Ethnocentrism also correlated with various. dogmatism, rigidity, concrete thinking, and narrow cognitive organization.

Transcription

1

2 AILSTQMLT EXTRINSIC RELIGICUS VALUES AND PERSONALITY VARIABLES DOGMATISM, RIGIDITY, CONCRETE THINKING AN!) NAIUZO.'{ C(IGNI IVB GRGANIZATION By Alice Palmer Mathews Research on the nature of prejudice during the past three decades has pointed up the relationship of this phenomenon to the degree of religious influence in an individual's training. Wilson postulated the holding of extrinsic religious values as a factor in understanding the reported differences in prejudice level among _religious persons. Ethnocentrism also correlated with various personality variables reported in the literature; among them were dogmatism, rigidity, concrete thinking, and narrow cognitive organization. The question thus posed itself whether, in fact, a significant relationship existed between these personality variables and extrinsic religious values. Two possible factors reported in the literature which could explain such hypothesized correlations were: 1) frequency of church attendance, and 2) membership in a Bible study group. The relationship of these two factors to the notion of intrinsic or interiorized faith is also considered. Groups of Michigan State University students from five campus religious organizations and two groups from psychology classes were given a battery of five scales: Wilson's Extrinsic Religious Values scale, the Sanford-Gengh Fx scale (tapping

3 Mathews rigidity), Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form B, a concept-definition measure to tap the abstract-concrete thinking continuum, and a paragraph summary of the concepts to determine the breadth of cognitive organization. Whole-sample analyses of these data yielded significance beyond the.001 level for correlations between extrinsic religious values and rigidity and dogmatism, and beyond the.01 level between extrinsic religious values and concrete thinking. A breakdown of the entire sample into four equal quartiles of 32 subjects each, based upon ERV scores, brought out significant differences between Means in the hypothesized direction for all quartiles in both the rigidity and dogmatism scales, and between some quartiles for the concrete thinking and narrow cognitive organization measures. An item-analysis of the ERV scale yielded significant differences in the expected direction between subjects judged high and low on each of the four personality variables. A matched-pairs study of the Bible study/nonestudy variable yielded significance beyond the.005 level for measures of extrinsic religious values and dogmatism. The four personality variables are presented as forms of defense against threat, and an extrinsic religious orientation is seen as a correlate: they functionally satisfy many of the same psychological needs. The individual engaged in_ defending himself against a hostile world will more likely accept the aid

4 Mathews the church offers him; his orientation to an ecclesiastical institution will be extrinsic: instrumental and utilitarian.

5 EXTRINSIC RELIGIOUS VAL'ES ALB PERSONALITY VARIABLES DOGMATISM, RIGIDITY, CCXCRfiTE THINKING AND NARROW COGNITIVE ORGANIZATION By Alice Palmer Mathews A Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1970

6 G (.7057 (p A ACKNOWLEDG} '31'4'1 5 It is a pleasure to acknowledge my debt to Dr. Milton Rokeach, first for his provocative classroom lectures and published formulations which stimulated this present research, and then for his supervision and many helpful suggestions during the course of the investigation and writing of this thesis. Appreciation is also expressed to Dr. John Hurley and Dr. B. P. Karon for their willingness to read the manuscript and to serve on the faculty committee. And finally, my gratitude is great for the extreme patience and supportive love of my husband and children, without which this thesis could not have been brought to completion. ii

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TALBIJFJS O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 iv 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM l A. Background: 1. Religion and Prejudice 2. Personality Variables and Prejudice: a. Dogmatism and Prejudice b. Rigidity and Prejudice c. Concrete Thinking and Prejudice d. Narrow Cognitive Organization and Prejudice B. Statement of the Thesis. II. A prelibiinary STIJDY. Q o.. Q Q. Q g o. Q Q o. o 13 A. The Instrument B. The Sample C. The Scoring D. The Results III. LIAIN STLTDY WEARCH DESIGN 0. o g Q o g o Q Q Q Q o 20 A. The Instrument B. The Sample C. The Scoring IV.THERI SULTS VODISCUSSION A. ERV and dogmatism B. ERV and rigidity C. DEV and concrete thinking D. ERV and narrow cognitive organization E. Bible study and church attendance F. Further observations LIST OF IEFERENCES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 61 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O.- O O O O O O 63 A. Dogmatism scale, Form E B. Extrinsic Religious Values scale C. Sanford-Gough Fx scale D. Concept definitions 111

