This article was downloaded by: [Princeton University]

On: 21 June 2013, At: 07:49

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Mental Health, Religion & Culture

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmhr20

Introducing the New Indices of

Religious Orientation (NIRO):
Conceptualization and measurement
a
Leslie J. Francis
a
Welsh National Centre for Religious Education, University of
Wales, Bangor, UK
Published online: 05 Oct 2007.

To cite this article: Leslie J. Francis (2007): Introducing the New Indices of Religious Orientation
(NIRO): Conceptualization and measurement, Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 10:6, 585-602

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674670601035510

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Mental Health, Religion & Culture
November 2007; 10(6): 585–602

Introducing the New Indices of Religious

Orientation (NIRO): Conceptualization and
measurement

LESLIE J. FRANCIS
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

Welsh National Centre for Religious Education, University of Wales, Bangor, UK

Abstract
The notion of religious orientation as proposed by Allport and refined by Batson has
provided a useful tool for identifying and discussing individual differences in religiosity
within Christian and post-Christian contexts. The present paper accepts the conceptual
and empirical usefulness of distinctions between the three constructs of intrinsic,
extrinsic, and quest religious orientations; reviews the conceptual and empirical strengths,
weaknesses, and limitations of existing measures in this field; and proposes three new
indices to assess these orientations. The New Indices of Religious Orientation (NIRO) are
designed to be of equal length, to give equal empirical weight to three conceptual
components within each construct, and to employ direct and accessible language. Data
provided from a sample of 517 undergraduate students in Wales demonstrate the
satisfactory psychometric properties of these new indices. A clear distinction is made
between the appropriate use and the inappropriate misuse of these indices in future
research.

Introduction
The conceptualization and assessment of religious orientation (distinguishing
between intrinsic, extrinsic and quest religiosity) have had a major impact on
empirical research in the psychology of religion. In many ways, the jury may still be
out assessing the question raised by Kirkpatrick and Hood (1990) regarding
whether this influence, on balance, is the boon or bane of contemporary psychology
of religion. What is not in debate, however, is the fact that the concepts of intrinsic,
extrinsic, and quest orientation, and the instruments to measure these concepts,
have been widely used. Recent empirical studies have employed these measures in
projects concerned with, for example, the following issues: academic dishonesty

Correspondence: Leslie J. Francis, Welsh National Centre for Religious Education, University of
Wales, Bangor, Normal Site, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2PZ, UK. E-mail: l.j.francis@bangor.ac.uk

ISSN 1367-4676 print/ISSN 1469-9737 online ß 2007 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13674670601035510
 586 L. J. Francis

(Storch & Storch, 2001), alcohol use (Patock-Peckham, Hutchinson, Cheong, &
Nagoshi, 1998), attitude toward Christianity (Joseph & Lewis, 1997), attribution
of success and failure (Hovemyr, 1998), authoritarianism (Leak & Randall, 1995),
blood pressure (Hixson, Gruchow, & Morgan, 1998), celebrity worship (Maltby,
Houran, Lange, Ashe, & McCutcheon, 2002), cognitive motivation (Barrett,
Patock-Peckham, Hutchinson, & Nagoshi, 2005), community-service group
participation (McCrohan & Bernt, 2004), coping (Maltby & Day, 2003), death
anxiety (Clements, 1998), depression (Genia, 1998; Koenig, 1998; Koenig,
George, & Peterson, 1998), ego permissiveness (Burris & Tarpley, 1998), general
health (Maltby & Day, 2004), happiness (Lewis, Maltby, & Day, 2005), helping
behaviour (Hansen, Vandenberg, & Patterson, 1995), homophobia (Fulton,
Gorsuch, & Maynard, 1999), humour creation (Saroglou, 2002), identity
formation during adolescence (Markstrom-Adams & Smith, 1996), locus of
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

control (Wong-McDonald & Gorsuch, 2004), intolerance of ambiguity (Watson &

Morris, 2005), manic-depressive experiences (Joseph, Smith, & Diduca, 2002),
mental health (Ryan, Rigby, & King, 1993), money-related attitudes (Watson,
Jones, & Morris, 2004), mystical experience (Edwards, 2001), personality
differences (Hills, Francis, Argyle, & Jackson, 2004), prejudice (Hunsberger,
1995), psychological adjustment (Milevsky & Levitt, 2004), psychological distress
(Salsman & Carlson, 2005), psychological well-being (Maltby, Lewis, & Day,
1999), racial prejudice (Rowatt & Franklin, 2004), retaliation (Greer, Berman,
Varan, Bobrycki, & Watson, 2005), right-wing authoritarianism (Watson et al.,
2003), schizotypy (Maltby & Day, 2002), self-esteem (Giuliano, 1997), sexual
permissiveness (Haerich, 1992), spiritual well-being (Genia, 1996), stress
moderation (Hettler & Cohen, 1998), and universal compassion (Goldfried &
Miner, 2002).
Within the existing large body of empirical research, the measures of religious
orientation have been used both appropriately and inappropriately. In distin-
guishing between these two uses, the conceptual problem concerns clarifying
where the notion of religious orientation fits alongside other aspects or
dimensions of religion as operationalized within the social sciences. In its
origin, the notion of measuring religious orientation is very different from the
notions of measuring, say, religious affiliation, religious practice, or attitude
toward religion. Questions regarding religious affiliation are generally designed to
categorize individuals according to whether or not they align themselves with a
religious group. Questions regarding religious practice are generally designed to
grade individuals according to the frequency with which they engage with
personal or public religious behaviours. Questions regarding attitude toward
religion are generally designed to locate individuals along a continuum ranging
from a negative to a positive view of religion. In other words, all three notions of
self-assigned religious affiliation, religious practice, and attitude toward religion
are designed to distinguish, in one way or another, between individuals high in
religiosity and individuals low in religiosity. The notion of religious orientation,
however, provides a very different construct. The measurement of religious
orientation is intended first and foremost to distinguish different ways of
 New Indices of Religious Orientation 587

