Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Thou shalt worship no other gods — unless they

are celebrities: the relationship between celebrity
worship and religious orientation
John Maltby a,*, James Houran b, Rense Lange c,
Diane Ashe d, Lynn E. McCutcheon e
a
Sheffield Hallam University, School of Social Science and Law, Psych Subject Group and Centre for health and
Social Care Research, Collagiate Crescent Campus, Sheffield S10 2BP, UK
b
Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, USA
c
Illinois State Board of Education, USA
d
Valencia Community College, USA
e
Florida Southern College, USA

Received 22 September 2000; received in revised form 21 February 2001; accepted 21 March 2001

Abstract
The Celebrity Attitude Scale, Quest Scale, and the Age-Universal I-E scale-12 were given to 307 British
participants in an attempt to provide further psychometric validation of the former and determine the
relationship between celebrity worship and religiosity. Results generally supported those of an earlier study
showing that the Celebrity Attitude Scale has good psychometric properties. Results also indicated that as
religiosity increases for both men and women the tendency to ‘‘worship’’ celebrities decreases. However,
the mean of the 12 relationships reported here was only 0.20, suggesting that many religious people
apparently ignore the religious teaching that ‘‘Thou shalt worship no other Gods,’’ or fail to connect it to
their ‘‘worship’’ of celebrities. A series of multiple regressions revealed combinations of celebrity-related
and religiosity measures that predicted scores on the Celebrity Attitude Scale and its three factors. # 2002
Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Celebrity; God; Worship; Religiosity

A close relationship between attitudes toward famous persons and attitudes toward religion
may not be obvious, but there are theoretical speculations proposing possible relationships

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-114-225-2543; fax: +44-114-225-2430.

E-mail address: jmaltby@hcsshu.u- net.com (J. Maltby).

0191-8869/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0191-8869(01)00059-9
1158 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172

between variables that link the two constructs. Though many religions emphasise humility among
religious individuals (Wulff, 1997), recent psychological theories have compared the roles of fame
and religiosity. For example, Giles (2000) has argued that fame can be viewed as a way of pre-
serving a unique part of the self for eternity, of which the concept of belief in the afterlife is
important. However, conclusions about possible relationships between attitudes toward the
famous and religious attitudes tend to be limited to historical examination and anecdotal evi-
dence, rather than empirical study.
Some suggestions for empirical study are based on similarities and comparisons that can be
made between religious individuals and those individuals who are interested in celebrities. First,
within the Christian religion, the worship of anyone other than God is forbidden by the Ten
Commandments. Secondly, Giles (2000) extends this idea by likening those who worship celeb-
rities to those who engage in religious worship. Giles points to the devout manner in which some
celebrities are revered and worshipped. For instance, the illicit behaviour of some stars is forgiven
and explained away when similar behaviour by non-celebrities would perhaps not. Thirdly, Jin-
dra (1994) suggested that some fan bases often resemble religions, albeit the cult status of star-
trek fans, in the way that they organise, recruit and hold ceremonies that are commonly known as
‘‘conventions’’. Fourthly, there is some similarity between present psychological theorising about
the obsession with celebrities and the previous comments by psychologists on religion and
obsession. Giles (2000) comments on the obsessional nature of the fan, where worship of the
famous revolves around exclusivity of the individual star (e.g. such as only listening to that star’s
product), the rituals which surround the star (e.g. ensuring that the fan watches all the celebrity’s
television appearances), and illusions regarding the individual and the star (such as day-dreaming
that the star will visit the fan one day). Further, these last speculations are reminiscent of Freud’s
observations of the functions of, and the illusions, that surround religion (Freud, 1907/1961,
1912–13/1961, 1927/1961) which motivated recent empirical comparison of a number of reli-
giosity and personality variables (Maltby, 1999a; Maltby, Talley, Cooper, & Leslie, 1995). Freud
writes of the similarities between the individual obsessional neuroses and the collective role of
religion. He remarks that religion is an illusion that protects the individual’s mental health from
inner unconscious and unwanted feeling and desires. Similarly he argued that there is a resem-
blance between obsessive actions and religious practices, demonstrated by the ritual and exclu-
sivity to which these acts are carried out to other aspects of life.
Despite the speculation, there has been no empirical examination of the relationship between
attitudes toward celebrities and religious orientation. Nonetheless, these comparisons are worth
investigating, if only to begin to understand some of the psychological processes that underlie
celebrity worship. Such a study may help us to understand whether celebrity worship serves the
same psychological needs or functions as does religious worship.
Until recently the lack of empirical research on attitudes toward celebrities could be attributed
to the absence of an adequate measuring instrument. That problem has been alleviated with the
development of the Celebrity Attitude Scale (CAS; McCutcheon, Lange, & Houran, 2001). An
earlier version of this scale has been shown to be reliable and valid with an American sample, but
with the addition of new items, one of the goals of the present research is to show the reliability,
validity and factor structure of the CAS using a British sample.
It is possible to make distinctions between orthodox religious beliefs and practices with less
orthodox religious beliefs and practices, using the distinction in religious orientations. Within the
 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172 1159

