model 3 0.89 0.04 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.80 0.10 n.s. Intrinsic 1 0.16 0.02 n.s. Interaction 1 0.03 0.00 n.s. Table 5, cont. 45 Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Responsibility Model 3 76.39 2.39 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.13 0.01 n.s. Intrinsic 1 32.65 3.06 n.s. Interaction 1 23.49 2.20 n.s. Risk Takipg Model 3 97.96 1.42 n.s. Extrinsic 1 63.32 2.76 n.s. Intrinsic 1 10.09 0.44 n.s. Interaction 1 11.84 0.52 n.s. Self-Esteem Model 3 103.6 1.81 n.s. Extrinsic 1 41. 2.15 n.s. Intrinsic 1 18. 0.96 n.s. Interaction l 24. 1.28 n.s. Interpersonal Affect Model 3 100.3 2.55 n.s. Extrinsic 1 39.5 3.01 n.s. Intrinsic 1 14. 1.07 n.s. Interaction 1 28.52 2.17 n.s. Organization Model 3 39.16 0.89 n.s. Extrinsic 1 7.4 0.51 n.s. Intrinsic 1 18. 1.29 n.s. Interaction 1 3.7 0.25 n.s. Social Adroitness Model 3 0.89 0.04 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.80 0.10 n.s. Intrinsic 1 0.16 0.02 n.s. Interaction 1 0.03 0.00 n.s. Table 5, contd. 46 Source df Sun of Squares F Sig . Level Social Participation Mbdel 3 74.31 1.51 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.01 0.00 n.s. Intrinsic 1 52.26 2.19 n.s. Interaction 1 56.26 3.44 n.s. Tolerance Model 3 28.15 1.06 n.s. Extrinsic 1 24.36 2.76 n.s. Intrinsic 1 3.17 0.36 n.s. Interaction 1 0.77 0.09 n.s. Value Orthodoxy Model 3 468.61 10.26 p (.01 Extrinsic 1 13. 9 0.88 n.s. Intrinsic 1 218. 7 14.34 p (.01 Interaction 1 113.39 7.45 p (.01 47 High scorers on the intrinsic scale scored higher on value Orthodoxy (univariate f(1,11.)) = 14.34, p (.01) than low scorers on the intrinsic scale. Duncan post-hoe analyses were then conducted comparing those persons who scored high on the intrinsic scale and low on the extrinsic scale (intrinsic) with persons who scored low on the intrinsic scale and high on the extrinsic scale (extrinsic) (Table 6). There were 34 and 18 persons respectively in these groups. The high intrinsic group scored higher than the extrinsic group on the following scales: Breadth of Interest (I = 12.8, E = 9.8, t = -2.37, p (.05); Complexity (I = 11.5, E : 9.72, t = -2.37, p (.05); Energy Level (I = 13.3, E = 10.2, p = 2.88, p (.01); value Orthodoxy (I = 11.5, E = 9.0, L = —2.34, p (.05). The extrinsic group scored higher than the intrinsic group on the following scales: Anxiety (E 14.4, I = 12.0, t = 2.23, p (.05); and Conformity ( E: 10.6, high I 8.1, p = 2.03, p (.05). Comparing those persons who scored high on both the intrinsic and extrinsic scales (indiscriminately pro-religious), with those persons who scored low on both the intrinsic and extrinsic scales (indiscriminately anti-religious) yielded the following results (Table 7): Self—Esteem (Pro = 12.6, Anti = 14.6, p = 2.01, p (.05); and value Orthodoxy (Pro : 10.1, Anti : 6.6, g = 3.4, p (.01). Conversion Type Hypothesis 3 states that there is no difference between sudden and gradual converts on the religious orientation dimension. The hypothesis of "no difference" was advanced.due to the plethora of Table 6 48 Duncan Multiple Range Test of Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for Intrinsic and Extrinsic Orientation High I High E Low E Low I Critical Sig. JPI Scales Mean (Mean Range Level Anxiety 12.00 14.44 2.19 p (.05 Breadth of 12.82 9.83 2.32 p (.05 Interest Complexity 11.52 9.72 2.53 p (.05 Conformity 8.11 10.61 2.40 p (.05 Energy Level 13.32 10.22 2.16 p (.05 Innovation 14.11 12.27 2.68 n.s Responsibility 13.50 12.22 1.60 n.s Risk Taking 9.70 9.00 2.87 n.s. Self-Esteem 12.88 12.27 2.82 n.s. Interpersonal 13.61 14.16 1.98 n.s. Affect Organization 12.20 11.72 2.30 n.s. Social Adroitness 10.38 10.77 1.49 n.s. Social 10.94 12.22 2.45 n.s. Participation Tolerance 12.23 11.16 1.75 n.s value Orthodoxy 11.50 9.00 2.14 p (.05 Table 7 t-Tests for Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for Indiscriminate Pro- and Anti-Religious Orientation Group Anxiety Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Breadth of Interest Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Complexity Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Conformity Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Energy Level Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Innovation Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Responsibility Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Risk Takipg Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 12.76 10.75 10.20 10.77 10.40 11.97 11.40 12.17 13.24 14.95 12.64 11.47 8.84 10.97 1.84 -0047 -1.94 1.10 -0083 -1.68 1.26 -1078 Sig. Level Table 7 t—Tests for Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for Indiscriminate Pro- and Anti-Religious Orientation Group Anxiety Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Breadth of Interest Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Complexity Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Conformity Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Energy Level Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Innovation Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Responsibility Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Risk Takigg Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 12.76 10.75 10.20 10.77 10.40 11.97 7.72 11.40 12.17 13.24 14.95 12.64 11.47 8.84 10.97 1.84 -0.47 -1.94 1.10 -0.83 -1 068 1.26 -1.78 Sig. Level Table 7, contd. Group N Mean t Sig. Level Self-Esteem Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.60 Indiscriminately Anti 40 14.65 -2.01 p (.05 Interpersonal Affect Indiscriminately Pro 25 13.80 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.87 1.97 n.s. Organization Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.36 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.00 1.41 n.s Social Adroitness Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.42 0.12 n.s Social Participation Indiscriminately Pro 25 9.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.65 -1.12 n.s. Tolerance Indiscriminately Pro 25 11.12 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.72 -0.80 n.s. value Orthodoxy Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.16 Indiscriminately Anti 40 6.62 3.44 p (.01 50 Table 7 , contd . Gro N Me E up L Sig . IEVel Self -Esteen Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.60 Indiscrlminately Anti 40 14.65 —2,01 P (.05 Integgrsonal Affect Indiscriminately Pro 25 13. Indiscriminately Anti 40 8O 11. 87 n.s. Organization Indiscriminately Pro 12 36 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.00 1 41 l u‘ ”IS: social Adroitness Indiscriminately Pro 2 Indiscriminately Anti ‘0 10.52 Social Particimtim Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti ‘0 9.52 -1. 12 n.s. Tolerance Indiscriminately Pro 3 Indiscriminately Anti W 11.12 .72 _ . . Value Orthodogy 0 . 80 as Indiscriminately pm 3 Indiscriminately Anti 710-16 ness $.62 iriate ntrinsic ose Table 7, contd. Group N Mean L Sig. Level Self-Esteem Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.60 Indiscriminately Anti 40 14.65 -2.01 p (.05 Interpersonal Affect Indiscriminately Pro 25 13.80 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.87 1.97 n.s Organization Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.36 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.00 1.41 n.s. Social Adroitness Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.42 0.12 n.s Social Participation Indiscriminately Pro 25 9.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.65 -1.12 n.s Tolerance Indiscriminately Pro 25 11.12 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.72 -0.80 n.s. value Orthodoxy Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.16 Indiscriminately Anti 40 6.62 3.44 p (.01 51 research and theoretical speculation that sudden conversion is a less adequate and psychologically unhealthy phenomena. Therefore, this prediction is less likely to be accurate than the prediction of the difference between sudden and gradual converts. There were originally eight categories, four each for assessment of conversion £9 and £299 religion: gradual conversion (1) with or (2) without previous religious training; sudden conversion (3) with or (4) without previous religious training. Thus, the eight categories were collapsed into two categories each for Lg and £29m religion. Training dimension was collapsed (1 & 2 for gradual conversion, and 3 & 4 for sudden conversion) due to too few cases in each of the original eight categories (see Table 8 for sample sizes). The comparison was between religious orientation (as dependent variable) and suddenness and direction of conversion (as independent variables). This hypothesis was supported. The main effect of suddenness of conversion was not significant (multivariate f(2,39) = .41, n.s.). Predictably, the main effect of direction of conversion (to or from) was significant (multivariate f(2.ao) = 50.12, p (.01). The interaction of direction and suddenness was not significant (multivariate f(z,ao) = 0.93, n.s.). Please note the multivariate effects are not represented in tables. The main effect of suddenness of conversion upon the extrinsic score was not significant (univariate f(1,90) = .41, n.s.). The main effect of suddenness upon the intrinsic score was not significant (univariate f(1,.o) = .51, n.s.). Those converting p9 religion scored significantly higher on both the 52 Table 8 Table of Means of I/E Scores for Sudden and Gradual Conversion 19 or From Religion** Extrinsic Direction* Suddenness To Away Both Gradual 27.56 33.90 29.02 n=37 n=11 n=48 Sudden 27.02 32.88 28.17 n=37 n=9 n=46 Both 27.29 33.45 n=74 n=20 N=94 p (.01 Intrinsic Direction* Suddenness To Away Both Gradual 19.27 31.18 22.00 n=37 n=11 n=48 Sudden 16.18 32.11 19.30 n=37 =9 n=46 Both 17.72 31.60 n=74 n=20 n=94 *p (.01 *tplease note that, as mentioned previously, higher numerical values mean lower actual score on the I/E dimension (e.g., higher numbers mean less intrinsic). 53 intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions than converts £299 religion (Extrinsic; univariate f(1,9o) = 24.93, p (.01; Intrinsic: univariate f(1,9o) : 85.31, p (.01). It is also interesting to note that gradual converts consistently scored lower than sudden converts on the religious orientation dimensions, though this difference was not significant (see Tables 8 and 9). PIL and JPI Hypothesis 4 states that persons scoring high on the PIL possess different predominant personality characteristics than persons scoring lower on the PIL. This is an exploratory hypothesis. It is understood that, due to the large nunber of statistical tests being done on this data, there is the possibility of some tests being significant by chance alone. However, these tests are deemed necessary to insure as far as is possible that no significant findings are omitted. The cut-offs for the high and low groups on the Purpose in Life inventory were determined by following the convention set forth by Crumbaugh and Maholick (see Methods section). There were 63 students high and 8 students low on the PIL. In the 2X16 ANOVA, the JPI scales were treated as the dependent variables and the PIL (purpose in life inventory) was treated as the independent variable. The main effect of PIL scores on the JPI was not significant (multivariate f(1s,54) = 1.22, n.s.). The univariate effect of the PIL on the Energy Level scale score and the Innovation scale score was significant: Energy Level (univariate f(1,59, : 9.45, p (.01); Innovation (univariate f(;,.9) = 7.72, p (.01). The other Table 9 54 Summary of ANOVA for Suddenness and Direction of Conversion and Extrinsic and Intrinsic Religious Orientation Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Extrinsic Model 3 606.58 8.67 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 9.51 0.41 n.s. Intrinsic 1 581.56 24.93 p (.05 Interaction 1 0.89 0.04 n.s. Intrinsic Model 3 3208.92 30.16 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 18.08 0.51 n.s. Intrinsic 1 3025.30 85.31 p (.05 Interaction 1 62.80 1.77 n.s. Table 9 54 Summary of ANOVA for Suddenness and Direction of Conversion and Extrinsic and Intrinsic Religious Orientation Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Extrinsic Model 3 606.58 8.67 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 9.51 0.41 n.s. Intrinsic 1 581.56 24.93 p (.05 Interaction 1 0.89 0.04 n.s. Intrinsic Model 3 3208.92 30.16 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 18.08 0.51 n.s. Intrinsic 1 3025.30 85.31 p (.05 Interaction 1 62.80 1.77 n.s. Table 10 Summary of ANOVA of JPI Scales and PIL Scores 55 Source Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Anxiety 0.47 0.02 n.s. Breadth of 32.33 1.76 n.s. Interest Complexity 9.11 0.99 n.s. Confonmity 0.10 0.01 n.s Energy Level 115.50 9.45 p (.05 Innovation 105.50 7.72 p (.05 Responsibility 4.88 0.44 n.s. Risk Taking 1.01 0.04 n.s Self-Esteem 14.72 0.78 n.s. Interpersonal 43.94 3.40 n.s. Organization 36.82 3.26 n.s. Social Adroitness 3.99 0.47 n.s. Social 10.46 0.59 n.s. Participation Tolerance 19.25 2.30 n.s. value Orthodoxy 0.13 0.01 n.s. 56 variables were not statistically significant (See Table 10). High PIL scores had higher means on both Energy Level and Innovation (See Table 11). I-EandChapgg Hypothesis 5 states that intrinsic people (scoring high on I and low on B) will report greater attitudinal and behavioral change than extrinsic people (scoring high on E and low on I). This hypothesis was intended only for those who had changed their religious affiliation within the past five years; 42 persons met this criteria. This hypothesis was tested by ANOVA; with I and E as independent variables a significant interaction is required to confirm this hypothesis. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Neither multivariate effect of intrinsic or extrinsic was significant: Intrinsic (f(2,37) = .59, n.s.); Extrinsic (f(2,37) = .11, n.s.). There is no significant difference in attitude change between those persons scoring high on the intrinsic scale and those persons scoring high on the extrinsic scale. The results are as follows: Intrinsic (f(1,3s) = .94, n.s.); Extrinsic (f(1,3a) = .22, n.s.). There was also no significant difference in behavior change between those persons scoring higher on either of the measures: Intrinsic (f(1,as) = .86, n.s.); Extrinsic (f(1,3a) = .01, n.s.); Interaction (f11,3s) = .74, n.s.). Though not formally tested, it should also be noted that although these differences were not statistically significant, attitude change was greater than behavior change in all categories (see Tables 12 & 13). Table 11 Average JPI Scale Scores for High and Low PIL JPI Scales PIL Group N Mean Anxiety High PIL 63 11.60 Low PIL 8 11.25 Breadth of Interest High PIL 63 12.38 Low PIL 8 10.25 Complexity High PIL 63 11.50 Low PIL 8 10.37 Conformity High PIL 63 7.46 Low PIL 8 7.62 Energy Level High PIL 63 13.15 Low PIL 8 9.12* Innovation High PIL 63 14.73 Low PIL 8 10.87: Responsibility High PIL 63 13.07 Low PIL 8 12.25 Risk Taking High PIL 63 10.25 Low PIL 8 9.87 Self Esteem High PIL 63 14.19 Low PIL 8 12.75 Interpersonal Affect High PIL 63 13.23 Low PIL 8 10.75 Organization High PIL 63 12.77 Low PIL 8 10.50 Social Adroitness High PIL 63 10.00 Low PIL 8 10.75 Social Participation High PIL 63 10.71 Low PIL 8 9.50 Table 11, contd. 58 JPI Scales PIL Group N Mean _ Tolerance High PIL 63 12.39 Low PIL 8 10.75 value Orthodoxy High PIL 63 9.76 Low PIL 8 9.62 *9 (.05 Table 12 Summary of ANOVA for Attitude and Behavior Change by Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious Orientation Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Attitude Model 3 1.95 0.52 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.27 0.22 n.s. Intrinsic 1 1.17 0.94 n.s. Interaction 1 0.27 0.22 n.s. Behavior Model 3 1.63 0.60 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.01 0.01 n.s. Intrinsic 1 0.78 0.86 n.s. Table 7 t-Tests for Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for Indiscriminate Pro- and Anti-Religious Orientation Group Anxiety Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Breadth of Interest Indiscrhminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Complexity Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Conformipy Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Energy Level Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately'Anti Innovation Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti Regponsibility Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately'Anti Risk Takigg Indiscriminately Pro Indiscriminately Anti 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 25 40 12.76 10.75 10.20 10.77 10.40 11.97 7.72 11.40 12.17 13.24 14.95 12.64 11.47 8.84 10.97 1.84 -0.47 -1.94 1.10 “0083 -1 068 1.26 -1.78 Sig. Level Table 7, contd. Group N Mean 2 Sig. Level Self-Esteem Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.60 Indiscriminately Anti 40 14.65 -2.01 p (.05 Interpersonal Affect Indiscriminately Pro 25 13.80 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.87 1.97 n.s Organization Indiscriminately Pro 25 12.36 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.00 1.41 n.s. Social Adroitness Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.42 0.12 n.s Social Participation Indiscriminately Pro 25 9.52 Indiscriminately Anti 40 10.65 -1.12 n.s Tolerance Indiscriminately Pro 25 11.12 Indiscriminately Anti 40 11.72 -0.80 n.s. value Orthodoxy Indiscriminately Pro 25 10.16 Indiscriminately Anti 40 6.62 3.44 p (.01 51 research and theoretical speculation that sudden conversion is a less adequate and psychologically unhealthy phenomena. Therefore, this prediction is less likely to be accurate than the prediction of the difference between sudden and gradual converts. There were originally eight categories, four each for assessment of conversion 29 and £299 religion: gradual conversion (1) with or (2) without previous religious training; sudden conversion (3) with or (4) without previous religious training. Thus, the eight categories were collapsed into two categories each for £9 and £299 religion. Training dimension was collapsed (1 & 2 for gradual conversion, and 3 & 4 for sudden conversion) due to too few cases in each of the original eight categories (see Table 8 for sample sizes). The comparison was between religious orientation (as dependent variable) and suddenness and direction of conversion (as independent variables). This hypothesis was supported. The main effect of suddenness of conversion was not significant (multivariate f(3,39) = .41, n.s.). Predictably, the main effect of direction of conversion (to or from) was significant (multivariate f(2,39) = 50.12, p (.01). The interaction of direction and suddenness was not significant (multivariate f(2,oo) = 0.93, n.s.). Please note the multivariate effects are not represented in tables. The main effect of suddenness of conversion upon the extrinsic score was not significant (univariate f(1,90) = .41, n.s.). The main effect of suddenness upon the intrinsic score was not significant (univariate f(1,go) = .51, n.s.). Those converting 29 religion scored significantly higher on both the 52 Table 8 Table of Means of I/E Scores for Sudden and Gradual Conversion I9 or From Religion** Extrinsic Direction* Suddenness To Away Both Gradual 27.56 33.90 29.02 n=37 n=11 n=48 Sudden 27.02 32.88 28.17 n=37 n=9 n=46 Both 27.29 33.45 n=74 n=20 N=94 p (.01 Intrinsic Direction* Suddenness To Away Both Gradual 19.27 31.18 22.00 n=37 n=11 n=48 Sudden 16.18 32.11 19.30 n=37 =9 n=46 Both 17.72 31.60 n=74 n=20 n=94 *9 (.01 **Please note that, as mentioned previously, higher numerical values mean lower actual score on the I/E dimension (e.g., higher nunbers mean less intrinsic). 