being religious among those who, by some other criteria, can be described as
religious.
The two terms intrinsic religiosity and extrinsic religiosity were given clear
currency by the pioneering work of Gordon Allport. According to Allport (1966,
p. 454), this distinction separated churchgoers whose communal type of
membership supports and serves other, non-religious ends, from those for
whom religion is an end in itself—a final, not instrumental good. Allport (1966,
p. 455) proceeded to argue as follows about the nature of extrinsic orientation:
While there are several varieties of extrinsic religious orientation, we may say they all point to a
type of religion that is strictly utilitarian: useful for the self in granting safety, social standing,
solace, and endorsement for one’s chosen way of life.
Regarding the nature of intrinsic orientation, Allport (1966, p. 455) made the
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

following case:
The intrinsic form of the religious sentiment regards faith as a supreme value in its own
right . . . . A religious sentiment of this sort floods the whole life with motivations and meaning.
Religion is no longer limited to single segments of self-interest.
In a subsequent (and now classic) coauthored paper, Allport and Ross (1967,
p. 434) develop the understanding of the distinction between intrinsic and
extrinsic orientation in the following way. Here is their description of the extrinsic
orientation:
Persons with this orientation are disposed to use religion for their own ends. The term is
borrowed from axiology, to designate an interest that is held because it serves other, more
ultimate interests. Extrinsic values are always instrumental and utilitarian. Persons with this
orientation may find religion useful in a variety of ways—to provide security and solace,
sociability and distraction, status and self-justification. The embraced creed is lightly held or
else selectively shaped to fit more primary needs. In theological terms the extrinsic type turns to
God, but without turning away from self.

Here is their description of the intrinsic orientation:

Persons with this orientation find their master motive in religion. 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
endeavours to internalize it and follow it fully. It is in this sense that he lives his religion.
Allport and Ross (1967) proposed two scales to measure their dimensions of
intrinsic and extrinsic orientation. The intrinsic measure contained nine items,
the first two of which were: ‘‘It is important for me to spend periods of time in
private religious thought and meditation’’; ‘‘If not prevented by unavoidable
circumstances, I attend church.’’ The extrinsic measure contained 11 items, the
first two of which were: ‘‘Although I believe in my religion, I feel there are many
more important things in my life’’; ‘‘It doesn’t matter so much what I believe so
long as I lead a moral life.’’
Allport’s measures of intrinsic and extrinsic orientation demonstrated that
individuals could occupy four locations defined on these two dimensions. Those
who recorded high scores on the intrinsic scale and low scores on the extrinsic
scale were defined as ‘‘pure intrinsic’’ orientation. Those who recorded high
 588 L. J. Francis

scores on the extrinsic scale and low scores on the intrinsic scale were defined as
‘‘pure extrinsic’’ orientation. Those who recorded high scores on the extrinsic
scale and high scores on the intrinsic scale were defined as ‘‘indiscriminantly
pro-religious.’’ Those who recorded low scores on the extrinsic scale and low
scores on the intrinsic scale were defined as ‘‘indiscriminantly anti-religious’’
(Hood, 1978).
Critiquing Allport’s model of religious orientation, Batson (1976) and Batson
and Ventis (1982) argued the case for a third dimension alongside the intrinsic
and extrinsic orientations, which they styled the quest orientation. The quest
orientation gave recognition to a form of religiosity which embraces character-
istics of complexity, doubt, tentativeness, and honesty in facing existential
questions. Batson and Ventis (1982, p. 150) provided the following description of
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

the quest orientation:

An individual who approaches religion in this way recognises that he or she does not know, and
probably never will know, the final truth about such matters. But still the questions are deemed
important, and however tentative and subject to change, answers are sought. There may not be
a clear belief in a transcendent reality, but there is a transcendent, religious dimension to the
individual’s life.
Batson and Ventis (1982, p. 145) also provided a six-item instrument to measure
the quest orientation, which they originally identified by the name ‘‘interactional
scale.’’ Two items were: ‘‘It might be said that I value my religious doubts and
uncertainties’’; ‘‘Questions are far more central to my religious experience than
are answers.’’ Subsequently, Batson and Schoenrade (1991a, 1991b) developed
a longer 12-item quest scale, which dropped one item from the original six-item
scale (My religious development has emerged out of my growing sense of personal
identity) and introduced a further seven new items.
In coming to their formulation of the quest orientation of religiosity, Batson
and Ventis (1982) claimed to be drawing on both theological and psychological
roots. The theological roots are said to be grounded in works by Bonhoeffer
(1953), Gandhi (1948), Niebuhr (1963), Rubenstein (1965), and Tillich (1951).
The psychological roots are said to be grounded in Barron (1968), Bertocci
(1958), Fromm (1950), Maslow (1964), and Rugg (1963).
Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis (1993, p. 174) emphasized two key
characteristics of their understanding of the three-dimensional model of being
religious (intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest). First, they argued against using the
scales to assign individuals to types. They wrote as follows:
We have not classified religious individuals as being of a means type, end type, or quest type.
Instead, we have measured the degree to which each individual’s religion can be characterised
in each of these ways. Each individual receives a score on each component, and each
component is a continuous dimension.
Second, they maintained that the three dimensions in their model are independent
of one another, as established by orthogonal factor analysis. They wrote as follows:
How you score on one component says precisely nothing about how you will score on the
other two. The three are independent dimensions. You might score high on all three
 New Indices of Religious Orientation 589
components, low on all three (if you are relatively nonreligious), or high on one or two and low
on another.
A number of problems have been raised in the literature regarding the
conceptualization and operationalization of the three orientations of intrinsic,
extrinsic, and quest religiosity. For example, Hood and Morris (1985) argued that
how the quest dimension is ‘‘defined and operationalized is a grievous conceptual
error.’’ Kirkpatrick (1989) demonstrated the multidimensional nature of extrinsic
religiosity. Pargament (1992) maintained that Allport and others have been blind
to the positive potentials of extrinsic religiosity. Gorsuch (1994) maintained that
Allport and others have defined and operationalized intrinsic religiosity in
ambiguous ways. Trimble (1997) maintained that intrinsic religiosity is subject to
social desirability.
Questions have been raised about the validity of the quest orientation from a
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