psychology of religion, there are three main religious orientations, which in turn subsume six
religious factors in total: (1) intrinsic, (2) extrinsic (extrinsic-personal and extrinsic-social), (3)
Quest (complexity, doubt and tentativeness). Individuals described as having an intrinsic orien-
tation toward religion have been described as living their religious beliefs, the influence of which
religion is evident in every aspect of their life (Allport, 1966). Those individuals who demonstrate
an extrinsic-personal religious orientation are thought to use religion as a source of protection
and comfort, while those individuals who demonstrate an extrinsic-social orientation toward
religion have been described as using religion to provide participation in a powerful in-group,
religious participation and social status (Allport & Ross, 1967; Fleck, 1981; Genia, 1996; Genia &
Shaw, 1991; Kahoe & Meadow, 1981). The Age-Universal I-E Scale-12 was constructed to
measure these three religious orientations (Maltby, 1999b).
The Quest religious orientation typifies the individual for whom religious involvement is ‘an
open-ended, responsive dialogue with existential questions raised by the contradictions and tra-
gedies of life’ (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993). The Quest orientation is thought to subsume
three religious factors (Batson et al., 1993). The first is the ability to address existential questions
without reducing their complexity. The second is the tendency for the individual to perceive self-
criticism and religious doubt as positive. The third is a tentativeness or openness to change in
religious belief. The Quest orientation towards religion is thought to be distinct from the intrinsic
and extrinsic orientations towards religion (Batson & Scheonrade, 1991a, 1991b)
Therefore, within religious orientation measures, it is possible to make distinctions between
these measures as reflecting orthodoxy. Wulff (1997) suggests that one consistency to this area of
research are studies which have found a relationship between an extrinsic orientation toward
religion and different facets of conservatism (Hoge & Carroll, 1973; Kahoe, 1975; Morris, Hood,
& Watson, 1989; Ponton & Gorsuch, 1988). In addition, there is some evidence that an intrinsic
orientation toward religion is related to general conservatism (Allport & Ross, 1967; Altemeyer,
1988; Wulff, 1997). Inasmuch as an intrinsic orientation reflects a commitment to religious beliefs,
this orientation suggests an orthodox set of beliefs. Extrinsic orientations toward religion, parti-
cularly extrinsic social, may represent religious conservatism via maintaining social conservatism
(Wulff, 1997). Contrary to this, the Quest religious orientation seems to represent less dogmatic
thinking, and has a significant negative association with religious fundamentalism (McFarland,
1989). With this split between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations and the Quest
dimensions, distinctions can be readily made within religious orientation, with the intrinsic and
extrinsic orientations towards religion reflecting more conservative thought as compared with the
Quest orientation. Being able to make these distinctions might be useful in understanding
any significant findings in the relationship between attitudes toward celebrities and religious
orientation.
When we consider the overall relationship between attitudes toward celebrities and religiosity
as measured by the Age-Universal I-E Scale-12 and Quest, we find that rational arguments can be
made in support of all three possibilities. The observations of Giles (2000) and Jindra (1994),
namely that there are similarities between religious worship and celebrity worship, can be carried
one step further. Indeed, one theme to the psychology of religion is that there are similar psycholo-
gical types that underlie religious worship (Gorsuch, 1988; Wulff, 1997). Therefore, given that
similar attitudes and behaviours are noted in religiosity and celebrity-worship, it may be that
some of the attitudes and beliefs characteristic of religiosity are also reflected in the attitude and
1160 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172

behaviours found in celebrity worship. Therefore a positive relationship may be found between
religiosity and attitudes toward celebrities, particularly if there is a ‘‘worshipper’’ personality
type.
However, it could also be argued that scores on the CAS will be negatively related to reli-
giosity. There is evidence that Christians sometimes behave in accordance with Christian teach-
ings. Premarital sex is widely discouraged, and there are at least three studies which show that as
religiosity increased premarital sexual behaviour declined (DiBlasio & Benda, 1990; McLaughlin,
Chen, Greenberger, & Biermeier, 1997; Troiden & Jendrek, 1987). One major teaching of the
Christian religion is that thou shalt worship no other gods. The word ‘‘gods’’ is usually inter-
preted broadly to include not just other religious deities, but non-religious concepts and persons
as well. Thus, Christians are often warned that it is sinful to put anything or anyone (including
celebrities, of course) ahead of God. Thus, we might expect the most devout Christians to be the
least likely to worship celebrities, or at least be less likely to report doing so.
Finally, it could be hypothesised that attitudes toward celebrities would be unrelated to reli-
giosity. The concept of compartmentalisation might be invoked in support of this hypothesis. We
compartmentalise when we take beliefs and mentally separate them from their unpleasant con-
sequences. This allows us to maintain positive feelings about ourselves by detaching ourselves
from the unpleasant consequences. Thus, Christians can believe in the story of the Good Samar-
itan, but detach themselves from the responsibility of behaving like the Good Samaritan, as
apparently happened in a clever study done by Darley and Batson (1973). Devoutly religious
teens can believe that premarital sex is wrong, but be just as likely to engage in premarital sex as
their less devout peers (Donnelly, Duncan, Goldfarb, & Eadie, 1999). Altemeyer (1988) found
that a large percentage of highly religious college students, confronted with a Biblical passage
forbidding punishment for sinning, failed to apply it to their own stated attitudes toward homo-
sexuals. If compartmentalization mediates attitudes toward celebrities and religiosity, then we
might expect that ‘‘having no other gods’’ and ‘‘celebrity worship’’ would be filed in separate
mental compartments, and the two would be unrelated.
We have presented arguments rendering it difficult to make specific predictions about the
overall relationship between attitudes toward celebrities and religiosity. We decided to let the
pattern of relationships between CAS scores and religiosity measures decide the issue. In addition
we hoped to provide more specific detail by factor-analysing the CAS and using multiple regres-
sion for scores on the CAS with the religiosity and celebrity-related measures as predictors.