53 intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions than converts £299 religion (Extrinsic; univariate f(1,9o) = 24.93, p (.01; Intrinsic: univariate f(1,go) = 85.31, p (.01). It is also interesting to note that gradual converts consistently scored lower than sudden converts on the religious orientation dimensions, though this difference was not significant (see Tables 8 and 9). PIL and JPI Hypothesis 4 states that persons scoring high on the PIL possess different predominant personality characteristics than persons scoring lower on the PIL. This is an exploratory hypothesis. It is understood that, due to the large number of statistical tests being done on this data, there is the possibility of some tests being significant by chance alone. However, these tests are deemed necessary to insure as far as is possible that no significant findings are omitted. The cut-offs for the high and low groups on the Purpose in Life inventory were determined by following the convention set forth by Crumbaugh and Maholick (see Methods section). There were 63 students high and 8 students low on the PIL. In the 2X16 ANOVA, the JPI scales were treated as the dependent variables and the PIL (purpose in life inventory) was treated as the independent variable. The main effect of PIL scores on the JPI was not significant (multivariate f(15,54) = 1.22, n.s.). The univariate effect of the PIL on the Energy Level scale score and the Innovation scale score was significant: Energy Level (univariate f(1,59) = 9.45, p (.01); Innovation (univariate f(1,59) = 7.72, p (.01). The other Table 9 Summary of ANOVA for Suddenness and Direction of Extrinsic and Intrinsic Religious Orientation 54 Conversion and Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Extrinsic Model 3 606.58 8.67 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 9.51 0.41 n.s. Intrinsic 1 581.56 24.93 p (.05 Interaction 1 0.89 0.04 n.s. Intrinsic Model 3 3208.92 30.16 p (.05 Extrinsic 1 18.08 0.51 n.s. Intrinsic 1 3025.30 85.31 p (.05 Interaction 1 62.80 1.77 n.s. Table 10 Summary of ANOVA of JPI Scales and PIL Scores 55 Source Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Anxiety 0.47 0.02 n.s. Breadth of 32.33 1.76 n.s. Interest Complexity 9.11 0.99 n.s. Conformity 0.10 0.01 n.s Energy Level 115.50 9.45 p (.05 Innovation 105.50 7.72 p (.05 Responsibility 4.88 0.44 n.s Risk Taking 1.01 0.04 n.s Self—Esteem 14.72 0.78 n.s. Interpersonal 43.94 3.40 n.s Organization 36.82 3.26 n.s Social Adroitness 3.99 0.47 n.s. Social 10.46 0.59 n.s Participation Tolerance 19.25 2.30 n.s. Value Orthodoxy 0.13 0.01 n.s. 56 variables were not statistically significant (See Table 10). High PIL scores had higher means on both Energy Level and Innovation (See Table 11). I-EandChangg Hypothesis 5 states that intrinsic people (scoring high on I and low on E) will report greater attitudinal and behavioral change than extrinsic people (scoring high on E and low on.I). This hypothesis was intended only for those who had changed their religious affiliation within the past five years; 42 persons met this criteria. This hypothesis was tested by ANOVA; with I and E as independent variables a significant interaction is required to confirm this hypothesis. This hypothesis was not confirmed. Neither multivariate effect of intrinsic or extrinsic was significant: Intrinsic (f(2,37) = .59, n.s.); Extrinsic (f(2,37) = .11, n.s.). There is no significant difference in attitude change between those persons scoring high on the intrinsic scale and those persons scoring high on the extrinsic scale. The results are as follows: Intrinsic (f(1,aa) = .94, n.s.); Extrinsic (f(1,3s) = .22, n.s.). There was also no significant difference in behavior change between those persons scoring higher on either of the measures: Intrinsic (f(1,3a) = .86, n.s.); Extrinsic (f(1,3a) = .01, n.s.); Interaction (f(1,3e) = .74, n.s.). Though not formally tested, it should also be noted that although these differences were not statistically significant, attitude change was greater than behavior change in all categories (see Tables 12 & 13). Table 11 Average JPI Scale Scores for High and Low PIL JPI Scales PIL Group N Mean Anxiety High PIL 63 11.60 Low PIL 8 11.25 Breadth of Interest High PIL 63 12.38 Low PIL 8 10.25 Complexity High PIL 63 11.50 Low PIL 8 10.37 Conformity High PIL 63 7.46 Low PIL 8 7.62 Energy Level High PIL 63 13.15 Low PIL 8 9.12: Innovation High PIL 63 14.73 Low PIL 8 10.871 Responsibility High PIL 63 13.07 Low PIL 8 12.25 Risk Taking High PIL 63 10.25 Low PIL 8 9.87 Self Esteem High PIL 63 14.19 Low PIL 8 12.75 Interpersonal Affect High PIL 63 13.23 Low PIL 8 10.75 Organization High PIL 63 12.77 Low PIL 8 10.50 Social Adroitness High PIL 63 10.00 Low PIL 8 10.75 Social Participation High PIL 63 10.71 Low PIL 8 9.50 Table 11, contd. 58 JPI Scales PIL Group N Tolerance High PIL 63 12.39 Low PIL 8 10.75 Value Orthodoxy High PIL 63 9.76 Low PIL 8 9.62 *p (.05 Table 12 Summary of ANOVA for Attitude and Behavior Change by Intrinsic and Extrinsic Religious Orientation Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Attitude Model 3 1.95 0.52 n.s. Extrinsic 1 0.27 0.22 n.s. Intrinsic 1 1.17 0.94 n.s. Interaction 1 0.27 0.22 n.s. Behavior Model 3 1.63 0.60 n.s. Extrinsic l 0.01 0.01 n.s. Intrinsic 1 0.78 0.86 n.s. 59 Table 13 Average Attitude and Behavior Change Scores by Intrinsic and Extrinsic Orientation Extrinsic Intrinsic High Low Both Att. Beh. Att. Beh. Att. Beh. High 2.53 2.00 2.18 1.68 2.34 1.82 n=13 n=16 n=29 Low 2.00 1.42 2.00 1.66 2.00 1.53 n:7 11:6 n=13 Sum 2.35 1.80 2.13 1.68 n=20 n=22 N=42 60 Suddenness and Chaggg Hypothesis 6 states that sudden converts experience greater behavior change post conversion than gradual converts. This hypothesis only considered converts 29 religion. This hypothesis was not confirmed (Table 14). A t-test was applied to the scores for mean change, with the following results: Gradual converts (1.6); Sudden converts (1.8, 2 = - .48, n.s.). The difference between sudden and gradual converts on attitude change was similarly tested.with the following results: Gradual converts (2.12); Sudden converts (mean 2.68, 2 = —1.43, n.s.). It is also interesting to note that attitude change appeared to be a necessary condition for behavior change, as there were no persons who reported behavior change without attitude change. There were, however, people who reported attitude change yet little or no behavior change (see Table 15). I—E, JPI and PIL Hypothesis 7 states that high PIL involves different personality factors and religious orientation factors than low PIL. This hypothesis differs from Hypotheses 1 and 4 in that the religious orientation factors are considered along with the personality factors. Thus, in this hypothesis, religious orientation is considered as a personality factor rather than a religious factor. A.MANOVA was computed with the religious orientation dimension and personality variables as the dependent variables, and PIL as the independent variables. The overall effect of JPI/IE was highly significant (model f(19,95) = 4.04, p (01). Further significant Table 14 61 Average Behavior Change Scores for Converts I9 and From Religion L Suddenness N Mean t Sig. Level Gradual 21 1.6 IQ: Slflden 21 108 "0048 nos. Gradual 24 2.12 FROM: Sudden 24 2.68 -1.48 n.s. Table 15 Number of Persons Reporting Behavior or Attitude Change Behavior Change 1 2 1 15 0 Attitude 2 6 8 Change 3 3 2 4 3 0 Key: 1 No Change 2 Slight Change 3 Somewhat of a Change 4 A Great Deal of Change 3 1 4 0 62 factors predicted by the purpose in life score are: Intrinsic (univariate f(1,95) = 3.72, p (.10); Energy Level (univariate f(1,95) = 3.07, p (10); Organization (univariate f(1,9s) = 5.48, p (.05); and Social Participation (univariate f((;,9e) = 3.74, p (.10). High PIL scorers had a greater degree of intrinsic orientation than did low PIL scorers. High PIL scorers were also higher in Energy Level, Organization, and Social Participation. Please note that the significance levels were expanded somewhat due to the exploratory nature of this hypothesis (see Tables 16—17). ConversionL JPI, and PIL Hypothesis 8 states that there is no difference between sudden and gradual converts on the PIL or on the JPI. This hypothesis was considered separately for both converts 29 and £299 religion. Among converts 29 religion (36 sudden, 37 gradual; Table 18), sudden converts scored significantly higher than gradual converts on the following scales: Complexity (f(1,71) = 5.04, p (.05); Interpersonal Affect (f(1,71) = 4.48, p (.05); Tolerance (f(1,71) = 5.82, p (.05); Value Orthodoxy (f(1,71) = 3.54, p (.10). Gradual converts did not score significantly higher on any of the scales. See Table 19 for JPI means. Among converts £299 religion (10 sudden, 12 gradual; Table 20), gradual converts scored significantly higher on Self-esteem (f(1,21) = 7.57, p (.05). (See Table 21 for JPI means.) 63 Table 16 Summary of ANOVA of JPI Scores and I/E Scores for Persons High and Low in PIL Source df SS F Sig. Level Model 19 3697.28 4.04 _p (.01 Extrinsic 1 28.77 0.60 n.s. Intrinsic 1 179.15 3.72 p (.10 Interaction 1 22.38 0.46 n.s. Anxiety 1 120.89 2.51 n.s Breadth of Interest 1 2.27 0.05 n.s. Complexity 1 15.16 0.31 n.s Conformity 1 26.71 0.55 n.s Energy Level 1 148.04 3.07 p (.10 Innovation 1 127.62 2.65 n.s. Responsibility 1 30.99 0.64 n.s Risk Taking 1 10.12 0.21 n.s. Self-Esteem 1 63.25 1.31 n.s Interpersonal Affect 1 54.54 1.13 n.s. Organization 1 263.81 5.48 (.05 Social Adroitness 1 125.71 2.61 n.s Social Participation 1 ‘ 180.20 3.74 (.10 Tolerance 1 0.17 0.00 n.s Value Orthodoxy 1 17.55 0.36 n.s. 64 Table 17 Table of Means of JPI and I/E for Persons High and Low in PIL High PIL Low PIL n=63 =8 Anxiety 11.60 11.25 Breadth of Interest 12.38 10.25 Complexity 11.60 10.37 Conformity 7.46 7.62 Energy Level 13.15 9.12* Innovation 14.73 10.37 Responsibility 13.07 12.25 Risk Taking 10.25 9.87 Self-Esteem 14.19 12.75 Interpersonal Affect 13.23 10.75 Organization 12.77 10.50* Social Adroitness 10.00 10.75 Social Participation 10.71 9.601 Tolerance 12.39 10.75 value Orthodoxy 9.76 9.62 Extrinsic 29.16 27.75 Intrinsic 19.02 23.50* * p (.05 Table 18 Summary of ANOVA for JPI by Conversion (Sudden or Gradual) 65 Source Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Anxiety 0.41 0.02 n.s. Breadth of 25.57 1.24 n.s Interest Complexity 42.54 5.04 p (.05 Conformity Energy Level 22.07 1.73 n.s Innovation 47.05 2.68 n.s. Responsibility 17.54 1.87 n.s. Risk Taking 0.06 0.00 n.s Self-Esteem 3.57 0.19 n.s Interpersonal 57.02 4.48 p (.05 Organization 2.44 0.10 n.s. Social Adroitness 3.76 0.50 n.s Social 3.88 0.23 n.s. Participation Tolerance 48.69 5.82 p (.05 Value Orthodoxy 39.99 3.02 p (.05 Table 19 Table of Means of JPI Scores for Converts 19 Religion by Gradual or Sudden Conversion Anxiety Breadth of Interest Complexity Conformity Energy Level Innovation Responsibility Risk Taking Self-Esteem Interpersonal Affect Organization Social Adroitness Social Participation Tolerance value Orthodoxy Gradual n=36 12.40 10.62 9.97 8.91 11.59 12.81 12.29 9.10 12.94 12.64 12.18 10.64 11.37 10.81 10.29 Sudden n=36 12.55 11.80 11.50! 8.30 12.69 14.41 12.27 9.16 13.38 14.41t 12.55 10.19 10.91 12.44: 11.77* *p (.05 67 Table 20 Summary of ANOVA of JPI Scales by Conversion Type Source df Sum of Squares F Sig.Level Anxiety 1 63.67 3.55 n.s. Breadth of 0.38 0.02 n.s. Interest Complexity 0.05 0.00 n.s Confonmity 0.43 0.02 n.s. Energy Level 0.29 0.02 n.s. Innovation 5.09 0.34 n.s. Responsibility 22.18 2.16 n.s. Risk Taking 0.34 0.01 n.s Self-Esteem 76.70 7.57 p (.05. Interpersonal 6.80 0.35 n.s. Organization 0.12 0.01 n.s. Social Adroitness 6.80 0.63 n.s. Social 4.75 0.29 n.s. Participation Tolerance 3.49 0.29 n.s. value Orthodoxy 4.58 0.44 n.s 68 Table 21 Table of Means of JPI Scales for Conversion From Religion Gradual Sudden n=12 n=10 Anxiety 9.58 13.00 Breadth of Interest 11.33 11.60 Complexity 13.00 12.90 Conformity 7.53 7.30 Energy Level 12.83 12.60 Innovation 14.83 15.80 Responsibility 10.58 12.60 Risk Taking 11.25 11.20 Self-Esteem 16.25 12.50* Interpersonal Affect 11.58 12.70 Organization 10.75 10.90 Social Adroitness 10.08 11.20 Social Participation 9.16 10.10 Tolerance 13.00 12.20 Value Orthodoxy 5.41 4.50 p (.05 69 Table 22 Summary of ANOVA of PIL by Sudden or Gradual Conversion 19 Religion df SS F Sig. Level Source 1 60.02 0.92 n.s. Table 23 Summary of ANOVA of PIL by Sudden or Gradual Conversion From Religion df SS F Sig. Level Source 1 21.09 0.32 n.s. 70 There was no significant difference between sudden and gradual converts in either group (to or from) on the PIL scale: (To: f(1,31) : .92, n.s.; From: f(1,21) = .32, n.s.) (see Tables 22-23). Additional Results Religious Salience The relationship of religious salience and personality was also examined. Salience was determined by assessing the degree of importance an individual ascribes to religion, and the frequency of participation in religious activities. A median split (3) was used to determine high and low measures of importance and participation. Standard t—tests and ANOVA were used to assess these differences. The following personality variables were significantly higher for those persons rating religion as i9p9rtant (Table 24): Responsibility (2 = 2.64, p (.01); Interpersonal Affect (2 = 2.68, p (.01); Organization (2 = 3.14, p (.01); Social Participation (2 = 2.11, p (.05); Value Orthodoxy (2 = 7.22, p (.01). The following personality variables were significantly higher for those persons rating their participation in religious activities as high (Table 25): Responsibility (2 = 2.11, p (.05); Organization (2 = 2.52, p (.05); Value Orthodoxy (2 = 4.90, p (.01). Salience was also assessed in relationship to purpose in life. Those rating religion as highly important (Table 26) reported high purpose in living and scored significantly higher than those rating religion as unimportant (Means: Relig. High Import.: 82.23, Relig. Low Import.: 77.07; 2 = 3.4, p (.01). Similarly, those rating their participation in religious activities as high (Table 27) reported 71 Table 24 t—Tests for Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for High and Low Importance of Religion High Low 2 318. Importance Importance Level n=63 n=54 Anxiety 12.88 11.40 1.95 n.s. Breadth of Interest 11.49 10.61 1.05 n.s Complexity 10.90 11.40 -0.89 n.s Conformity 8.76 8.31 0.55 n.s Energy Level 12.44 11.44 1.46 n.s Innovation 13.66 14.16 -0.62 n.s Responsibility 13.20 11.61 2.64 p (.01 Risk Taking 9.05 10.62 -1.78 n.s. Self-Esteem 13.23 13.42 -0.22 n.s Interpersonal Affect 14.00 12.20 2.68 p (.01 Organization 12.74 10.59 3.14 p (.01 Social Adroitness 10.38 10.62 -0.47 n.s. Social Participation 11.51 9.94 2.12 p (.05 Tolerance 11.66 11.55 0.19 n.s. value Orthodoxy 11.49 6.64 7.22 p (.01 72 Table 25 t—tests for Differences Between the Means of JPI Scales for High and Low Participation in Religious Activities High Low 2 Sig . Participation Participation Level Anxiety 12.33 12.31 Breadth of Interest 11.61 10.46 Complexity 10.88 11.35 Conformity 8.75 8.88 Energy Level 12.53 11.31 Innovation 13.72 13.62 Responsibility 13.29 11.77 2.11 p (.05 Risk Taking 9.10 10.24 Self Esteem 12.82 13.91 Interpersonal Affect 14.01 12.98 Organization 12.74 10.71 2.52 p (.05 Social Adroitness 10.49 10.64 Social Participation 11.08 10.33 Tolerance 11.98 11.17 value Orthodoxy 11.45 7.51 4.90 p (.01 73 Table 26 t-Tests for Differences Between the Means for High and Low Importance of Religion - High Low 2 Sig. Importance Importance Level n=63 n=52 PIL 82.23 77.08 3.43 p (.01 Table 27 t-Tests for Differences Between the Means for High and Low Participation in Religious Activities High Low 2 Sig. Participation Participation Level 11:57 11:45 PIL 82.79 77.11 3.49 p (.01 74 significantly higher purpose in living than those whose participation in religious activities was low (Means: High Part. 82.79, Low Part. 77.11; 2 = - 3.49, p <.o1). ‘ Correlational Analysis Correlations were calculated for the religious orientation variables and the personality variables. The following personality variables were found to be significantly correlated with Intrinsic orientation (Table 29): Breadth of Interest (r = .17, p (.05); Responsibility (r = .32, p (.01); Risk-taking (r = -.20, p (.05); Interpersonal Affect (r = .19, p (.05); Organization (r = —.22, p (.05); Value Orthodoxy (r = .59, p (.01). The following personality variables correlated significantly with Extrinsic orientation: Anxiety (r : .20, p (.05); Complexity (r = - .29, p (.01); Conformity (r = .18, p : .05); Energy Level (r = —.17, p .05); Interpersonal Affect (r = .28, p (.01), and Value Orthodoxy (r .29, p (.01). The following personality variables correlated significantly with the PIL (Table 30); Breadth of Interest (r = .35, p (.01); Energy Level (r = .46, p (.01); Innovation (r = .29, p (.01); Self-Esteem (r = .31, p (.01); Organization (r = .34, p (.01); and Tolerance (r = .18, p (.05). Table 28 Correlation of JPI Scales with Religious Orientation 75 JPI Scales Intrinsic Sig. Level Extrinsic Sig. Level Anxiety 0.00 n.s 0.20 p (.05 Breadth of 0.17 p =.05 -0.09 n.s. Interest Complexity -0.08 n.s -0.29 p (.01 Conformity 0.02 n.s 0.18 p =.05 Energy Level 0.13 n.s -0.17 p =.05 Innovation -.07 n.s —0.09 n.s. Responsibility .32 p (.01 0.17 n.s Risk Taking -0.20 p (.05 -0.16 n.s Self Esteem —0.10 n.s -0.07 n.s Interpersonal 0.19 p (.05 0.28 p (.01 Affect Organization 0.22 p (.05 0.09 n.s. Social Adroitness -0.09 n.s 0.03 n.s. Social -0.01 n.s 0.04 n.s. Participation Tolerance 0.02 n.s. —0.10 n.s. value Orthodoxy 0.59 p ( .01 0.294 p (.01 76 Table 29 Correlation of JPI Scales with PIL JPI Scales R Sig. Level n=116 Anxiety -0.19 p (.05 Breadth of Interest 0.36 p (.01 Complexity 0.03 n.s. Conformity -0.23 p (.05 Energy Level 0.47 p (.01 Innovation 0.30 p (.01 Responsibility 0.26 p (.01 Risk Taking 0.09 n.s. Self Esteem 0.31 p (.01 Interpersonal Affect 0.07 n.s. Organization 0.36 p (.01 Social Adroitness —0.14 n.s. Social Participation 0.13 n.s. Tolerance 0.19 p (.05 Value Orthodoxy 0.16 n.s. DISCUSSION This research examined the relationship between religious orientation, purpose-in-living, and personality factors. In brief, relationships were found between religious orientation and purpose-in- living, but the relationship was not entirely as predicted. The evidence suggests that there is not an inverse relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation as there is not an inverse relationship between these variables on the purpose—in-living scale. There is no evidence that the religious orientation scales are confounded by social desirability as the religious orientation scales were not significantly correlated with a social desirability measure. Different personality characteristics were evident among persons scoring high or low on the religious orientation scales, sudden or gradual converts, persons scoring high or low on purpose-in-living, and persons scoring high or low on religious salience. Also the personality factors and intrinsic religious orientation were highly important in predicting the purpose-in-living score. Finally, attitude and behavior change was not significantly different between sudden or gradual converts or between intrinsic or extrinsic religious orientation. 