number of perspectives (see Donahue, 1985; Kojetin, McIntosh, Bridges, &

Spilka, 1987). It has been suggested that the quest scale may have little to do with
religiosity at all, or be a measure of agnosticism, anti-orthodoxy, sophomoric
religious doubt, or religious conflict. Questions have been raised about the
reliability of the six-item quest scale and the homogeneity of the items selected
(see Gorsuch, 1988; Griffin, Gorsuch & Davis, 1987; Ponton & Gorsuch, 1988;
Spilka, Kojetin, & McIntosh, 1985; Watson, Morris, & Hood, 1989). Batson
and Schoenrade (1991a, 1991b) offer robust responses to these criticisms
concerning validity and reliability and offer a revised and stronger instrument.
The revised instrument, too, has come under criticism (Beck, Baker, Robbins, &
Dow, 2001).
Two kinds of problems have been identified in the items comprising the Allport
and Ross (1967) intrinsic orientation and extrinsic orientation measures and the
Batson and Schoenrade (1991a, 1991b) quest orientation measure. The first
problem concerns the failure of some of the items to pass the general test of
item simplicity and clarity. For example, the extrinsic item ‘‘It doesn’t matter so
much what I believe so long as I lead a moral life,’’ leaves no room for the
individual for whom neither morality nor belief really matters. The intrinsic item
‘‘If I were to join a church group I would prefer to join a bible study group rather
than a social fellowship’’ may confuse spiritual preferences with psychological
preferences for introversion and extraversion. The quest item ‘‘ I have been driven
to ask religious questions out of a growing awareness of the tensions in my world
and in my relation to my world’’ contains several ideas and is unnecessarily
verbose. This kind of problem can be resolved by developing and testing a new
pool of items.
The second problem concerns the appropriateness of the items for use
among individuals who are not themselves, in one sense or another, religious
in a way shaped by institutionalized Christianity (Maltby & Lewis, 1996).
The answers of the irreligious person (who has never been religious) to the
following items might be problematic: ‘‘Although I believe in my religion,
I feel there are many more important things in life’’ (extrinsic); ‘‘The prayers
I say when I am alone carry as much meaning and personal emotion as those
 590 L. J. Francis

said by me during services’’ (intrinsic); ‘‘God wasn’t very important for me

until I begun to ask questions about the meaning of my own life’’ (quest). This
kind of problem can be resolved by recognizing that measures of religious
orientation are not intended to distinguish between religious and irreligious
individuals, but to distinguish between different motivations among those
who are religious.
The intention of the present paper is to suggest that the original concepts
of intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest religiosity are worth re-examination and
re-operationalization. The aim is to develop scales of equal length to measure
the three constructs and to give equal weight to the three conceptual
components identified within each construct. Batson and Schoenrade (1991b)
defined the three components of quest orientation as: readiness to face
existential questions without reducing their complexity; self-criticism and
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

perception of religious doubt as positive; openness to change. The three conceptual

components of extrinsic orientation are: compartmentalization, or the separation
of religion from the rest of life; social support, or the use of religion to achieve social
ends; personal support, or the use of religion to gain personal comfort. The three
conceptual components of intrinsic orientation are: integration, or the close
relationship between religion and the rest of life; public religion, or the importance
given to church for religious ends; personal religion, or the importance given to
personal prayer and reading for religious ends.
This clear conceptual framework provided an opportunity to assess the original
items for relevance, for face validity, and for economy of expression, and then to
draft a battery of new items. The new items have been drafted to distinguish
different religious orientations among religious people whose religiosity has been
shaped by institutionalized Christianity. It is recognized that the scales are less
appropriate among people who are themselves not religious, or among people
whose religiosity has been shaped by non-Christian traditions.

Method
Item construction
A team of researchers familiar with the conceptual map identifying the three
component parts of the three constructs of intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest
religiosity constructed and debated appropriate items within each of the nine
conceptual components. Then, the pool of generated items was reduced by
consensus to four within each component.

Questionnaire
In addition to questions about age, sex, and religious affiliation, the questionnaire
included the following measures:
. Religious orientation. The 36 items were randomised and arranged for scoring
on a 5-point Likert scale: agree strongly, agree, not certain, disagree, and
disagree strongly.
 New Indices of Religious Orientation 591

. Church attendance was assessed on a 5-point scale: never, once or twice a year,
sometimes, at least once a month, and nearly every week.
. Personal prayer was assessed on a 5-point scale: never, once or twice a year,
sometimes, at least once a week, and nearly every day.
. Self-assigned religiosity was assessed by the question ‘‘Do you regard yourself as
a religious person?’’ with the three response options: no, yes Christian, and yes
other.