1. Method

1.1. Participants

The participants were 126 men (mean age=26.97 years, S.D.=6.8) and 181 women (mean
age=27.67 years, S.D.=7.9) recruited from a number of volunteer community groups (n=152)
and church groups (n=155) in the South Yorkshire region of England. This region tends to be
politically liberal. The most frequently cited demographic categories were white (n=220), single
(n=144), employed (n=196), and ‘‘O’’ educational level or its equivalent (n=85). The number of
recruits who declined to participate or failed to complete the scales was 22.
 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172 1161

1.2. Measures

The Celebrity Attitude Scale is a 34-item Likert scale with ‘‘strongly agree’’ equal to 5 and
‘‘strongly disagree’’ equal to 1. An earlier 33-item version of the CAS was found to have a coef-
ficient alpha of 0.89 (McCutcheon, et al., 2001). It also showed adequate validity in that scores
correlated predictably with several single-item measures. For example, high scorers on the CAS
tended to describe themselves as ‘‘interested in the lives of many celebrities’’ (r=0.32, P<0.001)
and strongly attracted to their favourite celebrity (r=0.46, P<0.001). They also tended to dis-
agree that too much media coverage was given to the O.J. Simpson murder trials and the deaths
of Lady Diana and John Kennedy, Jr. (r= 0.42, P<0.001). As in the earlier study the CAS was
accompanied by numerous demographic questions and single-item measures of interest in celebrities.
In the present study ‘‘How many celebrities do you strongly like or admire?’’ was coded ‘‘How
many celeb’’. Responses to ‘‘Please indicate how strongly you feel about (your favorite) celeb-
rity?’’ were recorded on a Likert scale, with ‘‘very weak’’ as number 1 and ‘‘very strong’’ as
number 7. It was coded ‘‘Celeb strength’’. ‘‘In relation to other people that you know how would
you rate your interest in celebrities generally?’’ was recorded on a Likert scale, with ‘‘very weak’’
as number 1 and ‘‘very strong’’ as number 7. In the present study it was coded ‘‘other rate’’. The
‘‘Media Coverage’’ coding was applied to the combination of items about Simpson, Diana, and
John Kennedy, Jr. For each item participants were asked ‘‘In your opinion the amount of news
coverage given this event was:’’. Responses ranged from ‘‘far too little’’ number 1, to ‘‘far too
much’’, number 7. A nine-item scale was designed to measure the extent to which respondents
believe that people become celebrities because they are talented (Internal) rather than because
they are lucky (External). In the present study this was coded ‘‘Celeb I-E’’. Scores ranged from 5,
‘‘strongly agree’’, to 1, ‘‘strongly disagree’’, with high scores indicating a belief that ‘‘Celebrities
deserve all the praise they get’’ (item 9).
A factor analysis by Maltby (1999b) on a set of items designed to measure attitudes about
religiosity (Gorsuch & Venable, 1983) resulted in the Age-Universal I-E scale-12. Six items were
shown to measure an intrinsic orientation toward religion. Three items loaded high on a factor
labelled extrinsic-personal and three others loaded high on an extrinsic-social factor. The total
scale represented a psychometric improvement upon earlier scales designed to measure attitudes
toward religiosity.
High scorers on the Quest Religious Orientation are those with a more liberal religious out-
look. Persons who score high on complexity, doubt and tentativeness are those who recognise
that religious issues are complicated, have doubts about religious doctrine, and expect their own
religious beliefs will change. Maltby and Day’s (1998) version of Quest corrected for the unwar-
ranted assumption that all respondents are religious, and was based on factor analysis.

1.3. Procedure

Participants were told by the senior author that their responses were confidential and that the
purpose of the study was to examine a number of psychological factors that may be related to
individuals’ interest in famous people. All four of the scales were presented to participants in
different orders, to reduce the probability of a systematic order effect. Participants completed the
scales in a single session in small groups at their workplace, or at community or church meetings.
1162 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172

2. Results

The Cronbach’s (1951) alpha for the items was satisfactory (a=0.794), however, corrected
item-total correlations (demonstrated in Table 1) revealed that 11 items fell below the criteria of
0.20 suggested by Kline (1986). The following items all showed low corrected item-total correlations
Table 1
The Celebrity Attitude Scale with original item-to-total correlations for all items