8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Page Distribution of Preliminary Study Sample....~ Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of all Variables in Preliminary Study with Educational Differences Noted l7 Coefficients of Correlation for All Variables in Preliminary Study with Educational Differences Noted Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of All Variables in Main Study by Original Groupings Coefficients of Correlation for All Variables in Main Study by Original GrOUDB e e e o e o o e e e e e e e o 25 Coefficients of Correlation for Extrinsic Religious Values with Dogmatism, Rigidity, Concrete Thinking, and Narrow Cognitive Organization Difference between Means of Matched Study/non~Study saflple e o e o e o e e e e o s e e o e o e e o e o o e 27 Sum of Chi-squares for Extrinsic Religious Values Scale and Personality Variables Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Errors of Total Scores for Rigidity, Dogmatism, and Narrow Cognitive Organization for Quartiles I, II, III, and IV Difference of Means of Total Scores for Rigidity, Dogmatism, and Narrow Cognitive Organization for Quartiles I, II. III, and IV 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 30 ll. 12. l Definitions Given to Ten Concepts by ERV Quartiles I, II, III, and IV 0 e e e o o o e o e e o e o e s e e e 31 Difference of Means of Definitions Given to Ten Concepts by ERV Quartiles I, II, III, and IV Response Percentage to ERV Items by Subjects High and Low in Rigidity, Dogmatism, and Concrete Thinking..~ 35 Reaponse Percentage to ERV Items by Subjects with'broad, Isolated, or Narrow Organizations Response Percentage to ERV Items by Frequency of Church Attendance s o e e e o e e o s o e o e o o o e e e e e 37 iv

9 1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM A. Background 1. Religion and Prejudice.--The research on the nature of prejudice triggered by the race riots of 1943 in the United States reported consistently significant correlations between the phenomenon of prejudice and the degree of religious influence as a factor in an individual's training.1- Since, however, this factor was not entirely absent in low-prejudice groups, Sanford concluded on the basis of a qualitative analysis of their data that "the fact of acceptance or rejection of religion is not as important as the way in which it is accepted or rejected."2 Allport later elaborated this with data suggesting two differentiated reasons for belonging to churches: l) the "institutional" religious outlook, in which the church provided a safe, powerful in-group; and 2) the "interiorized" religious outlook, in which practitioners believed sincerely in the ideals taught by the church.8 Wilson has corroborated this by demonstrating that lillpott. G.Va'. and Kramer, B.W., "Some Roots of Prejudice," J. Psychol., 1946, g2, Adorno, T.w., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., and Sanford, R.N., The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper, '3Allport, G.W., The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass:

10 2 "those who affiliate with a religious institution for utilitarian, self-serving purposes--those with 'extrinsic' religious values-~tend to be prejudiced."4 Allport stated: I venture the Opinion that theological belief is not in itself a direct factor in prejudice. In all religious groups we find every degree of prejudice, from high to low. A fully interiorized, intrinsic faith, of whatever theological cast, makes for low prejudice; whereas an extrinsic religious orientatign, be it orthodox or unorthodox, makes for high prejudice. Rosenbaum has demonstrated this hypothesized curvilinear relationship, using frequency of church attendance as the measure of religiosity. Significantly, a majority (58.1%) of his religious respondents demonstrated democratic tendencies, whereas only 36.3% of the non-religious respondents were judged low in prejudice. suggesting: Friedrichs further refined Rosenbaum's hypothesis with data The relative tolerance exhibited by those not claiming church membership as well as those attending religious services ten or fewer times over the previous year contrasts with the relative intolerance of church members and those attending between eleven and sixty times. This would appear to contribute additional evidence in support of those studies which have found that formal religious activity is related inversely to tolerance of minority groups. However, the position of those who attended more than sixty services indicates that the relationship may 4Wilson,'W.C., "Extrinsic Religious Values and Prejudice," J. abnorm. & soc. Psychol., 1960, 69, Allport, G.W., "Prejudice: Is it Societal or Personal?", J. soc. Issues, 1962, ;, Rosenbaum, A.L., "Ethnic Prejudice as Related to Social Class and Religiosity," Sociol. & Soc. Res., 1958, g,

11 3 be curvilinear, for this group of respondents exhibited even greater tolerance than those not claiming church membership or attending less than ten times. It suggests that the studies uncovering a simple inverse relationship may have failed to distinguish between those approximating the institutional norm in religious activity and those exseeding it.7 Friedrichs also found that "the nature of the role an individual plays in his church relationship will modify any predictive schema based simply upon attendance or institutional affiliation. Members of religious study groups within the sample were clearly more tolerant than members of governing boards, Sunday school teachers, or members of church societies."8 More recently, Feagin, working with a modified form of the Wilson ERV scale, reported that while the intrinsic and extrinsic orientations are not unidimensional but independent, only the extrinsic orientation is related to intolerance. Furthermore, while orthodoxy per se is not related to either the intrinsic or extrinsic orientation, it is positively related to prejudice.9 Thus Allport assumes that "the inner experience of religion (what it means to the individual) is an important causal factor in developing a tolerant or a prejudiced outlook on 7Friedrichs, Robert w., "Christians and Residential Exclusion: an Empirical Study of a Northern Dilemma," J. soc. Issues, , bid. 9F'eagin,Joe R., "Prejudice and Religious Types," J. for Scient. Study of Religion, 1964, 2, 3-13.