77 78 Intrinsic and Entrinsic Religion. Factor analytic studies have found that the intrinsic/extrinsic concept is not unidimensional (Hunt & King, 1971). The current study partially supports these findings. Therefore, assumptions regarding the relationship of the intrinsic/extrinsic concept to other variables must be carefully advanced. One may not assume that an observed relationship between the intrinsic dimension and some other variable eliminates the possibility of a similar relationship between the extrinsic dimension and the same variable. Researchers have found a variety of results when examining the relationship of these two dimensions to other variables. Kahoe (1974) suggests that these dimensions may be measured independently as his research also indicated a similar relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic orientation for a particular variable. Some authors suggest that intrinsic orientation as a single religious dimension should be abandoned (Hunt and King, 1971). It is too conceptually complex as demonstrated by the fact that items chosen to measure it fall into several categories when factor analyzed. Limiting the notion to religious matters only seems to be an unnecessarily limiting factor. One’s approach to living may be the phenomenon being assessed by the I/E concept; thus I/E can be useful for assessing phenomena which are not "strictly religious". As suggested earlier, religious sentiment may be understood in a number of ways. Depending upon one’s view, understanding, and interpretation of religion, a person may or may not view themselves as possessing religious sentiment. They may, nonetheless, experience an 79 integrating factor which could be explained in religious terms. Therefore, the aspects of the I/E concept which are most relevant are those which may be exemplified in both religious and non-religious persons. Hypothesis 1: I/E and PIL. The variable relationship between the intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions was also demonstrated in the present study. A negative relationship was predicted between purpose-in-life and extrinsic religious orientation. This prediction was based upon an understanding of extrinsic religious orientation as less vital and productive for the individual. Therefore, if it is true that religion facilitates purpose-in-living, "peripheral" religion (extrinsic) would have a negative role in meaningful living. A negative relationship was predicted between extrinsic orientation and purpose-in-life, and a positive relationship was predicted between intrinsic orientation and purpose—in-life. There was a significant difference between high intrinsics and low intrinsics on the purpose—in-life scores. It was not a simple "inverse" pattern. The intrinsic dimension was positively related to purpose-in-life, but the extrinsic dimension was unrelated to purpose-in-life. The formation of the hypothesis was based, in part, upon the conceptual similarities between the intrinsic religious orientation concept and the purpose-in-life concept. The nature of the intrinsic religious orientation variable suggests an ability for introspection and an inner directedness on the part of the individual. Therefore, one may expect the intrinsically oriented individual to be inclined to experience a greater sense of purpose-in-life to the 80 extent that the sense of purpose is stimulated by a sense of inner- directedness. Allport (1967) states, "A religious sentiment of this sort floods the whole life with motivation and meaning" (p. 455).. This directly parallels Frankl’s concept of "will to meaning" upon which the PIL is based. Frankl states, "An individual is responsible for the fulfillment of the specific meaning of his own life, but he is also responsible to something, be it society, humanity, or mankind, or his conscience" (1958, p. 84). The conceptual similarity of intrinsic and extrinsic concepts and the concept of purpose-in-life poses methodological issues. Is the positive relationship of the intrinsic orientation to religion and purpose-in—life "only" a matter of similarity of measurement procedures? Or does similarity of operationalization accurately reflect conceptual similarity? A comparison of the content of the scales indicates that intrinsic religious orientation and purpose-in- living are highly similar in operationalization as well as conceptually. Removing the religious terms in I/E and replacing them with words such as "standards" or "norms" makes these scales highly similar. The PIL and I/E scales are in Appendices C and D, respectively. Frankl’s concept of will to meaning, operationally defined as purpose-in—living, requires a degree of self reflection and introspection which the extrinsically oriented individual may be unable or unwilling to accomplish. The extrinsic religious orientation has been described as unreflective, uncritical, unintegrated, etc. The extrinsically oriented individual’s life 81 satisfaction is defined primarily by externals: status, possessions, accomplishments, etc. One may see by inspection that the PIL items require introspection and an internal sensitivity of which the "exteriorized" person may be relatively incapable. It is important to note, however, that the results indicate that the extrinsic dimension had no statistical relationship to PIL scores, while the intrinsic dimension is positively related to PIL scores. The extrinsic factor is conceptually more complex than the intrinsic factor owing to the greater number of possibilities which attend such a concept. Persons scoring high on the extrinsic dimension are understood to possess unreflective, uncritical, and undifferentiated characteristics in regard to their religious affiliation. An individual who is "extrinsic" in relation to religion, may be intrinsic in relationship to career pursuits, or philanthropic values, from which they may derive purpose-in-living. An absence of statistical relationship between these two factors does not connote a negative conceptual relationship. The finding that intrinsic and extrinsic orientation are not significantly negatively correlated also lends conceptual support to the independence and multi- dimensionality of the I-E conacept. It also points to the fact that one should be cautious in assuming that extrinsic religion is "bad religion." Certainly Allport discovered some negative characteristics among "extrinsics," but the issue is not a simple one. When concluding that an individual has not internalized religion, one must be aware of the possibility that there may be another unifying 82 principle by which that individual lives, and traditional religion may play an ancillary role. To what degree does one adhere to the organizing principles for life. Persons who adhere strongly to a particular viewpoint may derive meaning from that viewpoint. Persons who do not adhere strongly to a particular viewpoint may not report as strong a sense of purpose-in- life as those who do. The strength of one’s convictions is an important factor in the degree to which the particular belief system functions to structure the individual’s life (Hoffer, 1951) and give order and purpose to existence. The results suggest that it is the nature of the motivational factors which determines how efficaciously the belief system functions within the life of the individual. The author is inclined to view intrinsic religious orientation as "better" than extrinsic religious motivation. However, what may also be operative in regard to one’s sense of purpose—in-living is the degree of commitment to the particular set of beliefs-- no matter what they may be. The old adage captures this phenomenon so well: If you don’t stand for something -— you’ll fall for anything. Perhaps the strength of the high intrinsics’ adherence to their religious tradition results in a greater sense of purpose-in-life. This issue of salience will be discussed later in this writing. There is a major source of difficulty in psychological research which must be considered -- the potential effect of social desirability upon self-report responses. Undoubtedly, it is more desirable for some people to respond to such items as "I try hard to carry my religion 83 over into all my other dealings in life", in the affirmative than to respond negatively to such an item. Therefore, it is important to assess the degree to which social desirability is involved in the. results of psychological research. Yet, the current results indicate marginal statistically significant involvement of social desirability in subjects response to questionnaire items (r = .18, n.s.). The importance of the relationship between religious orientation and purpose—in-living may now be summarized. It was suggested earlier that the area in which religion may be most efficacious is in the area of existential concerns. Further, it was suggested that the area in which research into religion may reap the greatest information, is in the area of religion and existence. The finding of a relationship between intrinsic orientation and high purpose-in-living suggests that the relationship of religious orientation to purpose-in—living varies according to whether one is "intrinsic" or "extrinsic". Religion and Personality we will now examine the relationship between religious orientation and personality characteristics. The purpose of this exploration is to discover possible relationships between religion and personality characteristics. There have been numerous studies exploring the relationship between religion and personality (Sanua, 1969). Factors such as anxiety (FUnk, 1955), interpersonal relationships (Wright, 1959), personal adjustment (O’Reilly, 1958), authoritarianism (Ranck, 1955), and general mental health (Srole, 1962), have all been found to be related to religion. These studies however, have tended to isolate one 84 or two factors as they relate to the phenomenon of religious sentiment. Further, the factors studied have not been considered in light of the recent contributions of James Fowler and others in the area of faith development. This research shows that the personality of the extrinsically oriented individual is characterized by anxiety and conformity (JPI). This is consistent with the findings of many other researchers (Hunt & King, 1972). It may provide information regarding the phenomenon underlying the characteristics of the extrinsically oriented individuals. Extrinsically oriented individuals are theorized to be unreflective, exclusionistic, ethnocentric, compartmentalized, and dogmatic because of underlying anxiety. Factors such as Interpersonal Affect and Social Participation (which were found to be significant in this research) point to the socio—emotional aspects of religious sentiment. Those who have high affiliation needs and a tendency toward conformity (McClelland, 1984) may have these needs met by their religious affiliation. Churches, mosques, and synagogues may provide important sources of socialization experiences for certain individuals. These individuals are provided a structured predictable environment within which to realize their interpersonal needs. Existentialists such as Rollo May and Paul Tillich have provided phenomenological analyses of anxiety. Their conceptualizations have informed more traditional dynamic understanding of anxiety. Dynamically, anxiety is based upon anticipated loss of some "necessary value" (Oden, 1969). The infant experiences anxiety as the experience 85 of a full stomach is lost and hunger sets in. The child experiences anxiety as the predictable pattern of parental nurturance is disrupted by a disturbance in the parental figure. The adolescent experiences anxiety as the constant validation of the self is threatened by loss of popularity in one’s peer group. The adult experiences anxiety as one’s physical or emotional welfare is threatened by the onset of illness or interpersonal strife. Existentialists have suggested that everyone experiences anxiety as the threat of non—being through the certainty of death. The extent to which an individual is inclined to experience anxiety is the extent to which an individual will manifest security operations to eliminate this anxiety (Sullivan, 1956). Security operations are rooted in an ongoing sense of insecurity or anxiety, which necessitates their continued presence. Therefore, the anxiety is never eliminated but, rather, is warded off (repressed). It is also necessary for these individuals to be rigid and inflexible as the repressed anxiety constantly threatens to erupt into consciousness and disable the individual. One may infer that these individuals’ approach to religion is a function of their predominant personality characteristics. It should be noted that the extrinsic group scored significantly higher on the anxiety scale than the JPI normative sample. This indicates that these individuals may not have experienced sufficient interpersonal security to mitigate excessive anxietyu The individual’s dominant purpose becomes the elimination of this pervasive anxiety. unfortunately, "genuine" security may only be gained by allowing oneself to be open and, therefore, vulnerable to affective engagement with others. Yet, 86 this is precisely what the insecure are unable to do. Because of the anticipated disappointment, the insecure cannot open themselves to genuine contact with others. Therefore, one sees the perfunctory, instrumental nature of their engagement with others, external compliance or conformity, internal isolation. This characterizes the extrinsic individual’s approach to religion. Thus it may be suggested that the extrinsic orientation to religion is rooted in the problem of anxiety. While it is true that personality characteristics are operative in other areas of the individual’s life, it must also be noted that the issue of one’s religions orientation potentiates a greater level of anxiety because of the implications of one’s beliefs concerning religion. One who has been taught that to hold no religious beliefs may risk one’s eternal damnation may encounter significant anxiety when attempting to integrate religious beliefs. This may also be true of the individual who has been taught that to hold religious beliefs is to ignore the scientific facts which order our world and, therefore, attempts to abandon religious values. The conformity factor may be understood similarly. Conformity brings with it security as the individual participates and behaves within the safety of numbers. The individual may derive security from the fact that "everyone’s doing it." Therefore, it is possible to mask or repress the anxiety experience by focusing upon others. The ability to lose oneself in a crowd exemplifies this phenomenon. Breadth of interest, complexity, energy level, and value orthodoxy characterize the personality of the intrinsic group. The 87 adjectives which researchers have associated with the intrinsic concept include reflective, interiorized, universalistic, and humble. As has been suggested regarding the extrinsic concept, these factors may be understood within the context of the total personality functioning of the individual. Those who are inclined to participate in a variety of activities and learn about a diversity of things (breadth of interest) would, logically, be universalistic in their attitude toward life. They must also possess sufficient energy to pursue their interests. Individuals who are inclined to appreciate intricate solutions to problems and depth of thought would, obviously, be reflective. Further, the greater the degree of reflection, the greater the self-awareness (interiorized thinking). The value orthodoxy score is significantly higher for the intrinsic group than for the normative sample. The midwestern location of the university from which the sample was drawn may be weighted toward the conservative and of the spectrum among American college students (Sanford, 1962). Conservatism may be associated with value orthodoxy as value orthodoxy implies a lack of openness to non-traditional beliefs or behaviors and a clinging to the orthodox manner of living. Thus, the universalistic personality orientation mentioned above may be mitigated by this finding. Some have also suggested that intrinsic religion doesn’t measure mature religiosity but, rather, religious orthodoxy (Batson & Ventis, 1982). The ethical function of religion is also seen in the association between value orthodoxy, frequent participation in religious activities, and rating of religion as highly important. Those 88 individuals who value more clear cut, traditional mores, can realize these values within a religious context. Religion is perhaps most popularly espoused for its function as an ethical super-structure for societies, cultures and individuals. There is, for these individuals, an ever present source of authority for the prescriptions and proscriptions which govern their lives. The fact that the intrinsic group scored higher on the value orthodoxy scale than the extrinsic group may also be a manifestation of the distinguishing factor between these two groups. The extrinsic group may behave in a manner consonant with the traditional values of the culture in situations which demand such behavior; however, this does not necessarily mean that these values are adhered to "internally." The intrinsic individual regards the values by which she or he lives as "my own"; therefore, it is more likely that value internalization would show up on a measure of value orthodoxy. The extrinsic individual, when questioned in a context where espousal or rejection of the values carry no attendant consequences -- such as a neutral research situation -- would have no need to espouse these values if they were indeed not internalized individual convictions. Further, we have seen earlier that the extrinsic individual, characterized by anxiety, is less inclined to be intimately involved with themselves as their preoccupation is to eliminate awareness of their anxiety in the interpersonal environment. Consistent with this analysis, the extrnsic group scored significantly higher on confonmity. These results should not be viewed solely as validation of the I/E concept. Rather, they suggest that the I/E concept may be a particular 89 example of a more general personality style. Therefore, it may be suggested that intrinsic religious orientation is not necessarily a type of religion, standing apart from and unaffected by, the personality of the individual, but, rather, intrinsic religious orientation is a religious manifestation of a general personality style when one’s religion is not encumbered by excessive anxiety. The manner in which one lives in reference to their ultimate organizing principle (religion) is a function of their personality. Religion functions in a very concrete manner as a referent for the basic organization of our personal lives and of our social institutions. More specifically, religion functions to provide structure to our interpersonal lives. The association of religious salience with the personality characteristic of responsibility suggests that the religious prescriptions regarding social interaction (in the Judeo—Christian tradition: Thou shalt not steal, covet, etc.), provide the structure within which we live responsibly in interactions with others. Personality and Faith Development Personality, however, is a developmental phenomenon; therefore, these results may be informed by James Fowler’s (1982) work on stages of faith development. The concept of development always carries with it the implication of higher and lower levels and the attendant values assigned to these levels. Therefore, any discussion of faith development or development in general must be mindful of this vulnerability. Gooden (1982) 90 insightfully states that this inclination to value "higher" levels of development should be informed by common sense: It would be precocious for a young man in his twenties to be. overly concerned with issues of death and mortality. In his mid-forties, however, this same man’s concern with mortality, death, destructiveness, and tentative withdrawal of investment from the world of young adulthood would be age appropriate. One must evaluate the maturity of a given period of life by the person’s ability to manage the issues of that period, not by his/her ability to manage the issues of a period ahead of him or her (p.117). The following discussion will attempt to pay heed to this admonition, though Sidi (1986) has suggested that, at every stage of development, there are tasks which may be managed in an "intrinsic" or "extrinsic" manner. An extrinsic orientation to religion has been found to be related to the personality characteristics of anxiety and confonmity. This corresponds well with the aspects of Fowler’s (1982) stage three faith, "Synthetic—Conventional" faith: It is a conformist stage in the sense that the individual is acutely attuned to the expectations and judgments of significant others and as yet does not have a sure enough grasp on its own identity and autonomous judgment to construct and maintain an independent perspective (p.46). This stage of faith is associated with adolescence and is most likely to emerge during this period. Fowler does suggest, however, that any stages from 3-6 may be found at any age of adulthood. The issue in this phase of development is identity and locus of control. Authority is located in the incumbents of traditional authority roles (if perceived as personally worthy) or in the consensus of a valued face-to-face group. There is an emphasis upon the validation of the self by others as a primary mode of consolidating a sense of self. 91 This emphasis upon validation by others may also give rise to generalized anxiety as this validation is not always forthcoming. The discrepancy between the need for approval and the expectancy of approval from others may precipitate this anxiety. This stage of development involves an emerging sense of individuality. However, this individuality must use as its starting point, the interpersonal environment of its origins. There are the beginning attempts at autonomy which may be exemplified in the adolescent’s rejection of the parental dictates and choice of behaviors and attitudes contrary to the parental instruction -- this choice, still is determined by the parents’ standards. The child continues to require the parents attention and approval, however, as these initial attempts at autonomy are tentative and constructive only as the significant interpersonal environment provides adequate support and nurturance. Thus, we have a recapitulation of the trust versus mistrust phenomenon which Erickson outlined. Correspondingly, the individual at this stage of faith development continues to rely upon the authority of others (including institutions) to determine how to behave. If stage 3 explains the underlying faith developmental factors of the extrinsic group, stage 4 may best characterize the indiscriminate pro- or anti-religious person. The Individuative-Reflective faith stage is characterized by a striving toward identity formation. The self, previously sustained in its identity and faith compositions by an interpersonal circle of significant others, now claims an identity no longer defined by the composite of one’s roles or meanings to others. To sustain that new identity, it composes a meaning frame conscious of its own boundaries and inner connections and aware of itself 92 as a ‘world view.’ Self (identity) and outlook (world view) are differentiated from those of others and become acknowledged factors in the reactions, interpretations, and judgments one makes on the actions of the self and others (Fowler, 1982, p.189). Fowler points out that the danger which inheres in this stage is similar to the dangers of identity formation encountered during adolescence. This is the danger of over assimilating the perspectives of idealized others (peers or parents) into one’s own identity. It may also involve an overdetermined renunciation of the views of the parents or the culture at large. The religious parallel of this phenomenon is the indiscriminately pro- and anti-religious phenomenon. The indiscriminately pro-religious individual may have come to this stance as he or she surrenders to the powerful value determiners (parents and culture) of their early lives. Conversely the indiscriminately anti-religious may have come to their stance by active rebellion against parental and cultural authority and values. In either case, the issue seems to turn upon the apparent extremity of the viewpoint (e.g., religious zealots or crusading atheists). Stage 5, Conjunctive faith, is characterized by an opening to the voices of one’s "deeper self". The focus of this stage of development is upon orienting oneself to the world via one’s personal truths. There is at once an embracing of the highly unique aspects of one’s personal history, and an acceptance of the personal truth of others who may be from a radically different orientation. What the previous stage struggled to clarify in terms of boundaries of self and outlook, this stage now makes porous and permeable. Alive to paradox and the truth in apparent contradictions, this stage strives to unify opposites in mind 93 and experience. It generates and maintains vulnerability to the strange truths of those who are 'others’ (Fowler, 1982, p.191). Thus we have in this conceptualization, the beginning of the attempt to deal with contradictions and paradoxes, both intrapersonally and interpersonally. The results of the successful negotiation of these developmental tasks may be seen in the personality characteristics found in this research to be associated with intrinsic orientation: complexity, breadth of interest, and energy level. These stages of faith development are analogous to the stages of development outlined by Erickson, Kohlberg, and Loevinger. The specific tasks of these stages, as related to faith, are dependent upon the attainment of certain developmental levels in general. Therefore, just as these stages are specialized cases of general personality development, the religious orientation dimensions may be specialized examples of more general personality functioning. Conversion The research findings about religious conversion are varied. Though many investigations of religious conversion experiences have focused upon the psychological dimensions of this phenomenon, there have been some investigations focusing upon the relationship between religious conversion and religious orientation and (more broadly) religiosity (Glock & Stark, 1965). However, the distinctions between these terms must be made clear. Religiosity, in this research, is taken to include all aspects of an individual’s religious life: affiliation, participation, history, orientation, conversion. Religious orientation refers specifically to the intrinsic/extrinsic 93 and experience. It generates and maintains vulnerability to the strange truths of those who are 'others’ (Fowler, 1982, p.191). Thus we have in this conceptualization, the beginning of the attempt to deal with contradictions and paradoxes, both intrapersonally and interpersonally. The results of the successful negotiation of these developmental tasks may be seen in the personality characteristics found in this research to be associated with intrinsic orientation: complexity, breadth of interest, and energy level. These stages of faith development are analogous to the stages of development outlined by Erickson, Kohlberg, and Loevinger. The specific tasks of these stages, as related to faith, are dependent upon the attainment of certain developmental levels in general. Therefore, just as these stages are specialized cases of general personality development, the religious orientation dimensions may be specialized examples of more general personality functioning. Conversion The research findings about religious conversion are varied. Though many investigations of religious conversion experiences have focused upon the psychological dimensions of this phenomenon, there have been some investigations focusing upon the relationship between religious conversion and religious orientation and (more broadly) religiosity (Glock & Stark, 1965). However, the distinctions between these terms must be made clear. Religiosity, in this research, is taken to include all aspects of an individual’s religious life: affiliation, participation, history, orientation, conversion. Religious orientation refers specifically to the intrinsic/extrinsic 94 dimensions. Religious conversion refers to how an individual arrived at the current position regarding religion -- gradually or suddenly. Studies of conversion have been attempting to grapple with the value or health of varieties of religious experiences for many years. Since the establishment and proliferation of the psychoanalytic perspective, some theorists have considered sudden conversion to be a pathological phenomenon (Salzman, 1953). According to some psychoanalytic psychologists, conversion is to be understood to involve regression to an earlier ego state involving loss of sense of self and union with the One who is the source of life. This regression is instigated by a sense of overwhelming guilt or anxiety for which there is no other solution. Therefore, as a last resort, the individual relinquishes hold upon the ego and attempts redintegration of the oceanic feeling of early infancy. In the psychoanalytic view, the loss of ego integrity is pathological and an invalid solution to the problem of guilt and anxiety. Essentially, this view suggests that the giving up of oneself is an unacceptable method of managing overwhelming anxiety. Hood suggests that this explanation is not sufficient to understand conversion. He argues that the understanding of conversion as pathological regression is fundamentally flawed as only a strong ego can be relinquished nonpathologically. One may clearly see that in both of these arguments there is an underlying assumption concerning the value of the religious conversion experience -- that sudden conversion is not by definition pathological. Perhaps the best known proponent of the view is William James. He understands the 95 psychological underpinnings of religious sentiment to be varied, ranging from the sick—minded to the healthy- minded. Indeed, for some, religious conversion is a viable method for securing a vital relationship with what is felt by the individual as God. Clarification of this issue involves examining the relationship between conversion religious orientation and personality. Intrinsic religious orientation is assumed to be associated with strong ego functioning. Extrinsic religious orientation may be associated with weaker ego functioning because of the previously discussed attributes (e.g., anxiety and conformity) of the extrinsically oriented individual. There is no evidence of significant difference between sudden conversion and gradual conversion on the religious orientation dimension in this study. Perhaps the theorists subscribing to a pathological view of conversion have overlooked some of the facets of the conversion experience. Certainly, there are conversion experiences which are based upon fragile attempts to bind unbearable anxiety; however, this is apparently not the entire story. There are those for whom conversion is an experience involving head and heart. Indeed, there is an emotional experience associated with conversion; however, there may also be an intentional, well reasoned, internally based conviction as to the veridicality of the claims set forth by the particular faith tradition. These persons maintain their autonomy and sense of control and view their conversion as the beginning of a partnership rather than a regressive union. 96 Howard Thurman (1977) presents a uniquely insightful perspective on the conversion phenomenon, bearing out the foregoing argument. He states: It [conversion] is an...ingathering of all of the phases of one’s being, a creative summary of the individual’s life, it is a saturation of the self with the mood and integrity of assent [intentionality]. Something total within the individual says yes. It is a unanimous vote and not a mere plurality. It is the yielding of mind, yet more than mind, it is the agreement of the self, expressed in an act of will, yet more than will, it is the sensation of all the feeling tones, yet more than emotions. The act of commitment may pinpoint a certain moment in time, or a certain encounter in given circumstances, or a place, or an act of decision that stands out boldly on the horizon of all one’s days, the roots spread out in all dimensions of living. Despite the fact that I have pinpointed a definite moment of crisis as characteristic of the act of commitment, this is not always the case. The yielding of the center of consent may be a silent, slow development in the life. The transformation may be so gradual that it passes unnoticed until, one day, everything is seen as different. Somewhere along the road a turn has been taken, a turn so simply a part of the landscape that it did not seem like a change in direction at all. There has been a slow invasion of the Spirit of God that marked no place or time. In meeting the conditions necessary for eternal life to occur, the temperament of the individual, the particular religious customs by which his/her life is nurtured, and the dominant notions of the time will all have a part (Ppo22-26). Thurman’s view of healthy conversion clearly involves intellect and will, uncomplicated by unconscious anxieties and dispositions. While this understanding may appear simplistic to the professional psychologist, it offers a thought-provoking analysis of the phenomenon of conversion without a priori assumptions about its relative value. Carl Jung’s perspective embodies essentially the same theme as the foregoing. He begins within the individual, whereas Thurman begins without. Rollins (1983) states: 97 Whatever the human’s wholeness, or the Self, may mean per se, empirically it is an image of the god of life, spontaneously produced by the unconscious, irrespective of the wishes and fears of the conscious mind. It stands for the goal of the total person, for the realization of the person’s wholeness and individuality with or without the consent of the will (p. 16). The dynamic of this process is instinct, which ensures that everything which belongs to an individual’s life shall enter into it, whether she or he consents or not, or is conscious of what is happening or not. Though Jung and Thurman differ in fundamental ways concerning the etiology of the conversion experience, they both contend that the quest for wholeness is the ultimate goal of the human spirit, and this wholeness may be mediated by religion. The theoretical underpinnings of "healthy-minded" conversion notwithstanding, Allport and Ross (1967) advance a more readily observable explanation for the understanding of sudden conversion as a viable method of adjustment and change for this population. They argue that many college students who consider themselves religious (in contrast to middle-aged church goers who are usually the subjects of conversion research) by the time of matriculation, have had opportunity for more systematic and critical examination of their religious beliefs than persons who have not attended college. The latter group is more likely to be involved in religious systems which create guilt or other anxieties to precipitate the birth pangs of religious faith. Therefore, the type of religious conversion differences postulated for those who report a conversion experience may be washed out by the educational factor. 98 Though the differences in this study between sudden and gradual converts on the religious orientation dimensions were nil, there were significant differences on the personality scales. Four scales were significantly higher for sudden converts to religion than for gradual converts to religion: complexity, interpersonal affect, tolerance, and value orthodoxy. Conceptually, the definitions of these scales would suggest that these attributes are more likely among gradual converts. In order to embrace a religious ideology as a sudden convert, one must be open to the ideas and images presented by that religious ideology. Some may understand this as susceptibility to new ideas due to overwhelming anxiety; however, this may also be understood as flexibility and open-mindedness (aspects of the complexity factor according to Jackson) which are a mark of maturity (Allport, 1950). The mature religious orientation is seen as involving a continual search for more light on religious questions (Batson & Prince, 1983). Therefore, if one considers the personality factors of complexity, interpersonal affect, and tolerance, it is clear that these factors are necessary for persons who would be open to the conversion experience. The presence of the interpersonal affect factor among sudden converts is theoretically consistent with notions regarding the interpersonal aspects of the sudden conversion phenomenon. Salzman (1966) found that sudden converts were characterized by high dependency needs. This is similar to Jackson’s description of the high scorer on the interpersonal affect scale as one who values close emotional ties. Sudden conversion frequently occurs with others present, and the power of the interpersonal dimension of the experience should not be 99 underestimated (Wimberly, 1985). The encouragement from others in the community to join with them in "crossing from darkness to light" is a powerful element in the persuasion process. An interpersonally coercive atmosphere may be the final catalyst needed to overcome the potential hesitance of a new convert. Once the confession has been made, the individual is received into the local fellowship. At this point, Kahoe and Meadow (1981) argue that "an active church social group dissipates a new convert’s worldly loneliness, and also provides an attachment to the church" (p.9). They go on to suggest that teaching about an after life of bliss soothes existential anxieties of the threat of non-existence and gives support to the system that espouses such a promise. This acceptance, for those unaccustomed to being accepted, or those with high interpersonal needs, is a powerful attracting and holding force (Hoffer, 1951). The interpersonal affect personality factor goes hand-in-hand with the personality factor of tolerance. An individual who highly values close emotional relationships with others is also likely to be tolerant of others. An integral part of this factor of tolerance according to Jackson, is receptivity. This factor is Obviously of importance in the life of the sudden convert to religion as it requires a degree of receptivity to the message as a precursor to the sudden conversion experience. Previous research has shown high suggestibility among the sudden converts (Coe, 1900; Kildahl, 1965). Interestingly, the anxiety scale did not have significant relationship to suddenness of conversion. This suggests that, by and large, individuals who experience sudden conversion are not 100 significantly more anxious than others. It is difficult to determine the reason for this result as other research has clearly indicated a relationship between sudden conversion and anxiety (Salzman, 1953; Spellman, Baskett & Byrne, 1971). Certainly this could be an artifact of the particular sample involved in this research. The majority of respondents are late adolescent age, a phase particularly noted for its psychological upheavals and change. The normative range of this measure of anxiety may not be comparable to the normative range of other measures of anxiety standardized on an older population (e.g. the MMPI). The age range of the normative sample for the JPI measures was also late adolescence. Much of the research supporting this notion of high anxiety accompanying sudden conversion has involved older subjects, or employed measures of anxiety normed on a sample of a different age group (Kildahl, 1965; Wilson & Miller, 1968). Another possible explanation for this result may be that the current subjects have now achieved a certain degree of distance from the precipitant of the conversion experience. Therefore, they may no longer experience the same anxiety which originally motivated the conversion experience. It should also be noted that Salzman’s subjects were in therapy therefore they may have been experiencing greater anxiety and distress in their lives than persons who are not in therapy. It should not be assumed erroneously that sudden converts are "given" to a greater degree of anxiety than others. The fact that anxiety abates as the crisis situation is resolved, is a common psychological phenomenon, and may be a factor in the current findings. Paloutzian (1981) has found 101 evidence of changes within the convert which may be attributed to the passage of time. A final note regarding the relationship of the personality scales to the sudden/gradual conversion discussion must be added. The only scale which deviated significantly from the normative sample for sudden converts was interpersonal affect.