1. If I were to meet my favorite celebrity in person, he/she would already somehow know that I am his/her
biggest fan (0.501).
2. I share with my favorite celebrity a special bond that cannot be described in words (0.508).
3. I am obsessed by details of my favorite celebrity’s life (0.566)
4. I would gladly die in order to save the life of my favorite celebrity (0.094).
5. My friends and I like to discuss what my favorite celebrity has done (0.372).
6. When something good happens to my favorite celebrity I feel like it happened to me (0.44).
7. My favorite celebrity and I have our own code so we can communicate with each other secretly (such as
over the TV or special words on the radio (0.131).
8. One of the main reasons I maintain an interest in my favorite celebrity is that doing so gives me a
temporary escape from life’s problems (0.455).
9. I have pictures and/or souvenirs of my favorite celebrity which I always keep in exactly the same
place (0.426).
10. If my favorite celebrity endorsed a legal but possibly unsafe drug designed to make someone feel good,
I would try it (0.06).
11. My favorite celebrity is practically perfect in every way (0.018).
12. The successes of my favorite celebrity are my successes also (0.206).
13. I enjoy watching, reading, or listening to my favorite celebrity because it means a good time (0.524).
14. I consider my favorite celebrity to be my soulmate (0.482).
15. I have frequent thoughts about my favorite celebrity, even when I don’t want to (0.414).
16. When my favorite celebrity dies (or died) I will feel (or I felt) like dying too (0.490).
17. I love to talk with others who admire my favorite celebrity (0.391).
18. When something bad happens to my favorite celebrity I feel like it happened to me (0.368).
19. Learning the life story of my favorite celebrity is a lot of fun (0.493).
20. My favorite celebrity would immediately come to my rescue if I needed help (0.032).
21. I often feel compelled to learn the personal habits of my favorite celebrity (0.340).
22. If I were lucky enough to meet my favorite celebrity, and he/she asked me to do something illegal as a
favor, I would probably do it (0.451).
23. It is enjoyable just to be with others who like my favorite celebrity (0.422).
24. When my favorite celebrity fails or loses at something I feel like a failure myself (0.374).
25. If I walked through the door of my favorite celebrity’s home without an invitation she or he would be
happy to see me (0.006).
26. If my favorite celebrity saw me in a restaurant he/she would ask me to sit down and talk ( 0.020).
27. If my favorite celebrity found me sitting in his/her car he or she would be upset (0.037).
28. If someone gave me several thousand dollars to do with as I please, I would consider spending it on
a personal possession (like a napkin or paper plate) once used by my favorite celebrity (0.301)
29. I like watching and hearing about my favorite celebrity when I am in a large group of people (0.422).
30. If my favorite celebrity was accused of committing a crime that accusation would have to be false ( 0.073).
31. Keeping up with news about my favorite celebrity is an entertaining pastime (0.372).
32. News about my favorite celebrity is a pleasant break from a harsh world (0.283).
33. To know my favorite celebrity is to love him/her ( 0.062).
34. It would be great if my favourite celebrity and I were locked in a room for a few days (0.101).
 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172 1163

(below+or 0.20) items 4, 7, 10, 11, 20, 25, 26, 27, 30, 33, and 34. All 11 of those items were
designed for the pathology aspects of Celebrity worship as suggested by McCutcheon et al.
(2001). Among the present sample, the computed reliability analysis for these 11 items separately
was a=0.047 with item-to rest of test correlations ranging from 0.056 (item 33) to 0.067 and the
present findings suggest that these items are not useful among the present sample. Cronbach’s
alpha for the remaining 23 items was 0.86.
These 23 items were subjected to principal component analysis with oblimin rotation to inves-
tigate relationships. Table 2 shows the unrotated solution for the 23 items. Twenty of these items
loaded above a criterion of 0.44 (Comrey, 1973), indicative of important factor loading, accord-
ing to Kline (1986). Three further items loaded between 0.34 and 0.41. Kline (1986) stresses that
these loadings cannot be ignored. Only one item (item 12) fell below the criterion of 0.35. The
present findings suggest there is some strong support for the Celebrity Attitude Scale representing
one factor among these remaining 23 items.
However, a Scree test suggested three components to be extracted from the analysis. Rotating
to simple structure using oblimin rotation revealed three components, which, though not completely
clear, seem to represent certain distinctions among the present sample. Loadings on the first
component suggest an ‘Entertainment/Social’ component to the Celebrity Attitude Scale. Items
such as ‘My friends and I like to discuss what my favorite celebrity has done (item 5)’ and ‘I enjoy
watching, reading, or listening to my favourite celebrity because it means a good time (item 13)’
loaded highly on this factor. Loadings on the second component seem to represent Intense/Per-
sonal feeling about Celebrities; ‘‘I am obsessed by details of my favorite celebrity’s life’’ (item 3),
and ‘‘I consider my favorite celebrity to be my soulmate’’ (item 14). Three of the loadings on the
final component represent Mild Pathological attitudes (item 21 ‘‘I often feel compelled to learn the
personal habits of my favorite celebrity’’ item 22 ‘‘If I were lucky enough to meet my favorite
celebrity, and he/she asked me to do something illegal as a favour, I would probably do it,’’ and item
28 ‘‘If someone gave me several thousand dollars to do with as I please, I would consider
spending it on a personal possession (like a napkin or paper plate) once used by my favorite
celebrity’’). Item 32, ‘‘News about my favorite celebrity is a pleasant break from a harsh world’’
might also fit, especially if those with pathological inclinations tend to perceive the world as ‘‘harsh’’.
The present findings find some support for both one and three component solutions underlying
celebrity attraction among British adults. Overall scores were computed from those items loading
above 0.3 on the first component on the unrotated solution, and factor scores were computed for
each of the components of the three component solution.
Table 3 shows mean scores and standard deviations for all of the scales. Because of the large
number of comparisons the 0.01 alpha level was used. There were no significant sex differences.
Finding no sex differences for scores on the religiosity measures is inconsistent with the general
finding that women are more religious than men (Beit-Hallahmi & Argyle, 1997). However, this
difference is not necessarily always apparent among British samples (Lewis & Maltby, 1995;
Maltby, Garner, Lewis, & Day, 2000). Given the general support for sex differences in religion,
the following analyses were completed for men and women separately.
Table 4 shows Pearson product moment correlation coefficients between all the variables by
men and women separately. There were 12 correlations between the CAS and religious measures
(six religious scales  gender). All 12 coefficients were negative, six of them statistically significant
at the 0.01 level.
1164 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172

Table 2
Principal Component Analysis of all 23 items with unrotated solution on 1 component, and 3 component solution after
oblimin rotation