Sample
All first-year students at a university-sector college in Wales, specializing in
teacher education and liberal arts subjects, were invited to complete this
questionnaire, alongside a battery of other tests as part of their induction
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

programme during the first week of their first term. All the students who attended
the session agreed to participate. Complete questionnaires were returned by 517
students, 134 males, and 383 females. The majority (67%) were aged 18 or 19;
12% were aged 20 or 21 years; 12% were in their late twenties, 6% were in their
thirties, and the remaining 4% were aged 40 or over. Just over a quarter of the
students (27%) claimed no religious affiliation; 27% self-identified as Anglican,
14% as Roman Catholic, 11% as Baptist, and 7% as Methodists. The remaining
students identified with a wide range of other Christian denominations. Only one
student identified with another faith group (Jewish). A quarter of the students
(27%) claimed to attend church at least once a month, and another quarter
(24%) claimed never to attend church. The remaining 49% attended at least once
a year. One in six of the students (16%) claimed to pray daily and a further 12%
at least once a week; 26% claimed never to pray, leaving 46% who prayed at
least once a year. Regarding self-assigned religiosity, 37% styled themselves as
non-religious, 58% as Christian, and 5% as ‘‘other.’

Results
Exploratory factor analyses and item rest of test correlations were employed
to select the three items within each of the three components identified within
each of the three constructs (intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest orientation). The
obique three factor rotated solution used to identify the final section of 27 items is
presented in Table I. All factor loadings below 0.39 have been suppressed in
this table to highlight the clarity of the solution. These data illustrate that two
items from the extrinsic factor also load quite highly on the intrinsic factor,
and that one item from the intrinsic factor also loads quite highly on the extrinsic
factor.
Table II presents the item rest of test correlation coefficients for the three scales
of the New Indices of Religious Orientation (full form): extrinsic orientation,
intrinsic orientation, and quest orientation, together with the alpha coefficients.
Each of the three indices produced alpha coefficients well in excess of Kline’s
 592 L. J. Francis

Table I. Exploratory factor analyses: rotated solution.

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Compartmentalization
While I believe in my religion, there are more important things in 0.59
my life
While I am a religious person, I do not let religion influence my 0.67
daily life
Occasionally, I compromise my religious beliefs to protect my 0.49
social and economic well-being
Social support
One reason for me going to church is that it helps to establish me 0.57
in the community
A key reason for my interest in church is that it is a pleasant 0.46
social activity
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

I go to church because it helps me to feel at home in my 0.62

neighbourhood
Personal support
One reason for me praying is that it helps me to gain relief and 0.50 0.61
protection
What prayer offers me most is comfort when sorrow or 0.43 0.60
misfortune strike
I pray chiefly because it makes me feel better 0.65
Integration
My religious beliefs really shape my whole approach to life 0.78
I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings 0.69
in life
My religious beliefs really shape the way I treat other people 0.68
Public religion
I allow almost nothing to prevent me from going to church 0.72
on Sundays
I go to church because it helps me to feel close to God 0.59 0.49
The church is most important to me as a place to share 0.70
fellowship with other Christians
Personal religion
I pray at home because it helps me to be aware of God’s presence 0.78
I often read books about prayer and the spiritual life 0.58
I pray chiefly because it deepens my relationship with God 0.82
Existentialism
I was driven to ask religious questions by a growing awareness 0.55
of the tensions in my world
My life experiences have led me to rethink my religious beliefs 0.76
Religion only became very important for me when I began to ask 0.51
questions about the meaning of my life
Self-criticism
I value my religious doubts and uncertainties 0.62
For me, doubting is an important part of what it means 0.64
to be religious
Questions are more important to my religious faith than 0.44
are answers
Openness to change
As I grow and change, I expect my religion to grow and 0.59
change as well
I am constantly questioning my religious beliefs 0.74
There are many religious issues on which my views are 0.61
still changing
Note: All factor loadings above 0.39 are shown.
 New Indices of Religious Orientation 593

Table II. New Indices of Religious Orientation (full form).

Scale items r

Extrinsic orientation
Compartmentalization
While I believe in my religion, there are more important things in my life 0.3503
While I am a religious person, I do not let religion influence my daily life 0.4516
Occasionally, I compromise my religious beliefs to protect my social and economic 0.5265
well-being
Social support
One reason for me going to church is that it helps to establish me in the community 0.5641
A key reason for my interest in church is that it is a pleasant social activity 0.4747
I go to church because it helps me to feel at home in my neighbourhood 0.6155
Personal support
One reason for me praying is that it helps me to gain relief and protection 0.6943
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

What prayer offers me most is comfort when sorrow or misfortune strike 0.6288
I pray chiefly because it makes me feel better 0.6856
Alpha 0.8400
Intrinsic orientation
Integration
My religious beliefs really shape my whole approach to life 0.7331
I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life 0.6904
My religious beliefs really shape the way I treat other people 0.7069
Public religion
I allow almost nothing to prevent me from going to church on Sundays 0.6337
I go to church because it helps me to feel close to God 0.6405
The church is most important to me as a place to share fellowship with other Christians 0.7051
Personal religion
I pray at home because it helps me to be aware of God’s presence 0.7883
I often read books about prayer and the spiritual life 0.5423
I pray chiefly because it deepens my relationship with God 0.8191
Alpha 0.9120
Quest orientation
Existentialism
I was driven to ask religious questions by a growing awareness of the tensions 0.5953
in my world
My life experiences have led me to rethink my religious beliefs 0.6179
Religion only became very important for me when I began to ask questions about the 0.5539
meaning of my life
Self-criticism
I value my religious doubts and uncertainties 0.5953
For me, doubting is an important part of what it means to be religious 0.5755
Questions are more important to my religious faith than are answers 0.5221
Openness to change
As I grow and change, I expect my religion to grow and change as well 0.5837
I am constantly questioning my religious beliefs 0.5739
There are many religious issues on which my views are still changing 0.4960
Alpha 0.8493
 594 L. J. Francis

Table III. New Indices of Religious Orientation (short form).