- This scale score for sudden converts was higher. High scorers on this scale have a tendency to value close emotional ties. The experience of an accepting, loving community such as many religious organizations attempt to create, could be very attractive to these individuals. Conversion and Changg One aspect of religious conversion which commands much attention when it occurs is the resultant change in the individual convert (Scroggs & Douglas, 1976). Religious history is replete with stories of persons who have led dramatically different lives since their conversion. A recent example of this phenomenon is Chuck Colson who, prior to conversion, was one of the Watergate conspirators, and now travels the country preaching the message of new life in Jesus Christ. Obviously, there occurred a significant change in this man’s life. The following hypotheses were intended to explore the nature of this change. Hypothesis 5 states that people with intrinsic religious orientation will report greater attitudinal change than people with extrinsic religious orientation. One should note here the specification of attitudinal change. The intention is to distinguish between attitudinal change and behavioral change. Rokeach (1973) has 102 pointed out that the embracing of value systems (attitude change) may not always involve consequent behavioral change. Therefore, this hypothesis intends to explicate one aspect of change. Hypothesis 6 examines the relationship between suddenness of conversion and behavior change. This hypothesis was based upon the notion that sudden conversion frequently involved radical attempts to deal with a radical problem, thereby involving radical changes in the individual’s life (Spellman, Baskett & Byrne, 1971; Clark, 1968). Alternatively, gradual conversion is assumed to involve more rational, deliberate gradual change, an experience that may best be captured as "I hardly noticed the change." The results did not confirm either of these hypotheses. No attitudinal or behavioral differences were found between intrinsics and extrinsics, or betweem sudden and gradual converts. The first problem which one must address in consideration of these results is the instrument reliability. Though all of the measures in this research were self-report measures, some of these measures present greater methodological difficulties than others. The measures of change may be of particular difficulty. One subject may report little change while another subject may report a great deal of change based upon the same Observable phenomenon. A more accurate measure of change requires that one establish a baseline against which to measure the change. Further, attitudes and behaviors associated with religiosity in one individual, may not be considered religious by another individual. Ideally, specific attitudes and behaviors could be listed and respondents instructed whether or not they consider the 103 attitudes or behaviors relevant to religion or not. Therefore, much greater precision than in this study is required to accurately assess change. There may, however, be inferences drawn from the current results. The experience of change is related to both one’s sense of distance from the ideals of the faith, and the nature of the change inducing agent. The vast majority of the subjects were from mainline American Protestant organizations. Further, this country’s system of laws is based upon a Judeo-Christian ethic. Therefore, the discrepancy between one’s behavior before religious conversion and after may be small if one’s pre-conversion behavior adhered closely to the cultural norms. Thus, for gradual converts, the subjective experience of change may indeed be small as they presumably adhered to cultural norms. Also, in the case of gradual converts, it may be suggested that their pre—conversion behavior gradually conformed to meet the standards of the particular faith tradition to which they were destined. The expectation that sudden converts would report greater behavioral change was due to the crisis oriented nature of sudden conversion experiences (Sarbin & Adler, 1979). However, within a culture in which the social norms are based upon religious themes, the lack of reported change between sudden and gradual converts may be understood. The vast majority of research has focused upon conversion 29 religion. Little emphasis has been placed upon the opposite phenomenon, conversion £299 religion. This research also examined conversion from religion. The convert to religion predictably scored 104 higher on the value orthodoxy scale than the convert from religion. This individual is sensitive to, and.deems important, the more traditional values of a Judeo-Christian society. Obviously, the I convert from religion would not be inclined to this same degree of value orthodoxy. There was also a significant difference between sudden and gradual converts £299 religion. Gradual converts scored significantly higher on the self esteem dimension than sudden converts. The assumption here is that these individual’s images of God were punitive and self—negating resulting in lowered self-esteem. As their religious sentiment waned, their self-esteem increased. This is in direct opposition to what is expected as a result of religious sentiment. The writer presented, in an earlier chapter, an argument that religion should have a positive effect upon purpose-in-living. Logically following from this, religion should also have a positive impact upon one’s self-esteem. What may account for this puzzling result tjat converts £299 religion were higher in self-esteem than converts 29 religion? One explanation may be the particular manifestation of religion from which these individuals converted. Some religious systems involve profound self—negation and self-derogation. They promote a sense of intractable guilt and inevitable judgment. They also set standards which are essentially impossible to meet. It is understandable therefore, that individuals converting from these types of religious systems may experience increased self-esteem. 105 The finding of higher self-esteem among gradual converts from religion than among 999999 converts from religion may also be understood. One must consider what is required in the process of. renunciation of a previously organizing principle. The convert from religion has experienced just such a renunciation. Dynamic psychology has informed us that the loss of any "grounding" aspect of our lives may result in significant anxiety and sense of loss of control. This loss of control is directly opposed to a sense of self—esteem which directly implies self-efficacy and control. A sudden relinquishment of this grounding may result in significant loss of self-esteem unless this is quickly replaced by some other organizing principle. Alternatively, gradual relinquishment of one’s religious orientation may give opportunity for redintegration of one’s self-esteem by grounding oneself in rational thinking or secular philosophy. Religion involves questions of extreme importance to human beings. Questions of self worth, the meaning of existence, the nature of death, etc. Children raised within a religious tradition are particularly vulnerable to internalizing the religious prescriptions taught them by their parents. Renunciation of these tenets of a particular faith tradition may be fraught with psychological pitfalls which may be manifest in such conditions as severe depression or low self-esteem. Sudden rejection of these inculcated values may certainly pose some difficulties for post—conversion adjustment. Therefore, gradual converts from religion could be expected to manifest higher self-esteem than sudden converts from religion. 106 Also, gradual converts from religion have had opportunity to systematically and critically examine their faith tradition. Those aspects which were inhibiting, punitive, and self-negating may be. systematically dismantled and replaced with more self—accepting (though perhaps secular) perspectives. One of the ironies of such punitive self—negating systems is the degree of dependency engendered within the individual -- dependency upon adherence to the system, for personal reinforcement. Relinquishing this type of system would, of necessity, require careful thorough reconstruction of a belief system in order to avoid disastrous psychological ramifications. This understanding may have important ramifications for religious training. The unwillingness of some religious traditions to tolerate questioning and scrutiny may, in fact, result in a religion which assaults self—esteem rather than enhances self—esteem. An additional point of clarification should be made regarding the conversion phenomenon. Conversion has long been considered synonymous with change. However, the point must be made that for many persons, the conversion experience is not a matter of change in attitude (beliefs) regarding the tenets of the faith tradition. Rather, conversion may involve a change in one’s attitude toward oneself as a consequence of the conversion experience. For example, "I am now "saved"; therefore, that which I previously believed is now not only a cognitive reality apart from any particular relevance to me, but has now become supremely relevant in my life. I have always believed in God and God’s presence in the lives of others; now She or He is present in my life and my experience of myself is different, due to this new 107 sense of relatedness to the Divine." The author suggests that few conversions involve radical shifts in beliefs, but rather a "surrender" of the "nerve center of consent" to the belief system. Belief and attitude formation and change is a complex process involving the attitude of the bearer and attributions upon the claimant (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Therefore, truly radical shifts in the belief structure of individuals is not the case in typical religious conversion. Rather, the author suggests that the standards of the faith to which the individual converts, were resident in the individual prior to conversion and may be manifest as guilt feelings when these standards are violated. Consequently, one sees the release from guilt which attends many conversion experiences (Scroggs & Douglas, 1976). The measurement of post conversion changes is peculiarly difficult in a society which secularizes religious values and socializes its members accordingly. Therefore, excepting radical groups which call for renunciation of generally accepted ways of living (e.g., Hare Krishna), attitudinal or behavioral change may not be pronounced. One is, therefore, thrust back into the position proposed earlier in this writing. The assessment of one’s attitude toward their own existence is perhaps the central issue in examining the role of religion in the life of the individual. Purpose-In—Living The purpose-in-living concept grew out of Victor Frankl’s theory about will to meaning. He states that: It is my conviction that man should not struggle for identity in a direct way; but, rather, he finds identity to the extent to which he commits himself to something beyond himself; to a cause greater than himself. 108 This definition clearly implies a capacity for creativity and dedication in an individual. One who would attain a strong sense of meaning in life must be able to 1) delay gratification, 2) maintain focus upon a goal however obscure, and 3) have a firm sense of self. The results confirmed a relationship between personality factors and purpose-in-living. Indeed, the relationship between the personality scales and purpose-in-living was quite strong. The implications of this finding are that one’s personality plays a decisive role in the degree to which one experiences life as meaningful (and vice versa). Do the personality factors found to be significant in this research determine an individual’s sense of meaning? Does meaningful living shape personality characteristics? The implications of these questions will be examined later. The particular scales of the JPI which highly related to purpose- in—life were: energy level, organization, innovation and social participation. All of these factors by definition would be an important part of an individual’s sense of well being and security. Persons possessing these traits would be described as active, creative industrious, disciplined, consistent, self-assured, self-sufficient, honest, conscientious, and stable. These attributes are indicative of persons who are well adjusted and satisfied. I am not speaking here of complacency, however. Maturation involves a settledness along with openness to change. Change requires assimilation of new ideas and feelings. Assimilation and accommodation require expansion yet stability. Intrapsychically, this stability is afforded by a healthy self—respect and self-esteem. Yet, the capacity for expansion is based 109 upon the amount of energy one has available for change, the effectiveness of one’s organizational skills, and the degree of support provided by the environment. Frankl’s concept of will to meaning suggests that an individual is ever evolving, growing, expanding, and that one does not arrive at a destination, but, rather, continuously strives for further realization of one’s raison d’etre. Thus, the goal for humanity is not human fulfillment, or peak experiences, but rather, transcendent living, living for a cause greater than oneself. Howard Thurman, in discussing the discipline of commitment, states this idea in the following manner: Where the conditions for the release of vitality are met, the vitality becomes available, and this is automatic...when a seed is planted in the soil, if the seed is healthy, and the conditions of the soil and climate generally satisfactory, then it sprouts. Life becomes manifest. There seems to be available to the seed, at a point in time, all of the energy and vitality it can accommodate in its unfolding. It should follow then that if the conditions are not met, the energy is not available. There is discipline (responsibility) at work here (1977, p. 15). The Apostle Paul of the Christian tradition captured this sentiment of transcendent living also: But whatever was to my profit, I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost everything. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ... (Phillipians 3:7, King James Version). Hinduism exemplifies this theme as explained by Smith (1958): ...the point of life is to transcend the smallness of the finite self. This can be done either by shifting the center of interest and affection to a personal god experienced as distinct from oneself or by identifying oneself with the impersonal Absolute that resides at the core of one’s being. Every deed I do for the sake of my own private welfare adds another coating to the ego and in thus thickening it, insulates it further from God within and without. 110 Correlatively, every act done without thought of self diminishes self- centeredness until finally no barrier remains to cloud one from the divine (p.46). According to Maslow, as the individual grows and develops, she or he progresses from primary concern with viscerogenic needs and desires such as food and shelter, through social and esteem needs, and becomes concerned about what may fulfill his or her own unique potential. If these self—actualizing needs are met (which is rare), the individual can be said to have begun to embrace the self. Unfortunately, this concern with self-actualizing has been considered the domain of the philosopher, particularly since the advent of the study of philosophy in academic settings. Wyatt (1982) has suggested, however, that before academia usurped this area of philosophy, persons were continuously aware of the relationship of their choices to their existential adjustment. Perhaps religion serves to return this concern with existential adjustment to the common man or woman. Some may argue that this dedication to something greater than oneself is ultimately injurious to one’s sense of self, and may lead to a loss of the self as one encounters in the phenomenon of cult membership. However, the underlying assumption of the foregoing conception is that there must be a "self" established before one may transcend the self. Cult susceptibility involves the individual’s inability to establish a sense of self and the group is used as a substitute identity for the individual (Hoffer, 1951), much as we see in adolescent group behavior. Frankl is very clear in his criticism of the theoretical schools of Freud, Jung, and the hierarchy proposed by Maslow. He feels that 111 each system supplements the other; however, they are all fundamentally flawed. Within each system, the emphasis is to attain all that is within the capacity of the self to attain, whereas Frankl argues that in order to achieve meaning in life, one must strive to transcend the limitations of the self. This criticism may not be fair; it is apparent that in order to take on the tasks of logotherapy, one must have attained a certain level of development. As has been mentioned previously, one cannot transcend the self before the self is consolidated. This consolidation is a developmental process and transcendence may not occur until certain developmental tasks are accomplished. Erickson’s developmental scheme sheds light on this issue. Erickson outlines eight stages of development in the life cycle of the person. He goes beyond the psychosexual stages of Freud, more explicitly details the developmental stages of Jung, and provides a more comprehensive basis for understanding Maslow’s hierarchy. Erickson’s stage five -- identity versus identity confusion -- must be achieved before one may pursue Frankl’s will to meaning. The results of this research are directly related to the issues outlined by Erickson in this stage. Erickson (1982) cites identity issues such as capacity for purposeful activity and formation of one’s personal ideology. These issues bear strong resemblance to the factors described by the JPI scales: energy level, organization and innovation. Erickson outlines the relationship of his concept of identity to the concept of the self as follows: 112 A pervasive sense of identity brings into gradual accord the variety of changing self images that have been experienced during childhood...and the role opportunities offering themselves to young persons for selection and commitment. On the other hand, a lasting sense of self cannot exist without a continuous experience of a conscious 'I’ which is the numinous center of existence, a kind of existential identity then, which in the [final analysis] must gradually transcend the psychosocial one. Therefore, adolescence harbors some sensitive, if fleeting, sense of existence as well as sometimes passionate interest in ideological values of all kinds; religious, political and intellectual (p.73). It is important to note that, in the midst of the discussion about transcendence upon which the purpose-in—living inventory is built, the personality variables found to be associated with purpose-in—living are important in successful practical daily pursuits. It is important that an individual who is to be successful at living be active, capable of sustained periods of intense work (energy level), balanced (social participation), disciplined (organization) and creative (innovation). It is unfortunate that the focus of these attributes in this culture is primarily toward external accomplishments (prestigious jobs, etc.). Consider the tremendous salary discrepancies between Wall Street businessmen and teachers. These findings suggest that the inculcation of the success ethic (discipline, responsibility, confidence) may also be fruitfully directed toward the enrichment of one’s internal life. It may be equally important for an individual to be disciplined in personal commitment to greater self-awareness as well as to greater job security. Frankl carefully avoids associating the quest for meaning with religious sentiment because religion may or may not function as an aid to an individual in this regard. we have previously discussed the possible debilitating effects of some religious traditions. However, 113 the lack of recognition of the role religion may play in facilitating the attainment of transcendence is unfortunate. Certainly, there are those for whom religion is a destructive trend in their lives. However, the kinds of concerns which religion attempts to address may be effective in engendering the kind of experiencing which may move a person toward meaning. The findings of this research suggest that religion may be instrumental in achieving a greater sense of purpose-in—living. It appears that the issue here is the type of religious orientation of the individual. Those who are extrinsically oriented may not find their religion useful in aiding their sense of purpose-in-life. Extrinsic religion is not the master motive of their life. This is not to say that these individuals may not derive purpose-in-life from other pursuits. Those persons who are intrinsically oriented in their religious sentiment do possess greater sense of purpose-in—life. Therefore, Frankl’s attempt to carefully avoid any religious implications in his concept may be understood. Because of the variety of religious experiences, one may not say that religion in general is an aid to meaningful living. As has been mentioned in another context, religion may be punitive and self-effacing; therefore, it obviously would not contribute to a healthy life style. Religion, which may be internalized and experienced in harmony with the self, may certainly aid in the