Items Unrotated Rotated

solution solution

1 1 2 3

If I were to meet my favorite celebrity in person, he/she would already 0.54 0.551
somehow know that I am his/her biggest fan
2. I share with my favorite celebrity a special bond that cannot be 0.56 0.686
described in words
3. I am obsessed by details of my favorite celebrity’s life. 0.58 0.748
5. My friends and I like to discuss what my favorite celebrity has done. 0.49 0.726
6. When something good happens to my favorite celebrity I feel like it 0.50 0.767
happened to me.
8. One of the main reasons I maintain an interest in my favorite celebrity 0.55 0.438
is that doing so gives me a temporary escape from life’s problems.
9. I have pictures and/or souvenirs of my favorite celebrity which I always 0.48 0.618
keep in exactly the same place.
12. The successes of my favorite celebrity are my successes also. 0.26 0.355
13. I enjoy watching, reading, or listening to my favorite celebrity because 0.68 0.760
it means a good time.
14. I consider my favorite celebrity to be my soulmate. 0.54 0.796
15. I have frequent thoughts about my favorite celebrity, even when I 0.47 0.695
don’t want to.
16. When my favorite celebrity dies (or died) I will feel (or I felt) like 0.53 0.604
dying too.
17. I love to talk with others who admire my favorite celebrity. 0.52 0.515
18. When something bad happens to my favorite celebrity I feel like it 0.50 0.687
happened to me.
19. Learning the life story of my favorite celebrity is a lot of fun. 0.65 0.779
21. I often feel compelled to learn the personal habits of my favorite 0.41 0.665
celebrity.
22. If I were lucky enough to meet my favorite celebrity, and he/she asked 0.53 0.563
me to do something illegal as a favor, I would probably do it.
23. It is enjoyable just to be with others who like my favorite celebrity. 0.57 0.692
24. When my favorite celebrity fails or loses at something I feel like a 0.52 0.754
failure myself
28. If someone gave me several thousand dollars to do with as I please, 0.34 0.533
I would consider spending it on a personal possession (like a napkin or
paper plate) once used by my favorite celebrity.
29. I like watching and hearing about my favorite celebrity when I am 0.53 0.577
in a large group of people.
31. Keeping up with news about my favorite celebrity is an 0.46 0.372
entertaining pastime.
32. News about my favorite celebrity is a pleasant break from a 0.38 0.635
harsh world.
 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172 1165

Tables 5–8 show the results of eight standard multiple regressions (for men and women sepa-
rately) performed with each of the Celebrity Scales (The Celebrity Attitude Scale and the three factor
scores, Entertainment/Social; Intense/Personal, and Mild Pathological) used as dependent vari-
ables, and the religious scales and other celebrity attitude measures used as independent variables.

Table 3
Means (standard deviations) for all the scales by sex

Scales Mean scores (standard deviations)

Men (n=126) Women (n=181) T

1. Celebrity Scale 42.21 (11.6) 42.55 (11.4) 0.25

5. Intrinsic 2.40 (02.3) 2.17 (02.3) 0.85
6. Extrinsic Personal 3.09 (01.7) 2.97 (01.9) 0.59
7. Extrinsic Social 1.23 (01.6) 1.06 (01.4) 0.98
8. Quest Complexity 3.52 (01.8) 3.66 (01.7) 0.67
9. Quest Doubt 3.75 (01.6) 3.59 (01.7) 0.81
10. Quest Tentative 1.97 (01.6) 2.04 (01.5) 0.38
11. How many Celeb 8.25 (04.3) 9.36 (04.7) 2.13*
12. Celeb Strength 4.27 (01.1) 4.46 (01.3) 1.39
13. Other rate 3.06 (01.5) 3.29 (01.6) 1.20
14. Media Coverage 10.26 (03.4) 9.42 (03.5) 2.08*
15. Celeb I-E 26.56 (04.8) 26.37 (4.72) 0.34

*P< 0.05.

Table 4
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients between all the scales by men and women

Scale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Men (n=126) above the diagonal

1. Celebrity Scale – 0.71** 0.78** 0.60** 0.10 0.28** 0.17 0.28** 0.17 0.20** 0.09 0.32** 0.07
2. Entertain/social 0.73** – 0.17 0.35** 0.18* 0.11 0.03 0.40** 0.17 0.13 0.06 0.28** 0.02
3. Intense pers feelings 0.78** 0.21** – 0.27** 0.04 0.22* 0.27** 0.01 0.06 0.15 0.11 0.24** 0.01
4. Mild pathology 0.55** 0.21** 0.32** – 0.16 0.24** 0.14 0.29** 0.22* 0.15 0.06 0.17 0.25**
5. Intrinsic 0.17* 0.13 0.16* 0.01 – 0.29** 0.07 0.22** 0.18* 0.18** 0.14 0.08 0.09
6. Extrinsic Personal 0.32** 0.22** 0.30** 0.07 0.30** – 0.16 0.21** 0.18* 0.31** 0.10 0.03 0.02
7. Extrinsic Social 0.20** 0.12 0.19* 0.11 0.14 0.27** – 0.10 0.04 0.20* 0.07 0.02 0.04
8. Quest Complexity 0.13 0.22** 0.02 0.13 0.11 0.15* 0.01 – 0.36** 0.18* 0.07 0.07 0.03
9. Quest Doubt 0.14 0.12 0.06 0.17* 0.15* 0.13 0.12 0.25** – 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.05
10. Quest Tentative 0.23** 0.18* 0.19** 0.05 0.18* 0.39** 0.24** 0.20** 0.11 – 0.01 0.01 0.02
11. How many Celeb 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 – 0.26** 0.60**
12. Celeb Strength 0.27** 0.25** 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.15* 0.07 0.12 0.10 0.01 0.15* – 0.24**
13. Other rate 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.02 0.65** 0.19* –
14. Media Coverage 0.49** 0.32** 0.44** 0.24** 0.12 0.19* 0.14 0.04 0.24** 0.12 0.17* 0.16* 0.17*
15. Celeb I E 0.27** 0.29** 0.08 0.27** 0.05 0.24** 0.09 0.33** 0.27** 0.17* 0.14 0.07 0.11
Women (n=181) below the diagonal