Scale items r

Extrinsic orientation
Compartmentalization
While I am a religious person, I do not let religion influence my daily life 0.3858
Occasionally, I compromise my religious beliefs to protect my social and economic 0.5199
well-being
Social support
One reason for me going to church is that it helps to establish me in the community 0.5756
I go to church because it helps me to feel at home in my neighbourhood 0.6256
Personal support
One reason for me praying is that it helps me to gain relief and protection 0.6825
I pray chiefly because it makes me feel better 0.6356
Alpha 0.8075
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

Intrinsic orientation
Integration
My religious beliefs really shape my whole approach to life 0.7102
I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life 0.6683
Public religion
I allow almost nothing to prevent me from going to church on Sundays 0.6127
The church is most important to me as a place to share fellowship with other Christians 0.6929
Personal religion
I pray at home because it helps me to be aware of God’s presence 0.7853
I pray chiefly because it deepens my relationship with God 0.8309
Alpha 0.8942
Quest orientation
Existentialism
I was driven to ask religious questions by a growing awareness of the tensions 0.5411
in my world
My life experiences have led me to rethink my religious beliefs 0.6118
Self-criticism
I value my religious doubts and uncertainties 0.5731
For me, doubting is an important part of what it means to be religious 0.5631
Openness to change
As I grow and change, I expect my religion to grow and change as well 0.5506
I am constantly questioning my religious beliefs 0.5605
Alpha 0.8072

(1993) recommended minimum threshold of 0.70: extrinsic ¼ 0.84;

intrinsic ¼ 0.91; quest ¼ 0.85.
In view of the necessity in some research situations to provide short indices
for economy of space and time, further analyses were undertaken to reduce each
index to six items, with two items reflecting each of the three components.
Table III presents the item rest of test correlation coefficients for the three scales
of the New Indices of Religious Orientation (short form). Once again, each of the
three indices produced alpha coefficients well in excess of 0.70: extrinsic ¼ 0.81;
intrinsic ¼ 0.89; quest ¼ 0.81. The scores recorded on the six-item scales
correlated very highly with the scores recorded on the parent nine-item scales:
extrinsic ¼ 0.97; intrinsic ¼ 0.98; quest ¼ 0.97.
 New Indices of Religious Orientation 595

Table IV. Mean scale scores by self-assigned religiosity.

None Christian

Orientation M SD M SD F p5

Extrinsic 20.8 6.3 26.6 5.0 123.7 0.001

Intrinsic 18.6 6.1 26.3 6.8 159.3 0.001
Quest 22.1 6.7 26.0 5.2 52.6 0.001

Table V. Mean scale scores by church attendance.

Never Sometimes Monthly

Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

Orientation M SD M SD M SD F p5

Extrinsic 20.1 6.6 24.8 5.3 27.2 5.2 54.8 0.001

Intrinsic 18.3 6.5 22.2 5.5 30.0 6.5 132.4 0.001
Quest 21.7 7.1 25.0 5.7 26.6 4.9 23.9 0.001

Table VI. Mean scale scores by personal prayer.

Never Sometimes Daily

Orientation M SD M SD M SD F p5

Extrinsic 19.6 6.3 26.1 5.1 25.8 5.5 68.2 0.001

Intrinsic 17.9 6.0 23.6 6.0 31.6 6.5 130.8 0.001
Quest 21.5 6.7 25.6 5.6 26.4 5.1 27.3 0.001

Tables IV–VI examine the concurrent validity of the three nine-item scales
of the New Indices of Religious Orientation (full form) against three other
indices of religiosity: self-assigned religiosity, church attendance, and personal
prayer. Students who responded to the question ‘‘Do you regard yourself as a
religious person?’’ by checking ‘‘yes, Christian’’ recorded significantly
higher scores on all three scales, compared with students who did not regard
themselves as a religious person. Students who attended church at least
monthly recorded significantly higher scores on all three scales, compared with
students who never attended church. Students who prayed daily recorded higher
scores on all three scales, compared with students who never prayed. These
findings are consistent with the view that all three scales of intrinsic, extrinsic, and
quest orientation measure aspects of what it means to be religious in a Christian
context.
Table VII explores the intercorrelations between the three nine-item measures
of religious orientation (extrinsic, intrinsic, and quest) and does so among
 596 L. J. Francis

Table VII. Intercorrelations on different groups.

Group N Intrinsic extrinsic Intrinsic quest Extrinsic quest

Undifferentiated by religiosity
Whole sample 517 0.59*** 0.55*** 0.59***
By levels of public religiosity
Church attendance never 124 0.79*** 0.72*** 0.71***
Church attendance at least monthly 139
0.18* 0.04 0.31***
By levels of private religiosity
Personal prayer never 134 0.85*** 0.67*** 0.73***
Personal prayer daily 82
0.27**
0.02 0.09
By levels self-assigned religiosity
Self-assigned no religion 190 0.84*** 0.77*** 0.77***
Self-assigned Christian 297 0.19*** 0.28*** 0.36***
Note: *p50.05; **p50.01; ***p50.001
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