achievement of a meaningful life. Conclusion This research has attempted to examine a nunber of factors relating to individuals and their religion. The aim has been to 114 examine religion critically, sensitively, and objectively. The results may provide useful information for those persons interested in the relationship between religion and life. They also provide indicators for the direction of future research. An initial observation which may be made from this work is that religious sentiment is inextricably linked to the total personality. Religious sentiment is not "resident" in some sacred part of the psyche -- functioning solely in "religious" contexts. Nor does it possess characteristics which are totally distinct from the personality as a whole, transforming the individual into a "new creature" when it (religious sentiment), is in operation. Rather, religious sentiment finds expression through the personality of the individual. Yet, beyond specific personality characteristics, religious sentiment provides a sense of purpose and meaning to life. Because religion attempts to address questions of ultimate or final significance, it was argued earlier that the relative efficacy of religion may best be evaluated with respect to religion’s primary purpose. Therefore, the research included an evaluation of the relationship of religious orientation to one’s sense of purpose—in- life. The positive relationship between religious orientation and purpose-in-life was clearly demonstrated. Therefore, one may argue that religion may be instrumental in facilitating a greater sense of purpose-in-life; however, it may also be instrumental in creating a poor self-concept. Further research must attempt to ferret out these issues. A major factor in this finding may be the type of religion to which one is exposed or by which one is influenced. It is time that 115 persons in religion and persons in the helping professions grapple with the specific doctrines set forth in religious traditions (such as the doctrine of sin or the original depravity of humankind). These doctrines must be evaluated in regards to their impact upon the emotional well-being of their adherents. Therefore, the remainder of these comments will be addressed to those persons engaged in the therapeutic enterprise. The secular psychologist may be informed by these results in their approach to the therapeutic enterprise. The value-laden and highly personalized aspects of religious sentiment may render this sUbject unapproachable to the therapist. Therefore, the individual may be regarded as if self—understanding about religion is irrelevant. This may result in the very compartmentalization of the personality which the therapist is attempting to undo. This may also disallow the person access to her or his (perhaps dormant) religious sentiment as an aid to securing greater purpose-in-living. The secular therapist may best approach religion as to its role in the total functioning of the individual. Does the individual’s religious sentiment or behavior manifest some prOblem which could be addressed by the therapist? Is the patient’s discomfort in living a problem of an existential nature, which may be effectively dealt with by uncovering religious sentiment? This problematic aspect of the personality may only be assessed by way of an examination of the individual’s religious sentiment. Failure to do so may result in an inability to remedy the suffering of some individuals. 116 Further, the secular therapist must have an awareness of those aspects of the personality associated with a greater sense of well being and existential contentment. The current research indicates that these factors may include religious sentiment. Ignoring this may result in an incomplete explication of those factors of an individual’s life which may enhance sense of well being. One involved in the therapeutic enterprise must also suspend a possible "scientific bias" involving the "knowability," objectification, certitude, or truth, of religious ideas. Roberts (1966) points to Pascals "reasons of the heart" as rebuttal to this insistence upon "scientific rigor." He observes: The heart as Pascal uses it, is conceived as being at the center of the human personality. The heart includes thought, feeling, and will, and represents the whole personality in its innermost being. It integrates every energy in the service of a cause to which one owes allegiance. Reason cannot command our complete loyalty, and thus ultimate things are known by the heart. Pascal does not mean that faith is merely a matter of feeling. Intuition surpasses reason in its ability to grasp truth as a whole. The heart does not effect proofs, but grasps their significance and effects their synthesis. Reason is full of contradictions and in the end must surrender to a higher type of knowledge (p.21). Ultimately, the therapist is required to embrace the "reasons of the heart" proffered by the religious individual. Once this acceptance of the religious individual’s viewpoint is established, the therapist may critically examine and evaluate the role which the religious sentiment may play in the life of the individual. Beyond tacit acknowledgment, tolerance, or acceptance of religious sentiment, the secular therapist may be encouraged to seek to uncover clients’ religious sentiment. Granted, the sentiment may not be present for all persons (recall broadened definition of religion 117 cited earlier in this writing); however, it may be operating within the personality, without the benefit of identification or explication. Uncovering of such sentiment may be of great assistance in bringing persons to wholeness. The lack of corresponding religious sentiment in the therapist, or the professional decision to suspend such sentiment (as far as is possible) when working with clients, should not be a determining factor in how effectively the therapist may assist the individual in constructively using their religion. The focus here is not upon objectively verifiable, consensually validated "truth." Rather, the focus is upon a comprehensive wholistic approach to the development of human beings. Therefore, the therapist may enter into the client’s reality, working from within to unify the disparate elements of the personality. The current research suggests that religious sentiment is "tough" enough to withstand this type of scrutiny. These results may also be informative to the "religiously oriented" therapist, working with religious or non-religious clients. The religiously oriented therapist may experience the urge to bring the client to similar religious views as the therapist’s. I am not speaking here necessarily of doctrinal similarity. Rather, I am speaking of similarity in function. Religious sentiment may function for the religiously oriented therapist as an enhancement of their self—esteem. However, the religion of some clients may function to lessen self-esteem. Therefore, it may be necessary for some persons to go through a process of renunciation of their religious views in order to arrive at a more constructive view of themselves. This process must 118 be respected and indeed encouraged where appropriate. The religiously oriented therapist must not assume that religion is the ultimate source of internal stability and psychological well-being for everyone. .These results clearly inform us that certain "types" of religious sentiment may be associated with maladaptive patterns of thinking and behaving. Religious sentiment is in part a function of personality characteristics and will be shaped by these characteristics. Therefore, the goal for the religiously oriented therapist must be exploration of personality factors giving rise to maladaptive behavior patterns —— including religious behavior. A religiously oriented therapist working with a religious client may be particularly vulnerable to a myopic view of the client’s problems. Objective exploration of the religious sentiment may be viewed as inappropriate as the therapist fears he or she is treading upon "holy" ground. These results indicate, however, that religious sentiment is inextricably bound up in the personality of the individual. One’s religious sentiment will manifest, in part, the underlying personality characteristics of the individual. Therefore, exploration of the religious sentiment is as valid and necessary as exploration of any other facet of the client’s life as it relates to overall well-being. The pastoral counselor may also benefit from the findings of this research. She or he, more than any other "counselor," is mandated to work specifically with the religious aspects of the client. Yet, the pastor is often confronted with prOblems which go far beyond concerns about religion. Indeed, this research suggests that many ostensibly 119 religious concerns may be rooted in more general aspects of personality functioning. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the pastoral counselor to be aware of when the concerns are indeed of greater scope than strictly religious concerns. The counselor may be wise to explore how religion functions for a particular individual. The issue may be —- as has been stated previously -- how personality factors are related to the construal and expression of religious ideas. This may point to a need for the pastoral counselor to be well trained in psychotherapy and personality development. This also points toward a need for awareness of religious issues as an aspect of wholistic approaches to treatment. The influence of attitudinal factors upon physical health has been clearly explicated (Cousins, 1979). Yet, the importance of religious concerns has been largely omitted. Carl Jung contributed a great deal to the understanding of the religious dimension of our existence. However, his work has been considered too esoteric for general consumption and application by the non-professional (and perhaps some professionals). Yet, the increase in the "misery index" (psychic discomfort leading to marital disruption, suicide, and drug abuse) clearly points toward a need for therapists to reevaluate the basic assumptions from which they work. Implications for Further Research Research implications are similarly broad. The association of religious sentiment with developmental level is of Obvious importance. First, consideration should be given to the work of Fowler and others regarding faith development and its relationship to psychological 120 development. Research findings should take into account the developmental stages of the subjects, and results must be interpreted in this light. The efficacy of religion for an adolescent in the midst of consolidation of their identity may be vastly different from the efficacy of religion for the individual approaching the senior years of life. Therefore, to approach the understanding of religion as if it is a unitary phenomenon, functioning similarly for all individuals, may be inaccurate. The basic assumption of the "goodness" or "badness" of religion is another factor that must be avoided in research involving religion. Though this insight is not new, it has been enhanced by the findings of the current research. Those who have approached religion as if it is a wholly separate unique aspect of the individual are in error. Religion has been found to be an integral part of the individuals personality, finding expression via more general personality characteristics. The researcher may now examine religious sentiment apart from its doctrinal particulars, relating it to personality characteristics and evaluating the efficacy of various religious experiences without assaulting the sacred contents of religious sentiment. The role of religion in existential satisfaction has also been established. Further research may involve more detailed examination of the relationship of religious ideas to existential adjustment. Those who view religion as important were found to have a greater sense of purpose-in-living than those who do not view religion as important. However, the specific contents of their religious sentiment were not explicated. 121 Also, the current research was unable to determine definitively the direction of the relationship between personality, existential satisfaction (PIL) and religious sentiment. Analysis of longitudinal data may provide insight into the direction of effect. Some questions which are raised by this research include the following: Do personality factors singularly shape the expression (and indeed the contents) of religious sentiment? Is this influence limited to individual expression or is it a factor in the shaping of denominational doctrines (consider the discussion by Erich Fromm of the protestant reformation movement)? Does the religious environment of an individual during the formative years shape personality characteristics, or adult expression of religious sentiment? Is one’s sense of purpose—in-living primarily a function of "growth-promoting" personality characteristics? Does one’s quest for meaning lead to religious sentiment, or does religious sentiment (defined broadly) engender meaning? This research has attempted to explicate some relationships between religion and existence. This new age of anxiety in which we currently live demands that those involved in the therapeutic enterprise be able to point the direction toward relief from this anxiety. we are currently confronting not only our own individual demise, as has been true throughout the ages -— death -- but we must now live with the ever-present prospect of the annihilation of humanity. This is indeed a much more ominous prospect existentially than our own individual demise, precisely because of the fact that, though individual death is inevitable, one may have a sense of 122 continuing life through their progeny or life’s work. Therefore, persons must learn to find meaning and purpose while facing potential individual as well as corporate non—being. Clinicians must offer more than simply amelioration of immediate discomfort; they must offer hope that meaning can be realized even in the face of the threat of the nuclear age. Religion was explored as a possible source of this ultimate meaning. Devotion to science has been deceptive. The science to which persons looked to provide increasing comfort and ease of living, has, in addition, made possible the termination of all being. Devotion to religious ideas may provide the fundamental assurance that that which is in ultimate control is oriented toward life rather than death. So our new mandate is to finally rekindle hope; hope that beyond scientific paradoxes, there can be meaning; hope that beyond doctrinal differences, there can be meaning; hope that beyond personality peculiarities, there can be meaning; indeed, perhaps even hope that beyond life, there is meaning. APPENDIXA DEPARTMENTAL CINSENT FORM APPENDIX A DEPARTMENTAL RESEARCH CONSENT FORM MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Department of Psychology I have freely consented to take part in a scientific study being conducted by: under the supervision of Academic Title: I agree to take part in the study on . I understand the study deals with and I have been given a clear explanation of my part in this work. I understand that I am free to discontinue my participation in the study at any time without penalty. I understand that the results of the study will be treated in strict confidence and that I will remain anonymous. Within these restrictions, results of the study will be made available to me at my request. I understand that my participation in the study does not guarantee any beneficial results to me. I understand that, at my request, I can receive additional explanation of the study after my participation is completed. Signed Title of Exper.: Date: 123 APPENDIXB JACKSON PERSONALITY INWY APPENDIX B JACKSON PERSONALITY INVENTORY Instructions to Participants This is a study of the relationship between personality and one’s attitude toward religion. Please be careful to keep materials in the same order you receive them in the packet. On the following pages you will find a series of statements which a person mught use to describe himself. Read each statement and decide whether or not it describes you. Then indicate your answer on the separate answer sheets. Please note there are two answer sheets enclosed. Record the ngber s_t_a_mp_e_d on your packet in the student number boxes on each answer sheet ggd blacken the appropriate spaces. If you agree with a statement or decide that it does describe you, answer TRUE. If you disagree with a statement or feel that it is not descriptive of you, answer FALSE. In marking your answers on the answer sheet, be sure that the number on the answer sheet corresponds to the number of the question. Agswer every statement either true or false, even if you are not completely sure of your answer. 124 1. 2. DJ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. N at m b o o a 125 Questignpaire Packet I am a calm, easy-going type of person. I would like to learn about the geography of foreign countries. If an artist is painting scenery, he should make his picture as accurate as possible. I am very sensitive to what other people think of me. Some days I am just too tired to do anything. I prefer work which requires original thinking. I prefer not to spend a lot of time worrying about a person-whose- condition can't be helped. I often have a task finished sooner than necessary. If I had a cold, it would not bother me to mix with other peOple. Hhen I.want something, I'll sometimes go out on a limb to get.it. I make a better follower than a leader. I often pretend to enjoy things which.I dislike when it suits my purpose. I only telephone friends when there is something important to discuss. I enjoy entertaining peOple of.variqus beliefs and nationalities. A person should be allowed to take his own life if the circumstances justify it. Of the pepple I know, I like some better than others. when I am waiting for anything, I usually get very anxious. I have only one or two real hobbies. Extremely simple problems bore me. 31. 32. 33. 35. 37. .3??? 41. 42. 43. 45. 126 I can't be bothered trying to find out what others think of me. I was a very active child. I would dislike having to think of new toys and games for children.. I would feel discouraged and unhappy if someone I know lost his job. Little things usually slip my mind. I contribute to charity regularly. I rarely make even small bets. I am usually quite confident when learning a new game or sport. ; don't change the way I act just to satisfy the person with whom I am ealing. My life would be miserable if I didn't know a lot of people. I think that people who readily change their beliefs just have no backbone. Some of the current fashions for women are too indecent to be worn in public. My musical compositions have been played in concert halls around the world. Something has to be very important before I worry much about it. Almost every section of the newspapers has something in it which interests me. I like people who are stable and easy to understand. In most situations, I usually agree with the opinions of the group. Sometimes I can't even find the energy to think. I am always seeking new ways to look at things. I don't really care if my friends follow my advice or not. I prefer to complete a task before resting, rather than taking a “break" in the middle. I am too busy to find time to help needy people. I would enjoy bluffing my way into an exclusive club or private party. I have never been a very popular person. I hold my personal feelings in check if they might interfere with my getting what I want from somene. It wouldn't bother me to go for days without seeing another person. 46. 47. 49. 50. 51. 52. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 127 Iizgrgly decide that I don't like someone after only one or two meetings w m. I often reject the beliefs that older people expect me to have. I have had at least one cold in my life. I get worried when I am expecting someone and he does not arrive on time. I am not interested in trying to keep up with recent developments in sc ence. . I enjoy involved discussions, even those that last for hours. when I want to purchase something, I rarely consider other people's opinion of it. I usually have Several projects going at once. I might be at a loss if I had to design a new book cover._ I am so sensitive to the moods of my friends that I can almost feel what they are feeling. I sometimes have trouble finding things when I need.them. If I accidentally scratched a parked car, I would try to find the owner to pay for the repairs. If I invested any money in stocks, it would probably only be in safe stocks from large, well-known companies. I rarely feel selfeconscious.in a strange group. I wpuld never try to appear less informed than I actually was about any top c. I enjoy group activities more than the things I do by.myself. I think it is best fbr a man to choose friends who agree with his general principles. My values mi ght seem a little old-fashioned by nodern standards. I have sometimes hesitated before making a decision. People have told me that I have very steady nerves. I usually look at a wide variety of different magazines each month. Most things are quite simple once you get to know about them. Before making a decision. I often worry whether others will approve of it. I have no more than an average amount of energy. Original ideas have occurred to me at almost any time of the day or night. 71. 72. 73. 74. ' 82. 83. 85. 87. 88. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 128 I try to keep my feelings toward people rather neutral. It is unusual for me to fall behind in my work. Sometimes it is too troublesome to do exactly what I promised I would do. If the possible reward was very high, I would not hesitate putting my money into a new business that could fail. I am not the type of person one remenbers after one meeting. I feel that I have a knack for getting the nest out of people. I like working where I won't be bothered by others. I like to get to know a person well before judging him. People should be allowed to take certain drugs if they enjoy it and harm no one else. I have sight in only one eye. Occasionally I feel so nervous that I begin to get all choked up. I prefer activities which I know I will enjoy to ones I have never tried. Modern music is so varied that there is something for each different mood I have. I believe in speaking'my mind. even if it offends others. I avoid spending ny time just sitting around resting. I do not have an especially vivid inegination. I would like to spend a great deal of my time helping less fortunate people. I prefer starting a new task without detailed plans. under no circumstances would I give incorrect testimony or evidence n court. iihen in school, I rarely took the chance of bluffing my way through an assignment. It is easy for me to strike up a conversation with someone. I would not enjoy a job in which I might have to be nice to people I did not like. I dislike eating alone. I get along best with people of my own nationality. Cheating and lying are always wrong, no matter what the situation. 1. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 129 I have no sense of taste at all. I rarely dwell on past mistakes. I maintain a lively interest in reading books on several different topics. I prefer dealing with problems which have clear-cut solutions. It makes me feel uncomfortable to be dressed differently from those around me. I don't have the necessary stamina to participate in long, involved discussions. I enjoy thinking of original plans on which to work. I think I could keep myself from worrying if a friend became ill. My time is too valuable to be wasted unnecessarily. I think it would be challenging to try to smuggle a small item into the country. PeOple have told me that I seem to enjoy taking chances. I am ill at ease when I am meeting new people. I enjoy trying to get people to do things without letting them know I' m doing it. I don't particularly like to be surrounded by a group of noisy people. I pay little attention to people who-behave in an unusual way. The discoveries of science may someday show that many of our most cherished beliefs are wrong. I have kept a pet monkey for years. I frequently worry about whether I am doing my work well. I could never become interested in the strange hobbies that some pe0ple have. I prefer drawings that require some study in order to be understood. I do not worry about what I say when out socially. I lead a busier life than most people. I obtain more satisfaction from mastering a skill than coming up with a new idea. I am often very sentimental where my friends are concerned. I can't be bothered making lists of all the things I have to do. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 132. 133. 134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141. 142. 143. 144. 145. 146. 130 If the conductor on a train forgot to take my ticket. I would tell him. Skindiving in the ocean would be much too dangerous fer me. I am seldom at a loss fbr words. When I want another person to do something for me, I usually ask him directly, rather than proceed by indirect means. when travelling alone, I enjoy engaging in conversation with strangers. Some people are just too narrow-minded to listen to the right.way to live. Our censorship laws have proven to be fer our own good. In my lifetime. I have eaten at least one meal in a restaurant. I usually solve any problems I may have and then forget them. There are very few topics that bore me. I like simple, clear art the best. I often wonder why some people get pleasure out of doing unconventional things. Some nights I don't even have the ambition to read the newspaper. People often ask me for help in creative activities. I don't waste my sympathy on people who have caused their own problems. I think a high degree of organization is important in anyone's life. If people choose to drink and drive, it is their own business. The thought of investing in stocks excites me. My behavior would be quite awkward if I had to apply for a loan from a bank. I have developed a talent fbr getting people to talk about themselves. I like spare time activities which allow me to get away from people. I find it refreshing to discuss my views with someone who strongly disagrees with me. People who will never get well should have the choice of being put to death painlessly. Some things don't turn out exactly as I plan them. I become upset when something interferes with my schedule. I prefer activities which are familiar to me. 157. 158. 159. 160. 161. 162. 163. 164. 165. 166. 167. 168. 169. 170. 171. 172. 131 I enjoy trying to figure out what a poet was-trying to sayiin‘his poem. I am not concerned about how many friends I have. I enjoy all kinds of vigorous hobbies. I don't really think of myself as a creative person. I am quite affectionate toward people.. I do not need a neat desk in order to work well. I am very careful not to litter public places.. I rarely, if ever, take risks when there is another alternative. I am considered a leader in my social circle. 1 I would never do a favor fer someone just to get something I wanted in return. ~ I get lonely when I am left by myself. I consider good table manners an important quality in my dinner guests. If I had to choose, I would prefer to live my life according to traditional values rather than the principles of science.. I have won trophies in professional golf tournaments. I am not a "high-strung" person. I enjoy listening to speeches on a wide variety of topics. I try to make everything as simple and easy as I can. My actions are goVerned by the way people expect me to behave. If the working day were cut in half, I might be able to get through it without becoming exhausted. I often surprise people with my novel ideas. I have no patience with someone who is just looking fer a shoulder to cry on. Befbre I start a task, I like to determine the most efficient‘way of doing it. If I could get away with it,vI would not pay taxes. I enjoy'taking risks. I often wish that I were more outgoing. without really trying, I find that I can stop peOple from arguing. 173. 174. 175. 176. 177. 178. 179. 180. 181. 182. 183. 184. 135., 186. 187. 188. 189. 190. 191. 192. 193. 194. 195. 196. 197. 132 I would prefer a quiet evening at home to attending a social event. If people continue to speak their native language after they have moved to this country, it is no concern of mine. Married people who no longer love each other should be given a divorce. I run five miles every day to keep healthy. Once in a while my stomach feels as if it were tied in knots. I would not care to see a motion picture about the life of the otter. The reasons that people do things are usually complex. I seldom concern myself with how other people dress. I am rarely too tired to read. I don't usually contribute many new ideas to a project. I tend to get strongly attached to people. I like to keep my work organized loosely, so that I am not tied down by elaborate plans. I would not even be tempted to collect unemployment insurance when I could be working. I would prefer a stable position with a moderate salary to one with a higher salary but less security. I enjoy stating my opinions in front of a group. I never try to guide the conversation toward certain topics. I would rather telephone a friend than read a magazine in my spare time. I can tell as soon as I meet someone whether I will like him or not. Young people would have fewer problems if they listened to their parents more. I eat imported cheeses with all my meals. I don't worry very much about the future. I I would enjoy hearing the details about discoveries in any field. I admire people who take a simple, uncomplicated view of life. It causes me a great deal of worry if I think that someone doesn't approve of something I have done. I am not an energetic person. 198. 199. 200. 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220. 221. 222. 223. 133 I often try to invent new uses fer everyday objects. I rarely get upset when someone else makes a fool of himself. I do not like to leave things until the last possible moment. I see no need for belonging to service clubs or community organizations. Taking risks does not bother me if the gains involved are high. I seem to do more listening than talking in conversations with others. I sometimes play various roles so that I appear in the best possible way to different people. I am not interested in knowing a great many people. Many of my friends-have quite different-political views. People should be able to refuse to fight fer their country without the fear of punishment. I can eat most foods without feeling ill. Once in a while, I get very upset about things that have happened in the past. 50 many speeches are about things which are not important to me. I always feel that I must look into all sides of a problem. I do what I please, not what others say I should do. I like to be constantly active. I like a job which demands skill and practice rather than inventiveness. I tend to get quite involved in other people's problems. I sometimes start to write letters without finishing them. Everyone should spend a part of his leisure time working on community, projects. ' I consider security an important element in every aspect of my life. People seem to be interested in getting to know me better. It is difficult for me to be polite to someone I do not respect. I like to meet as many new people as I can. a! can put up with certain types of peoole fer only short periods of time. Pepple today don't-have enough respectwar authority. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. 232. 233. 234. 235. 237. 238. 239. 240. 241. 242. 243. 244. 245. 246. 247. 248. 249. 134 I have made several trips overseas to study old ruins and rock formations. I am not a very excitable person. I would find almost any type of music enjoyable. I don't waste time thinking about problems that can't be solved. I am very concerned about my popularity. I sometimes feel as if I could sleep fbr a week. I would enjoy the chance to make up for plots fbr television programs. I never get too upset about other people's misfortunes. I seldom nisplace things. I collect souvenirs such as towels or glasses from hotels and restaurants visit. I would enjoy the challenge of a project that could mean either a promotion or loss of a job. I like to remain unnoticed when others are around. I talk about things I might need from a person in terms of his own desires and preferences. I find it very relaxing to travel by myself. I enjoy being with all kinds of people, even those whose habits may seem unusual. The legal drinking age should be lowered. I do some things better than others. Sometimes I get upset about financial matters. I rarely attend cultural events. Usually I read several books at the same time. I refuse to behave like everyone else just to please peoole. I don't like to stay in bed very long when I am sick. I seldom bother to think of original ways of doing a task. when I talk about someone I like very much, I have a very hard time hiding ny feelings.. I don't feel it is important to make good use of every minute in the day. I think that the penalty fer not paying traffic fines should be severe. 250. 251 . 252 . 253. 254. 255 . 256 . 257. 258. 135 I try to avoid situations that have uncertain outcomes. I usually try to add a little, zestto a party. flattery has neverbeen much help to me in getting people'to do things. I spend .a great deal of my spare time with other. people. Some people have such foolish beliefs that I find it hard to understand how they can accept them. No one has the right to take his own life. I believe there are some jobs which I would not enjoy doing. I seem to worry about things less than other people do. I am keenly interested in all kinds of current events. Begin Answer Sheet #2. Please be sure to include the umber sta d on or 55 E 51 13 "t6 1 E s ces. gcket in the student n er space a ac en e appropr a a were??? 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. The most .useful political principles are those that are easy to understand. I try to act in such a way that others will accept me. I do nut feel that I have to keep constantly on the move. I like to experiment with .various (ways of doing the sane thing. I try to keep out of other people's problems. I am very regular in my habits. Sometimes the only way to get waited on in a store is to push through to the head of the line. I think I would'enjoy almost any type of.ganbling. I have trouble expressing my opinion. Sometimes by agreeing with a person, I can gradually get him around to my way of thinking. I don't need the conpany of others to be happy. A person's social classmakes no difference to me- I think that religious institutions should pay taxes on their property just like everyone else. I can walk a few blocks without'getting too tired. 136 15. I often think about the possibility of an accident. l6. I would have only a slight interest in touring an art museun. 17. I enjoy the challenge of reading a conplicated novel. 18. Generally, I don't concern myself with what other people think of my beliefs. . 19. I can easily work on several tasks without becoming tired. 20. I wouldn't know where to begin if I had to design a boat. 21. I usually feel very sad when a movie has an unhappy ending. 22. when people'visit me mexpectedly, I usually have to apologize for my state of disorder. ' 23. I would never hunt or fish out of season. 24. I would participate only in business undertakings that are relatively certa n. 25. I enable to talk intelligently to'people in a wide variety of occupations”. 26. I.often find it difficult to guess the mood of another person. 27. Rather than spend an evening by ny‘self,'I would invite'a neighbor in to tal . 28. '1': I don't like a person's looks, I rarely make an effortto get to know m. 29. It is wrong to spend money on things you can't afford. 30. Everyone in my family has the same birthday. 31. I seldom get “butterflies” in my staunch. I “am very interested in politics. 33. I think of myself as a straightforward, unconplicated person. I try to change things about myself that other people dislike. would be more efficient. if I didn't tire so easily. hope. to developa new technique in my field of work. am not a very emotional person. become annoyed with people who are disorganized. to N HHHHH see nothing wrong with having a traffic ticket-"fixed." 40. In games I usually “go for broke“ rather than playing it safe. ill. I prefer to go to social functions with a group of people so as not to stand out. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. so. 51. 52. 53. " 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 137 Since most people have their private dream world, you must understand this to deal with them effectively. Generally. I prefer to be by wself. Ihenjoy working with people who use different methods of organization t an I do. Peeple respect tradition more than necessary. All Jokes seem pointless to me. I sometimes feel Jittery. I can't be bothered finding out about things that may never be of any use to me. A musical theme with unusual features is more interesting than a simple one. what the general public thinks does not affect my standards or beliefs. I don't need a lot of sleep to keep up my energy. I usual1y continue doing a new job in exactly the way it was taught to me. I get enbarrassed for a speaker who makes a mistake. I am in such a rush in the morning that I often forget to do something. If I were called for jury duty, I would serve without hesitatidn no matter how inconvenient it might be for me. I probably would not take the chance of borrowing money for a business deal even if it might be profitable. I find it easy to introduce people. I see no useful purpose in pretending to like things that ‘I really do not. At a social event, I like to get around and talk to all the guests. Some political groups are so unprincipled that they should be outlawed. Many people are too hasty in trying to change our laws. I usually sleep at least four hours every night. APPENDIXC PURPOSE IN LIFE INVENTORY 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. APPENDIXC PURPCBE IN LIFE INVENTORY I am usually: 1 2 completely bored Life to me seems: 5 4 always exciting In life I have: 1 2 no goals or aims at all My personal existence is: l 2 utterly meaningless without purpose Every day is: 5 4 constantly new If I could choose, I would: 1 2 prefer never to have been born After retiring. I would: 5 4 do some of the exciting things I have always wanted to In achieving life goals I have: 1 2 made no progress whatever 3 neutral 3 neutral 3 neutral 3 neutral 3 neutral 3 neutral 3 neutral neutral 138 5 exuberant, enthusiastic 1 completely routine 5 very clear goals and aims 5 very purposeful and meaningful 1 exactly the same 5 like nine more lives just like this one 1 loaf conpl etel y the rest of my life 5 progressed to complete fulfillment 71. 72. 73. 74. 76. 77. 78. 79. 139 My life is: 1 2 3 4 5 empty. filled only neutral running over with with despair ,exciting good things If I should die today. I would feel that my life has been: very worthwhile neutral completel worthless In thinking of my life. I: l 2 3 4 5 often wonder neutral always see a why I exist reason for my being here As I view the world in relation to my life, the world: 1 2 3 4 5. completely confuses neutral fits meaningfully me with my life I am a: l 2 3 4 5 very irresponsible neutral very responsible person person Concerning man's freedom to make his own choices, I believe man is: 5 4 3 2 l absolutely free to neutral {completely bound by make all life choices limitations of heredity and environment With regard to death, I am: 5 4 37 2 1 prepared and neutral unprepared and unafraid frightened with regard to suicide. I have: 1 2 3 4 5 thought of it seriously ~neutra1 never given it-a as a way out second thought I regard my ability to find a meaning. purpose. or mission in life as: 5 4 3 2 1 very great neutral practically none 80. 81. 82. My life is: 5 in my hands and I am in control of it Facing my daily tasks is: 5 a source of pleasure and satisfaction I have discovered: 1 no mission or purpose in life 4 140 3 neutral 3 neutral 3 neutral . 1 out. of .