*P< 0.05.
**P< 0.01.
1166 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172

Included in these tables are the unstandardised regression coefficients (B), the standardised
regression coefficients (B), the semipartial correlations (sr2), r, r2 and adjusted r2.
Among men, the regression statistic (r) was significantly different from zero for scores on the
Celebrity Scale (F(5,120)=12.91, P<0.001), Entertainment/Social (F(5,120)=13.00, P<0.001),
Intense/Personal feelings (F(4,121)=8.51, P<0.001) and Mild Pathological (F(5,120)=8.48,
P<0.001). For scores on the 23-item Celebrity Attitude Scale (in ascending order) celebrity media
coverage, strength of celebrity worship, view of celebrities as talented and the Extrinsic-personal
religious orientation accounted for unique variance in scores. For the Entertainment/Social factor
score (in ascending order), celebrity media coverage, quest-complexity and view of celebrities as
talented accounted for unique variance in scores. For intense/personal feeling factor scores (in
ascending order), celebrity media coverage, extrinsic-social religious orientation, strength of
celebrity worship, and extrinsic-personal religious orientation accounted for unique variance in
scores. For mild pathological factor scores (in ascending order), celebrity media coverage, celeb-
rity I-E, and how one rates the level of celebrity admiration in relation to others account for
unique variance in scores.

Table 5
Multiple Regression analysis for scores on the Celebrity Attitude Scale using the other variables as predictors among
men and women

Scales B Beta Sr2

Men (n=126)
Extrinsic-Personal 1.10 0.16 0.03*
Quest-tentativeness 0.39 0.06
Celeb Strength 1.82 0.18 0.03*
Media Coverage 1.29 0.38 0.14**
Celeb I-E 0.41 0.17 0.03*

r2=0.34
Adj r2=0.32
r=0.59

Women (n=181)
Extrinsic-Personal 0.79 0.13
Extrinsic-Social 0.52 0.07
Quest-tentativeness 0.65 0.09
Celeb Strength 1.75 0.19 0.04**
Media Coverage 1.24 0.39 0.15**
Celeb I-E 0.43 0.18 0.03**

r2=0.36
Adj r2=0.34
r=0.60

*P< 0.05.
**P< 0.01.
 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172 1167

Table 6
Multiple Regression analysis for the Entertainment/Social factor score using the other variables as predictors among
men and women

Scales B Beta

Men (n=126)
Intrinsic 0.04 0.10
Quest-Complexity 0.13 0.24 0.06**
Celeb Strength 0.11 0.13
Media Coverage 0.08 0.29 0.08**
Celeb I-E 0.04 0.21 0.04*

r2=0.35
Adj r2=0.32
r=0.59

Women (n=181)
Extrinsic-Personal 0.02 0.05
Quest-Complexity 0.05 0.09
Quest Tentativeness 0.05 0.08
Celeb Strength 0.17 0.21 0.04**
Media Coverage 0.06 0.23 0.05**
Celeb I-E 0.04 0.21 0.04**

r2=0.23
Adj r2=0.21
r=0.48

*P< 0.05.
**P< 0.01.

Among women, the regression statistic (r) was significantly different from zero for scores on the
Celebrity Scale (F(6,174)=16.36, P<0.001), Entertain/social (F(6,174)=8.83, P<0.001), intense per-
sonal feelings (F(7,173)=9.04, P <0.001) and mild pathological (F(2,178)=7.31, P<0.01). For scores
on the 23-item Celebrity Attitude Scale (in ascending order) celebrity media coverage, strength of
celebrity worship and view of celebrities as talented accounted for unique variance in scores. For
the Entertainment/Social factor score (in ascending order), celebrity media coverage, strength of
celebrity worship, and view of celebrities as talented accounted for unique variance in scores. For
intense/personal feeling factor scores (in ascending order), celebrity media and the extrinsic-per-
sonal religious orientation accounted for unique variance in scores. For mild pathological factor
scores (in ascending order) celebrity media coverage accounted for unique variance in scores.

3. Discussion

One purpose of the present study was to determine the psychometric adequacy of the CAS
using a British sample. The internal reliability of the instrument appears to be better than ade-
quate. Answers to the ‘‘celeb strength’’ item, ‘‘how strongly do you feel about your favourite
1168 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172

Table 7
Multiple Regression analysis for the Intense/Personal factor score using the other variables as predictors among men
and women

Scales B Beta Sr2

Intense Personal
Men (n=126)
Extrinsic-Personal 0.10 0.16 0.03*
Extrinsic-Social 0.15 0.23 0.05**
Celeb Strength 0.16 0.17 0.03*
Media Coverage 0.08 0.27 0.07**

r2=0.22
Adj r2=0.19
r=0.47

Women (n=181)
Intrinsic 0.02 0.05
Extrinsic-Personal 0.09 0.17 0.03*
Extrinsic-Social 0.04 0.06
Quest Tentativeness 0.04 0.06
Celeb Strength 0.09 0.12
Media Coverage 0.10 0.37 0.14**
Celeb I-E 0.07 0.03

r2=0.27
Adj r2=0.24
r=0.52

*P< 0.05.
**P< 0.01.