the whole sample and among clearly specified subgroups within the sample.
Three subgroups make three key distinctions according to different markers
of religiosity included in the questionnaire. At the level of public religiosity,
a comparison is offered between those who attend church at least monthly
and those who never attend church. At the level of private religiosity, a
comparison is offered between those who pray daily and those who never pray.
At the level of self-assigned religiosity, a comparison is made between those
who style themselves as non-religious and those who style themselves as
Christian. These data clearly indicate that the scales function in different ways
in groups defined by different levels of religiosity. Among mixed groups of
religious and non-religious individuals (whole sample), all three indices of
intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest religiosity are highly intercorrelated. Broadly
conceived these indices distinguish between those who are religious and
those who are not religious. In non-religious samples, the correlations between
the three indices are even higher (never attend church, never pray, self-styled as
non-religious).
Among religious samples, the three scales function in a different manner.
If daily personal prayer can be taken as an indicator of a high level of personal
religious commitment, it is this group which might best indicate how the three
scales of religious orientation function among the highly religiously committed.
While in the mixed sample, there is a positive correlation of þ0.59 between
intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, among those who pray daily the correlation is
reversed to
0.27. While in the mixed sample, intrinsic and quest religiosity are
correlated þ0.55, among those who pray daily there is no significant correlation
between these two variables. While in the mixed sample, extrinsic and quest
religiosity are correlated þ0.59, among those who pray daily there is no significant
correlation between these two variables. In religious samples, the three indices of
religious orientation are better capable of distinguishing between different ways of
being religious.
 New Indices of Religious Orientation 597

Discussion
The NIRO provide highly reliable measures of three clearly defined constructs
concerning different understandings of what it may mean to be religious in a
Christian context. The items selected for inclusion in these three indices now
provide focused operational definitions of the three constructs.
Individuals who record high scores on the extrinsic orientation are characterized
by three features of their approach to religion. First, they compartmentalize their
religious faith and do not allow it to flow over into all aspects of their lives. They are
able to say that, while they believe in their religion, there are more important things
in their lives. While they are able to describe themselves as religious people, they do
not let religion influence their daily lives. They are willing to compromise their
religious beliefs in order to protect their social and economic well-being. Second,
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

they place a high emphasis on the social support which they derive from their public
religious involvement. They recognize that one reason for them going to church is
that it helps to establish them in the community. They say that they go to church
because it helps them to feel at home in their neighbourhood. One of their key
motivations in going to church is that they find it a pleasant social activity. Third,
they place a high emphasis on the personal support which they derive from their
personal religious practices. They recognize that one reason for praying is that it
helps them to gain relief and protection. They say that what prayer offers them
most is comfort when sorrow and misfortune strike. They pray chiefly because it
makes them feel better. In accordance with Allport’s original conceptualization
(Allport & Ross, 1967), individuals who record high scores on the extrinsic
orientation scale see their religion as a means to other personal and social ends
rather than as an end in itself.
Individuals who record high scores on the intrinsic orientation are character-
ized by three features of their approach to religion. First, they integrate their
religious faith into all aspects of their lives. They are able to say that their religious
beliefs really shape their whole approach to life. They try hard to carry their
religion over into all their other dealings in life. They can claim with confidence
that their religious beliefs really shape the way they treat other people. Second,
they place a high priority on public religious practice as a sign of their
commitment both to God and to the community of believers. They say that they
go to church because it helps them to feel close to God. The church is important
to them as a place to share fellowship with other Christians. They allow almost
nothing to prevent them from going to church on Sundays. Third, they value their
personal religious practices as a way of developing their personal relationship with
God. They say that they pray at home because it helps them to be aware of God’s
presence. They pray chiefly because it deepens their relationship with God. They
often read books about prayer and about the spiritual life. In accordance with
Allport’s original conceptualization (Allport & Ross, 1967), individuals who
record high scores on the intrinsic orientation scale see their religion as something
of value in its own spiritual right. For them, religion is an end in itself and not a
means to other personal and social ends.
 598 L. J. Francis

Individuals who record high scores on the quest orientation scale are
characterized by three features of their approach to religion. First, they display
a readiness to face existential questions without reducing the complexity of such
questions. For them, religion only became very important when they began to ask
questions about the meaning of their life. They are able to say that they were
driven to ask religious questions by a growing awareness of the tensions in their
world. For them, there is a continuing dialogue between faith and experience,
such as they recognize how their life experiences have led them to rethink their
religious beliefs. Second, they embrace self-criticism and perceive religious doubt
itself as positive. For them, doubting is an important part of what it means to be
religious. Questions are more important to their religious faith than are the
answers. They are able to say that they positively value their religious doubts and
uncertainties. Third, they display an openness to change and a readiness to
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

embrace new perspectives. They freely admit that there are many religious issues
on which their views are still changing. They recognize that they are constantly
questioning their religious beliefs, and they expect that pattern to continue well
into the future. As they grow and change, they expect their religion to grow and
change as well. In accordance with Batson and Ventis’ original conceptualization
(Batson & Ventis, 1982), individuals who record high scores on the quest
orientation scale see their religion in terms of exploration and quest rather than in
terms of dogma and certainty.

Conclusion
This paper has undertaken a review of the conceptualization, operationalization,
application, and criticism of the notion of religious orientation as this has been
developed over the past 40 years and introduced the NIRO. The following six
conclusions have emerged from the review.
First, the three orientations of intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest religiosity have
emerged as distinct, coherent, and defensible views of different ways of being
religious. Conceptually, measures of religious orientation are not designed to
distinguish between individuals who are religious and those who are not religious.
This is the function of measures concerned, say, with religious affiliation,
religious practice, or attitude toward religion. Measures of religious orientation
are designed to distinguish between different motivations among those who are,
in one sense or another, religious.
Second, the three orientations have been re-operationalized in terms both of
nine-item scales (full form) and of six-item scales (short-form), each of which
gives equal balance to the three constituent component parts identified within
that construct. Care has been taken to formulate the items in clear, direct, and
accessible language. In respect of each scale, the three components cohere to
produce high alpha coefficients. The scales possess good internal consistency
reliability.
Third, the three new scales have been shown to be highly intercorrelated within
a mixed sample of religious and non-religious students. This is consistent with
 New Indices of Religious Orientation 599