‘my hands and controlled by external factors 1 a painful and boring experience 5 clear-cut goals and a satisfying life purpose APPENDIXD INTRINSIC/EXTRINSIC RELIGIGJS (BIENTATIQI SCALE APPENDIX D INTRINSIC/EXTRINSIC RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION SCALE Intrinsic Items My faith involves all of my life. In my life, I experience the presence of the Divine. One should seek God’s guidance when making every important decision. My faith sometimes restricts my actions. Nothing is as important to me as serving God as best I know. I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life. My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my approach to life in general. Extrinsic Items What religion offers most is comfort when sorrow and.misfortune strike. Religion helps to keep my life balanced and steady in exactly the same way as my citizenship, friendships, and other memberships do. One reason for my being a church member is that such membership helps to establish a person in the community. The purpose of prayer is to secure a happy and.peaceful life. The church is most important as a place to formulate good social relationships. The primary purpose of prayer is to gain relief and protection. 141 142 It doesn’t matter so much what I believe as long as I lead a moral life. Although I am a religious person, I refuse to let religious considerations influence my everyday affairs. Although I believe in my religion, I feel there are many more important things in my life. APPENDIXE DENDGRAHiIC QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIXE DWIC WESTIONNARE Please indicate answers directly'on this sheet. - Age: Class Standing (Pram, 5”. Sopiuoeore, etc.): __ Race: 6.P.A. Hho was the Head of Household in the hole in which you grew ml (please designate: mother, father, uncle, etc.) Please check the appropriate category. Head of household educational level: (check one) __ Elementary school __ Junior high school __ High school graduate __ Post high school studies _ College graduate Graduate or Professional Father's educational level (if not head of household): Elementary school Junior high school __ High school graduate __ Post high school studies College graduate Graduate or Professional Unknown lbther's educational level (it not head of household): __ Elementary school __ Junior high school __ High school graduate __ Post high school studies __ College graduate __ Graduate or Professional __ [hiknown Population of hometown: __ Less than 10.000 __ 10,000 to l00,000 __ 100.000 to 500.0(1) __ Greater than 511),”) l 143 APPENDIXF RELIGIOUS SALIENCE QUESTIONNAIRE 2. 3. 4. APPENDIXF RELIGICXJS SALIENCE QUESTICNNAIRE If not prevented by unavoidable circustances. I attend religious services: __ Once a week or oftener Two to three tins per moth (lice every eonth or two Rarely (please indicate how often) Hover ad literature about my faith: Every day Frequently (please indicate how often) Occasionally (please indicate how often) Rarely (please indicate how often) Hever I participate in religious activities outside of worship services: __ Every day __ frequently (please indicate how often) _ Occasionally (please indicate how often) Rarely (please indicate how often) lever 3 Estieate how iuportant religion is to you. __ Very inortant __ Smwhat imrtant __ Rather uninportant Quite uniaportant Estimate how iaportant it is for you to gather with others to worship. __ Very inportant __ Somewhat inportant __ Rather uniaportant __ Quite uniaportant Estieate how inortant personal religious experience is to you. in some to 2:222 amuse meme:- __ Very iaportant _ Somewhat iwortant _ Rather uni-portant mite oeinortant 144 APPENDIXG RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION WESTIONNAIRE APPENDIXG RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION QUESTIONNAIRE PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE CATEGORY: INDICATE YOUR ANSWERS DIRECTLY ON THIS SHEET Current Religious Affiliation (Please be as specific as possible): Catholic Protestant (Please specify) Jewish (Please specify) Is1amic (Please specify) Orthodox (Please specify) Unitarian Other (Please specify) Non-affiliated but consider yourself religious None Specify in greater detail if these categories are not sufficient: Hhat is the religious affiliation of your family of origin? 145 146 How long have you held your current religious views? All of your life All of your adult life More than 10 years 6-10 years 2-10 years Less than 2 years Have no particular views about religion How comfortable are you with your current beliefs about religion? Completely comfortable Reasonably comfortable Somewhat uncomfortable Very uncomfortable ANSHER I AND 2 ONLY IF YOU INDICATED A CURRENT RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. I. If you have recent1y (within the past five years) changed your religious views, to what degree do you feel that change has been associated with a change in your attitude toward life? No change ______ Slightly __ Somewhat _____ A great deal If you have recently (within the past five years) changed your religious affiliation, to what degree do you feel your religious affiliation has been associated with a change in your behavior? No change _ Slightly Somewhat A great deal 146 How long have you held your current religious views? All of your life All of your adult life More than 10 years 6-10 years 2-10 years Less than 2 years Have no particular views about religion How comfortable are you with your current beliefs about religion? Completely comfortable Reasonably comfortable Somewhat uncomfortable Very uncomfortable ANSWER I AND 2 ONLY IF YOU INDICATED A CURRENT RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION. 1. If you have recently (within the past five years) changed your religious views, to what degree do you feel that change has been associated with a change in your attitude toward life? No change __ Slightly ______Somewhat -_____ A great deal 2. If you have recently (within the past five years) changed your religious affiliation, to what degree do you feel your re1igious affiliation has been associated with a change in your behavior? No change ______ Slightly _____,Somewhat __ A great deal APPENDIXH RELIGIOUS CDNVERSION QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIXH RELIGIOUS CONVERSION QUESTIONNAIRE I consider that my present lgg§_of religious commitment is a gradual outgrowth of a lack of religious instruction and training and that I cannot point to any single event in my life which brought a definite change from belief to unbelief. Age Although there was a time in my life when I held religious belief, the change from belief to unbelief has been a gradual one. Age Although I have always held doubts about religious beliefs, I can clearly recall the occasion when I became more sincerely committed to a non-religious belief system. Age There was a time in my life when religion had interest for me, however there was a distinct point in my life at which I made a definite decision to abandon my religious convictions. Age None of the above are applicable, I am currently affiliated with or committed to a religion. Please fee1 free to add any comments which you feel may clarify the above statement which you have checked. 148 APPENDIXH 12131.10st oowvmemw QUESTIONNAIRE I consider that my present lgg§_of religious commitment is a gradual outgrowth of a lack of religious instruction and training and that I cannot point to any single event in my life which brought a definite change from belief to unbelief. Age Although there was a time in my life when I held religious belief, the change from belief to unbelief has been a gradual one. Age Although I have always held doubts about religious beliefs, I can clearly recall the occasion when I became more sincerely committed to a non-religious belief system. Age There was a time in my life when religion had interest for me, however there was a distinct point in my life at which I made a definite decision to abandon my religious convictions. Age None of the above are applicable, I am currently affiliated with or committed to a religion. Please feel free to add any comments which you feel may clarify the above statement which you have checked. 148 APPENDIXI MARINE-CROWNE SWIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE i-l’TI'Ili-i 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. APPENDIX I MARLOWE-CROWNE SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE Before voting I thoroughly investigate the qualifications of all the candidates. I never hesitate to go out of my way to help»someone in trouble. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. I have never intensely disliked.anyone. On occasion I have had doubts about my ability to succeed in life. I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way. I am always careful about my manner of dress. My table manners at home are as good as when I eat out in a restaurant. If I could get into a movie without paying for it and be sure I was not seen, I probably would do it. On a few occasions, I have given up doing something because I thought too little of my ability. I like to gossip at times. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they were right. No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener. I can remember "playing sick" to get out of something. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. 150 "rir-Ir-I'fi a a: ha '31 r-lfil *3 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125 O 126. 127. 128. 129. 130. 131. 151 I always try to practice what I preach. I don’t find it particularly difficult to get along with loud mouthed, obnoxious people . I sometimes try to get even, rather than forgive and forget. When I don’t know something I don’ t at all mind admitting it. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. At times I have really insisted on having things our own way. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. I would never think of letting someone else be punished for my wrongdoings. I never resent being asked to return a favor. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. I never make a long trip without checking the safety of my car. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. I have almost never felt the urge to tell someone off. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. I have never felt that I was punished without cause. I sometimes think when people have a misfortune they only got what they deserved. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings. LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N. (1950). The authoritarian personglity. New YOrk: Harper. Alexander, I.E., & Adlerstein, AJM. (1959). Death and religion. In H. Ferfel (Ed.), The meaning of death. New York: IbGraw—Hill. Allport, G.W., & Ross, J.M. (1967). Personal re1igious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social ngcholqu, 5(4), 432-443. Allport, G.W. (1954). The ngture of prejudice. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Allport, G.W. (1950). The individual and his religion. New York: MacMillan. Allport, G.W., & Kramer, B.M. (1946). Some roots of prejudice. Journal of ngchology, 22, 9-39. Baker, M., & Gorsuch, R. (1982). Trait anxiety and.intrinsic-extrinsic religiousness. Journgl for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21(2), 119-122. Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1977). Psychology of religion 1880-1930: The rise and fall of a psychological movement. In B.M. Malony (Ed.), Current perspectives in the psychology of religion. Grand Rapids, MI: Erdmans. Boisen, A.T. (1953). The present status of William James’ psychology of religion. Journpl of Egstoral Care, 1, 155-157. Burke, J.F. (1978). Mature religious behavior: A.psychological perspective and its implications. Journal of Religion and Health, Burnett, D.W. (1939). Religion, personality and clinical assessment. Journal of Religion and Health, 18(4), 308-312. Clark, E. (1929). Thegpgygholggy of religious awakenigg. New YOrk: Macmillan. 152 153 Clark, W. (1958). The psychology of religion: 4A9 introduction to religious experience gnd behavior. New YOrk: Macmillan. Coe, G.A. (1900). The gpiritugl life. New YOrk: Eaton & Manna. Cousins, N. (1979). Aggigmy of an illness. New Ybrk: Norton. Crumbaugh, J.C. (1968). Gross-validation of PUrpose-In-Life test based on Frankl’s concepts. Jourgpl of Individugl Psychology, 25, 74-81 a Crumbaugh, J.C., & Maholick, L.T. (1964). An experimental study in existentialism: The psychometric approach to Frankl’s concept of noogenic neurosis. Journpl of Clinical ngcholqu, 29, 200-207. Dittes, J.E. (1969). Psychology of religion. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social pgychoiggy. Reading, MA: Addison-Wésley. Donelson, E. (1973). Personality, a scientific gpproagh. New York: Appleton-Century—Crofts. Douglas, W. (1966). Religion. In N.L. Farberow (Ed.), Taboo topics New York: Atherton Press. Feagin, J.R. (1965). Prejudice and religious types: A focused study of southern fundamentalists. Journal for the Scientific Study of Fenichel, O. (1945). The psychoanalytic theory of neurosig. New'York: Norton & Co. Fern, R. (1959). The pgycholqu of Christian conversion. Wéstwood, NJ : Fleming Revell . Fishbein, M., a Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief,:§ttitudel intention,,and behavior. Reading, MA: Addision Wesley PUblishing Co. Fowler, J. (1982). Stages of faith and adult’s life cycles. In K. Stokes (Ed.), Egith development in the adult life cycle. New YOrk: W.H. Sadlier. Frankl, V. (1963). Man’s gearch for meanigg. New YOrk: Washington Square. Frankl, V.E. (1960). Beyond self-actualization and self-expression. Journal of Existentigl ngchiatry, 1960, 1, 5-20. Frankl, V.E. (1958). The will to meaning. Journal of Paitorjal Ca_.g_e, 12, 82-88. Frankl, V.E. (1955). The doctor and the soul. New York: Knopf. 154 Freud, S. (1928). The future of an illusion. New York: Liveright PUblishing Corp. Freud, S. (1938). Totem and taboo. (A.A. Brill, Ed., trans.) New YOrk: Random House, Inc. Freud, S. (1950). A religious experience. Collected nger i V01 5. London: Hogarath Press. Fromm, E. (1967). Psychoanalygis and religion. New YOrk: Bantam Books. Fromm, E. (1976). Egcape from freedom. New YOrk: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Glock, C., & Stark, R. (1965). Religion Mwiety in tension. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Gooden, W. (1982). Responses from an adult development perspective. In K. Stokes (Ed.), Faith development in the gdult life cycle. New York: W. H. Sadlier. Graff, R.W., & Ladd, C.E. (1971). POI correlates of a religious commitment inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 21, 502-504. Hall, G. (1904). Adolegcence. New York: Appleton & Co. Hoge, D.R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 369-376. Hoffer, E. (1951). The true believer. New YOrk: Harper. Hood, R.W. (1971). A comparison of the Allport and Feagin scoring procedures for intrinsic/extrinsic religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 19, 370-374. Hood, R.W. (1978). The usefulness of the indiscriminately pro and anti categories of religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11(4), 419-431. Hood, R. (1980). Social legitimacy, dogmatism, and the evaluation of intense experience. Review of Religious Research, g1, 184-194. HOod, R.W. (1970). Religious orientation and the report of religious experience. Journgi for the Scientific Stggy of Religion, 2(4), 285-292. Horney, K. (1980). Neurosis and human ggggih. New YOrk: Norton. 155 Hunt, R.A., &. King, M. (1971). The intrinsic-extrinsic concept: A review and evaluation. Jourréial for the Scientific Stigy of Religion, 12, 339-356. Jackson, D. M. (1976). Jackson pgrsonality inventogy annual. Port Huron, MI: Research Psychologists Press. James, W. (1961). The mrrietiegof religious experience: A stgy in hunan nature. New York: Collier Books. Jung, C.G. (1957). The undiscovered gelf (R.F.C. Hall, trans.). New York: The New American Library of World Literature, Inc. Jung, C.G. (1938). Religion and p§yc_h_ology. New Haven: Yale University . Jung, C.G. (1933). Modern nan in search of a $1111. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. Kahoe, R. (1974). Personality and achievement correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation. Jourrial of Pergonality and Socialisycholo , 1974, QM), 812-818. Kahoe, R.D., & Meadow, M.J. (1981). A developnental perspective on religious orientation dimensions. Jougial of Religion And Heaflth, 29(1), 8-17. Karon, B.P. (personal communication, 1982). Kildohl, J .P. (1965). The personalities of sudden re1igious converts. astorglfiychology, E, 37-44. King, M.B., & Hunt, R.A. (1972). Measuring the religious variable: Replication. Journal for the Scientific Stgy of Religion, 1972, u, 240'251e MacKenzie, J.C. (1947). Nervou_s dgorders and religion. New York: Crowell—Collier Publishing Co. Maddi, 8., & Kabasa, S. (1984). The My execxfiive: Health under stress. Homewood,IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. Marlowe, D., a Crowne, D. (1954). The gpprogchjmotive: studies in evaluative defiance. New York: Wiley. Phalow, A.H. (1970). Motivgtion and personality. New York: Harper and Row. May, R. (1950). The meanggg' of anxiety. New York: The Ronald Press Co. McClelland, D. (1951). Personality. New York: Holt-Dryden. 156 Oden, T. (1967). Contemporary theology and psychothegggy. Philadelphia: Westminster Press. O’Reilly, C. (1958). Religious practice and personal adjustment. Sociology and Social Research, 12, 119-121. Paloutzian, R.F., Jackson, S.L., & Crandall, J.E. (1978). Conversion experience, belief system and personal and ethical attitudes. Jourggl of Psychology and Theology, Fall, §(4), 266-275. Ranck, J. (1955). Some personality correlates of religious attitudes and beliefs. Dissertation Abstracts Internatioggi, 1§, 878-879. ROberts, D. (1966). Psychotherapy and a christigp view of man. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of humgniyglues. New YOrk: The Free Press. Rokeach, M. (1960). The open ggd closed.@igd: Investiggtions into the nature of belief sy§tems and personality systems. New York: Basic Books. Rollins, W. (1983). gugg and the Bible. Atlanta: Knox Press. Salzman, L. (1966). Types of religious conversion. Pastoral Psychology, 11, 8-20. Salzman, L. (1953). The psychology of religious and ideological conversion. Ps chiatr , 1Q, 183-187. Sanua, V. (1969). Religion, mental health, and personality: a review of empirical studies. American Journgiiof Ps hiat , 12§(9), 1203-1213. Scobie, G.E.W. (1975). E§y0h01ogy of religion. New YOrk: John Wiley. Scroggs, J.R., & Douglas, W.G.T. (1976). Issues in the psychology of religious conversion. Journgl of Religion gpd Health, §(3), 204-216. Shea, J. (1975). The challenge of Jeggg. Chicago: Thomas Moore Press. Sidi, P. (personal communication, 1986). Spellman, M., Baskett, G.D., & Byrne, D. (1971). Manifest anxiety as a contributing factor in religious conversion. Jourggl of Consultigg_§nd Clinical ngchology, 2Q, 245-247. 157 Srole, L., Langner, T., Michael, S., Opler, M., & Rennie, T. (1962). Mental health in the metropolis: Theimidtown Manhattan study. Vol. 1. New YOrk: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Stanley, B. (1964). Personality and attitude correlates of religious conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 60-63. Stouffer, S.A. (1955). Communism, civil libertiesiiand conformity. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Sullivan, H.S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton. Sullivan, H. (1956). Clinicaligtudies in psychiatry. New York: Norton. Thompson, A. (1974). Open-mindness and indiscriminate anti-religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 471-477. Thurman, H. (1963). Disciplines of the spirit. New York: Harper. Tillich, P. (1952). The courage to be. New Haven: Yale University Press. Trew, A. (1971). The religious factor in mental illness. Pastoral Psychology, §, 21-28. Williams, R.L., & Cole, S. (1968). Religiosity, generalized anxiety, and apprehension concerning death. Journal of Socigi Psychology, 15, 111-117. Wilson, W.C. (1960). Extrinsic religious values and prejudice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, g9, 286-288. Wimberly, E., & Wimberly, A.S. (1986). Liberation gnd human wholeness: The conversion experience of black people in slavery and freedom. Nashville: Abingdon Press. Wright, J.C. (1959). Personal adjustment and it’s relationship to religious attitude and certainty. Religious Education, g3, 521-523. "I7'111111111111111“