celebrity?’’, were significantly correlated with CAS scores and with the entertainment/social fac-
tor, but not with the mild pathological factor. This suggests that for most fans, the choice of a
favourite celebrity is linked to entertainment value. Such an interpretation is consistent with
Stever’s (1995) observation that fans were primarily attracted to their favourite celebrity because
of their perceived ability to entertain. Rubin and McHugh (1987) made a similar observation.
Both called this ‘‘task attraction’’.
The ‘‘media coverage’’ scores were significantly and moderately correlated (between 0.24 and
0.49) with CAS scores and all three CAS factor scores for both genders. Predictably, those who
greatly admired celebrities did not think the media affords too much news coverage to celebrities.
High scores on ‘‘Celeb I-E’’ indicate the belief that celebrities have internal qualities such as
intelligence, talent and social skills that make them deserving of celebrity status. Those with high
‘‘Celeb I-E’’ scores also tended to score high on the CAS and two of the three factor scores.
‘‘Intense personal feelings’’ scores were unrelated to ‘‘Celeb I-E’’ scores for both genders. This
finding may simply be the latest in a long line of reminders that emotional and intellectual com-
ponents of attitudes are virtually independent of each other.
 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172 1169

Table 8
Multiple regression analysis for the Mild Pathological factor score using the other variables as predictors among men
and women

Scales B Beta Sr2

Men (n=126)
Extrinsic-Personal 0.08 0.14
Quest-Complexity 0.08 0.14
Other Rate 0.11 0.17 0.03*
Media Coverage 0.06 0.20 0.04*
Celeb I-E 0.04 0.21 0.04*

r2=0.26
Adj r2=0.23
R=0.51

Women (n=181)
Quest-doubt 0.08 0.13
Media Coverage 0.06 0.22 0.058*

r2=0.08
Adj r2=0.07
r=0.28

*P< 0.05.
**P< 0.01.

Two other celebrity-related measures did not fare as well. The number of celebrities strongly
admired (‘‘How many celeb’’) was unrelated to CAS scores or scores on any of its three factors. A
similar item presented to American participants yielded a coefficient of 0.32 between scores on
that item and CAS scores (McCutcheon et al., 2001). The item ‘‘In relation to others (‘‘Other
rate’’) that you know the amount of interest in celebrities generally’’ was unrelated to all but one
of the CAS scores. A correlation of 0.25 between ‘‘other rate’’ and the mild pathological factor
suggests that men who indicate a relatively high interest in celebrities may have some mild psy-
chopathology. This finding may be important and clearly needs to be replicated.
Factor analysis of three other measures of attitudes toward celebrities showed that entertain-
ment or social factors were important (Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985; Stever, 1995; Wann, 1995).
What we call ‘‘intense personal feelings’’ appears to overlap somewhat with a ‘‘sex appeal’’ factor
as measured by Stever’s (1991) Celebrity Appeal Questionnaire, and at least one of the items
(feeling sorry for favorite celebrity when he/she makes a mistake) on the Parasocial Interaction
Scale (Rubin et al., 1985). To our knowledge, no other measure of attitudes toward celebrities
contains a factor similar to our borderline/pathological factor. In our opinion, this happened
because authors of the other scales did not write items designed to measure psychopathology.
The consistently negative correlations for both sexes between CAS and the six measures of
religiosity suggests that some religious persons do refrain from worshipping other gods, or at least
worshipping celebrities. However, the mean correlation coefficient for the 12 measures was a rather
unimpressive 0.20. This implies that many religious persons either ignore the aforementioned
1170 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172

teaching or due to compartmentalisation they fail to perceive that celebrity worship is actually a
violation of that teaching. At the very least the present results provide no support for the ‘‘wor-
shipper personality’’ hypothesis.
A look at the matrix of relationships between the six religiosity measures and scores for both
sexes on each of the three CAS factors yielded small to modest-sized relationships. The largest by
far was the 0.40 for men between entertainment/social scores and scores on Quest-complexity.
Perhaps for those men who are increasingly willing to think about and raise questions about their
religious beliefs there is a trend toward rejecting celebrities for their entertainment value. Such
men may be serious thinkers who dismiss entertainer celebrities as trivial, and regard their com-
ings and goings as unimportant in comparison with questions about one’s religious views. In any
event a replication would enable researchers to determine if this result is reliable.
Not surprisingly, in light of the previous discussion, ‘‘celeb strength’’ and ‘‘celeb I-E’’ usually
contributed significantly to the eight multiple regression analyses while ‘‘how many celeb’’ never
did and ‘‘other rate’’ did so only once. ‘‘Media coverage’’ was a significant predictor in all eight
regressions.
In the future those researchers interested in the psychology of religion might explore the
‘‘worshipper personality’’ hypothesis in an effort to determine the circumstances under which it
has validity. Alternatively, a replication of the present study using both an American sample and
samples from cultures where different kinds of religions are predominant might shed more light
on the link between celebrity worship and religious worship. For those whose interests lie pri-
marily with celebrity worship, the research opportunities are just beginning. There are a host of
personality and situational variables that might potentially be related to celebrity worship in
some as yet undiscovered way.