the conceptual position that the constructs measure different but not mutually
exclusive aspects of religiosity. Those individuals who regard themselves as non-
religious will record low scores on all three dimensions, not wishing to assent to
items concerned with intrinsic religiosity, to items concerned with extrinsic
religiosity, or to items concerned with quest religiosity.
Fourth, the way in which the patterns of correlations differ, when tested on a
highly religious sample, a non-religious sample, and a mixed sample, indicates
that the constructs of intrinsic, extrinsic, and quest religiosity function differently
in different situations or among different samples. Consequently, findings from
instruments designed to measure these constructs need to be interpreted with
care according to the situations in which, or the samples among which, they have
been used. The real usefulness of the scales is clearly among religious samples
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

where the scores are able to distinguish between different ways of being religious.
Fifth, the view that all three scales measure aspects of religiosity and not some
other non-religious psychological construct (like sophomoric doubt) has been
validated against three other indices of religiosity, namely frequency of church
attendance, frequency of personal prayer, and self-assigned religiosity.
Sixth, it would be a mistake to imagine that the debate about religious
orientation has been concluded with the mapping of three conceptually distinct
aspects. Freed from the empirical constraints of imagining that measures
of religious orientation should function orthogonally among both religious and
non-religious populations, the psychology of religion is now challenged to
conceptualize and to operationalize further complementary notions of religious
orientation capable of providing wider and richer insight into the diversity of
motivation underpinning religious affiliation, religious belief, and religious
participation.

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, 432–443.
Barrett, D. W., Patock-Peckham, J. A., Hutchinson, G. T., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2005). Cognitive
motivation and religious orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 461–474.
Barron, F. (1968). Creativity and personal freedom. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Batson, C. D. (1976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or double agent? Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 15, 29–45.
Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991a). Measuring religion as quest: Validity concerns. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 416–429.
Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991b). Measuring religion as quest: Reliability concerns.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430–447.
Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P. A, & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-
psychological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The religious experience: A social psychological perspective.
New York: Oxford University Press.
 600 L. J. Francis
Beck, R., Baker, L., Robbins, M., & Dow, S. (2001). A second look at quest
motivation: Is quest unidimensional or multidimensional? Journal of Psychology and Theology,
29, 148–157.
Bertocci, P. A. (1958). Religion as creative insecurity. New York: Association Press.
Bonhoeffer, D. (1953). Letters and papers from prison. New York: Macmillan.
Burris, C. T., & Tarpley, W. R. (1998). Religion as being: Preliminary validation of the Immanence
Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 55–79.
Clements, R. (1998). Intrinsic religious motivation and attitudes toward death among the elderly.
Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning, Personality, Social, 17, 237–248.
Donahue, M. J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400–419.
Edwards, A. (2001). Transpersonal experience and quest religious orientation. Transpersonal
Psychology Review, 5(1), 34–40.
Fromm, E. (1950). Psychoanalysis and religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Fulton, A. S., Gorsuch, R. L., & Maynard, E. A. (1999). Religious orientation, antihomosexual
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

sentiment, and fundamentalism among Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
38, 14–22.
Gandhi, M. K. (1948). Gandhi’s autobiography: The story of my experiments with truth. Washington,
DC: Public Affairs Press.
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. (1998). Religiousness and psychological adjustment in college students. Journal of College
Student Psychotherapy, 12(3), 67–77.
Giuliano, G. J. (1997). Religious orientation and self-affirmation. Pastoral Sciences, 16, 27–46.
Goldfried, J., & Miner, M. (2002). Quest religion and the problem of limited compassion. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 685–695.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Psychology of religion. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 201–221.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1994). Toward motivational theories of intrinsic religious commitment. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 33, 315–325.
Greer, T., Berman, M., Varan, V., Bobrycki, L., & Watson, S. (2005). We are a religious people;
We are a vengeful people. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44, 45–57.
Griffin, G. A. E., Gorsuch, R. L., & Davis, A.-L. (1987). A cross-cultural investigation of religious
orientation, social norms and prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26, 358–365.
Haerich, P. (1992). Premarital sexual permissiveness and religious orientation: A preliminary
investigation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31, 361–365.
Hansen, D. E., Vandenberg, B., & Patterson, M. L. (1995). The effects of religious orientation on
spontaneous and non-spontaneous helping behaviours. Personality and Individual Differences, 19,
101–104.
Hettler, T. R., & Cohen, L. H. (1998). Intrinsic religiousness as a stress-moderator for adult
Protestant churchgoers. Journal of Community Psychology, 26, 597–609.
Hills, P., Francis, L. J., Argyle, M., & Jackson, C. J. (2004). Primary personality trait correlates of
religious practice and orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 61–73.
Hixson, K. A., Gruchow, H. W., & Morgan, D. W. (1998). The relation between religiosity,
selected health behaviours, and blood pressure among adult females. Preventive Medicine, 27,
545–552.
Hood Jr, R. W. (1978). The usefulness of indiscriminately pro and anti categories of religious
orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17, 419–431.
Hood Jr, R. W., & Morris, R. J. (1985). Conceptualisation of quest: A critical rejoinder to Batson.
Review of Religious Research, 26, 391–397.
Hovemyr, M. (1998). The attribution of success and failure as related to different patterns of
religious orientation. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 8, 107–124.
Hunsberger, B. (1995). Religion and prejudice: The role of religious fundamentalism, quest, and
right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 113–129.
 New Indices of Religious Orientation 601
Joseph, S., & Lewis, C. A. (1997). The Francis Scale of Attitude towards Christianity: Intrinsic or
extrinsic religiosity? Psychological Reports, 80, 609–610.
Joseph, S., Smith, D., & Diduca, D. (2002). Religious orientation and its association with
personality, schizotypal traits and manic-depressive experiences. Mental Health, Religion and
Culture, 5, 73–81.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1989). A psychometric analysis of the Allport–Ross and Feagin measures of
intrinsic–extrinsic religious orientation. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 1, 1–13.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hood, R. W. (1990). Intrinsic–extrinsic religious orientation: The boon or
bane of contemporary psychology of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29,
442–462.
Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.
Koenig, H. G. (1998). Religious attitudes and practices of hospitalised medically ill older adults.
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 13, 213–224.
Koenig, H. G., George, L. K., & Peterson, B. L. (1998). Religiosity and remission of depression in
medically ill older adults. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 536–542.
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