References

Allport, G. W. (1966). Religious context of prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 447–457.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 5, 432–433.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: understanding right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Batson, C. D., & Scheonrade, P. (1991a). Measuring religion as Quest: 1) Validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 30, 416–429.
Batson, C. D., & Scheonrade, P. (1991b). Measuring religion as Quest: 2) Reliability concerns. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 30, 430–447.
Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social psychological perspective.
London: Oxford University Press.
Beit-Hallahmi, B., & Argyle, M. (1997). The psychology of religious behaviour, belief and experience. London: Routledge.
Comrey, A. L. (1973). A first course in factor analysis. New York: Academic Press.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.
Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). ‘‘From Jerusalem to Jericho’’: a study of situational and dispositional variables
in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100–108.
DiBlasio, F. A., & Benda, B. B. (1990). Adolescent sexual behavior: Multivariate analysis of a social learning model.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 5, 449–466.
Donnelly, J., Duncan, D. F., Goldfarb, E., & Eadie, C. (1999). Sexuality attitudes and behaviors of self-described very
religious urban students in middle school. Psychological Reports, 85, 607–610.
Fleck, J. R. (1981). Dimensions of personal religion: a trichotomous view. In J. R. Fleck, & J. D. Carter (Eds.), Psy-
chology and christianity (pp. 66–80). New York: Harper Row.
 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172 1171

Freud, S. (1907/1961). Obsessive actions and religious practices. In J. Strachney (Ed.), The standard edition of the
complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 9) (pp. 167–175). London: Hogarth Press & the Institute of
Psychoanalysis.
Freud, S. (1912). Totem and taboo. In J. Strachney (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of
Sigmund Freud (Vol. 13)–1913/1961 (pp. 1–162). London: Hogarth Press & the Institute of Psychoanalysis.
Freud, S. (1927/1961). The future of an illusion. In J. Strachney (Ed.), The standard edition of the complete psycholo-
gical works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 21) (pp. 21–45). London: Hogarth Press & the Institute of Psychoanalysis.
Genia, V. (1996). I, E, Quest, and fundamentalism as predictors of psychological and spiritual well-being. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 56–64.
Genia, V., & Shaw, D. G. (1991). Religion, intrinsic-extrinsic orientation, and depression. Review of Religious
Research, 32, 274–283.
Giles, D. (2000). Illusions of immortality: a psychology of fame and celebrity. London: MacMillan.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 201–221.
Gorsuch, R. L., & Venable, G. D. (1983). Development of an ‘‘Age-Universal’’ I-E scale. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 22, 181–187.
Hoge, D. R., & Carroll, J. W. (1973). Religiosity and Prejudice in Northern and Southern Churches. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 181–187.
Jindra, M. (1994). Star-Trek fandom as a religious phenomenon. Sociology of Religion, 55, 27–51.
Kahoe, R. D. (1975). Authoritarianism and religion: relationships of the F scale items of intrinsic and extrinsic reli-
gious orientations. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 5, 284–285(Ms. No. 1020)..
Kahoe, R. D., & Meadow, M. J. (1981). A developmental perspective on religious orientation dimensions. Journal of
Religion and Health, 20, 8–17.
Kline, P. (1986). A handbook of test construction. London: Methuen.
Lewis, C. A., & Maltby, J. (1995). Religious attitude and practice — the relationship with obsessionality. Personality
and Individual Differences, 19, 105–108.
Maltby, J. (1999a). Personality dimension of religious orientation. The Journal of Psychology, 133, 631–639.
Maltby, J. (1999b). The internal structure of a derived, revised, and amended measure of the Religious Orientation
Scale: the ‘‘Age-Universal’’ I-E scale-12. Social Behavior and Personality, 27, 407–412.
Maltby, J., & Day, L. (1998). Amending a measure of the Quest Religious Orientation: applicability of the scale’s use
among religious and non-religious persons. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 517–522.
Maltby, J., Garner, I., Lewis, C. A., & Day, L. (2000). Religious orientation and schizotypal traits. Personality and
Individual Differences, 28, 143–151.
Maltby, J., Talley, M., Cooper, C., & Leslie, J. C. (1995). Personality effects in personal and public orientations toward
religion. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 157–163.
McCutcheon, L. E., Lange, R., & Houran, J. (2001). )Evidence for non-pathological and pathological dimensions of
celebrity worship. The British Journal of Psychology, in press..
McFarland, S. G. (1989). Religious orientations and the targets for discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 28, 324–336.
McLaughlin, C. S., Chen, C., Greenberger, E., & Biermeier, C. (1997). Family, peer, and individual correlates of sexual
experience among Caucasian and Asian American late adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescents, 7, 33–53.
Morris, R. J., Hood, R. W., & Watson, P. J. (1989). A second look at religious orientation, social desirability, and
prejudice. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 81–84.
Ponton, M. O., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Prejudice and religion revisited: a cross-cultural investigation with a Vene-
zuelan sample. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27, 260–271.
Rubin, A. M., Perse, E., & Powell, R. A. (1985). Loneliness, parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing.
Human Communication Research, 12, 155–180.
Rubin, R. B., & McHugh, M. P. (1987). Development of parasocial interaction relationships. Journal of Broadcasting
& Electronic Media, 31, 279–292.
Stever, G. S. (1991). The celebrity appeal questionnaire. Psychological Reports, 68, 859–866.
Stever, G. S. (1995). Para-social attachments: Motivational antecedents (Doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona,
1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(7-B), 3039.
1172 J. Maltby et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002) 1157–1172

Troiden, R. R., & Jendrek, M. P. (1987). Does sexual ideology correlate with level of sexual experience? Assessing the
construct validity of the SAS. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 256–261.
Wann, D. L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19,
377–396.
Wulff, D. M. (1997). Religion: classic and contemporary (Vol. 2). London: John Wiley & Sons.