Kojetin, B. A., McIntosh, D. N., Bridges, R. A., & Spilka, B. (1987). Quest: Constructive search or
religious conflict? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26, 111–115.
Leak, G. K., & Randall, B. A. (1995). Clarification of the link between right-wing authoritarianism
and religiousness: The role of religious maturity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34,
245–252.
Lewis, C. A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2005). Religious orientation, religious coping and happiness
among UK adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 1193–1202.
Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2002). Religious experience, religious orientation and schizotypy. Mental
Health, Religion and Culture, 5, 163–174.
Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2003). Religious orientation, religious coping and appraisals of stress:
Assessing primary appraisal factors in the relationship between religiosity and psychological
well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1209–1224.
Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2004). Should never the twain meet? Integrating models of
religious personality and religious mental health. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
1275–1290.
Maltby, J., Houran, J., Lange, R., Ashe, D., & McCutcheon, L. E. (2002). Thou shalt worship no
other gods—unless they are celebrities: The relationship between celebrity worship and religious
orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1157–1172.
Maltby, J., & Lewis, C. A. (1996). Measuring intrinsic and extrinsic orientation toward religion:
Amendments of its use among religious and non-religious samples. Personality and Individual
Differences, 21, 937–946.
Maltby, J., Lewis, C. A., & Day, L. (1999). Religious orientation and psychological well-being: The
role of the frequency of personal prayer. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 363–378.
Markstrom-Adams, C., & Smith, M. (1996). Identity formation and religious orientation among
high school students from the United States and Canada. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 247–261.
Maslow, A. H. (1964). Religions, values, and peak-experiences. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University
Press.
McCrohan, B., & Bernt, F. M. (2004). Service and worship as modes of religious expression among
Catholic college students. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 273–284.
Milevsky, A., & Levitt, M. J. (2004). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity in preadolescence and
adolescence: Effect on psychological adjustment. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 7,
307–321.
Niebuhr, H. R. (1963). The responsible self. New York: Harper.
Pargament, K. I. (1992). Of means and ends: Religion and the search for significance. International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 201–229.
Patock-Peckham, J. A., Hutchinson, G. T., Cheong, J., & Nagoshi, C. T. (1998). Effect of religion
and religiosity on alcohol use in a college student sample. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 49,
81–88.
 602 L. J. Francis
Ponton, M. O., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Prejudice and religion revisited: A cross-cultural
investigation with a Venezuelan sample. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27, 260–271.
Rowatt, W. C., & Franklin, L. M. (2004). Christian orthodoxy, religious fundamentalism, and
right-wing authoritarianism as predictors of implicit racial prejudice. International Journal for the
Psychology of Religion, 14, 125–138.
Rubenstein, R. L. (1965). The making of a rabbi. In I. Eisenstein (Ed.), The varieties of Jewish belief
(pp. 177–200). New York: Jewish Reconstructionist Press.
Rugg, H. (1963). Imagination. New York: Harper.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S., & King, K. (1993). Two types of religious internalization and their relations
to religious orientations and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
586–596.
Salsman, J. M., & Carlson, C. R. (2005). Religious orientation, mature faith, and psychological
distress: Elements of positive and negative associations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
44, 201–209.
Saroglou, V. (2002). Religiousness, religious fundamentalism, and quest as predictors of humor
Downloaded by [Princeton University] at 07:49 21 June 2013

creation. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 12, 177–188.

Spilka, B., Kojetin, B. A., & McIntosh, D. (1985). Forms and measures of personal faith:
Questions, correlates and distinctions. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 24, 437–442.
Storch, E. A., & Storch, J. B. (2001). Organisational, nonorganisational, and intrinsic religiosity and
academic dishonesty. Psychological Reports, 88, 548–552.
Tillich, P. (1951). Systematic theology (Vol. 1.). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Trimble, D. E. (1997). The Religious Orientation Scale: Review and meta-analysis of social
desirability effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 970–986.
Watson, P. J., Jones, N. D., & Morris, R. J. (2004). Religious orientation and attitudes toward
money: Relationships with narcissism and the influence of gender. Mental Health, Religion and
Culture, 7, 277–288.
Watson, P. J., & Morris, R. J. (2005). Spiritual experience and identity: Relationships with religious
orientation, religious interest, and intolerance of ambiguity. Review of Religious Research, 46,
371–379.
Watson, P. J., Morris, R. J., & Hood Jr, R. W. (1989). Interactional factor correlations with means
and end religiousness. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 337–347.
Watson, P. J., Sawyers, P., Morris, R. J., Carpenter, M. L., Jimenez, R. S., Jonas, K. A., &
Robinson, D. L. (2003). Reanalysis within a Christian ideological surround: Relationships of
intrinsic religious orientation with fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of
Psychology and Theology, 31, 315–328.
Wong-McDonald, A., & Gorsuch, R. L. (2004). A multivariate theory of God concept, religious
motivation, locus of control, coping, and spiritual well-being. Journal of Psychology and Theology,
32, 318–334.