12 11 RC it 1:

13 life."10 2. Personality Variables and Prejudice.--While prejudice is most often thought of as a sociological phenomenon, its relation to cognitive functioning has not been overlooked. Rokeach has observed; In recent years there have appeared a number of investigations on the relation between social attitudes and cognitive functioning (thinking, memory, and perception). In the great majority of these studies the specific social attitude under scrutiny was ethnic prejudice, or the authoritarianism conceived to underlie it (Adorno, 3 31, 1950). Some major findings that came out of such studies are that persons who are high in ethnic prejudice and/or authoritarianism as compared with persons who are low, are more rigid in their problem-solving behavior, more concrete in their thinking, and more narrow in their grasp of a particular subject; they also have a greater tendency to premature closure in their perceptual processes and to distortions in memory, and a greater tendency to be intolerant of ambiguity.11 That certain personality variables correlate significantly with measures of ethnocentrism has been demonstrated both clinically and experimentally. 12 Furthermore these same variables appear persistently in studies of religious conservatives. Allport has more recently reported that "a certain cognitive style permeates the thinking of many people in such a way that they are indiscriminately pro-religious and, at the same time, highly lqallport G.w., and Ross, J.M., "Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice," J. Pers. & soc. Psychol., 1967,, Rokeach, M., The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, Rokeach, M., "Generalized Rigidity as a Factor in Ethnocentrism," J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1948, 42,

14 prejudiced."13 a. Dogmatism and Prejudice.--Dogmatism is defined by Rokeach as "a total ideological defense against threat and at the same time a cognitive framework for satisfying one's need to know and to comprehend the world one lives in." 14 It is seen to be a general authoritarianism, or a closed way of thinking which could be associated with any ideology regardless of content. FUrther studies by Rokeach "investigated whether ethnic and racial discrimination on the one hand and discrimination on the basis of belief congruence on the other, are qualitatively different forms of prejudice, or whether the former is reducible to the latter... The major finding in all samples was that discriminatory preferences are made primarily on the basis of belief congruence rather than on the basis of ethnic or racial congruence."15 The authoritarian referent appears to be the organization into a relatively closed system of a cognitive constellation of beliefs and ideas. Belief thus becomes the psychological basis for discriminating one person or group from another. Prejudice arises then from a conditioned avoidance of belief systems not congruent with one's own. In discussion of the constellation 13Allport and Ross, J. Pers. & soc. Psychol., Rokeach, M., "Political and Religious Dogmatism: an Alternative to the Authoritarian Personality," Psychol. Monograph, 1956, 22, (Whole No. 425). lsrokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, 164.

15 6 of conditions conceived to make the individual or group prone to dogmatism, Rokeach states: "by overidentification with absolute authority or a cause, an attempt is made to defend self or group against feelings of aloneness or isolation, self-hate and misanthropy."16 In Rosenbaum's study, he assumed that "the more religious a person is (since he would be more likely to accept the religious leader's authority) the greater would be his tendency to accept 'authoritarian' leadership."17 His data revealed the.opposite. Thus it was of interest to this investigator to determine whether the same curvilinear relationship exists between authoritarianism and religiosity that was demonstrated between prejudice and religiosity. b. Rigidity and Prejudice.--While dogmatism is a characteristic of a total belief system, rigidity is seen as a characteristic of the elements within a system. It points to difficulties in overcoming single sets or beliefs encountered in attacking, solving, or learning specific tasks or problems. It refers to resistance to change of single tasks or beliefs, in contrast to dogmatism which is resistance to change of a total system of beliefs Rokeach, Psychol. donqgraph. 17Rosenbaum, Social. & Soc. Res., Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, 183.

16 7 Brown has suggested that rigidity associated with authoritarianism is a kind of defensive behavior which is perceived as warding off personal failure.19 This defensive behavior can also be understood in terms of Rokeach's definition of rigidity as "the inability to change one's set when the objective conditions demand it, as the inability to restructure a field in which there are alternative solutions to a problem in order to solve that problem more efficiently."20 - It should be noted that while rigidity has been positively correlated with ethnocentrism, problems remain in defining:all the dimensions of this trait and consequently in knowing precisely which manifestations of rigidity are, in fact, correlates of prejudice. Brengelmann asserts: 'The rigidity factor of Nigniewitsky appears, for example, to be composed of characteristics like extreme response set, striving for unrealistic or unreasonable goals, high-prejudice, obsessionality, high intensity of motivation, and so forth... Furthermore, rigidity appears to give rise to curvilinear relationships with certainty when measured under suitable conditions. From this the suggestion may be derived that drive of one form or other is a property of rigidity.21 Chown has presented an overview of the many varied studies of rigidity in which she concludes that each study has touched 19Brown, T., "Authoritarianism and Rigidity," J. Abnorm. a Soc. Psychol., 1953, 48. 2oRokeach, J. abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., Brengelmann, J.C., "Extreme Response Set, Drive Level, and Abnormality in Questionnaire Rigidity," J. Ment. Sci., 1960, 106,

17 I 8 only limited facets of the construct of rigidity.22 Thus while this personality variable has been the subject of diverse definitions and research, for the purposes of the present study it 'will be considered in terms of Rokeach's aforementioned definition and as a correlate of ethnocentrism. c. Concrete Thinking and Prejudice.--A further consideration is the relationship of the foregoing variables to concrete thinking and ethnocentrism. Rokeach suggested that "behavioral rigidity is a consequence of concrete thinking and that both concreteness and rigidity may he means of self-defense against threat."23 His research verified the relationship of the two personality variables to prejudice upon the hypothesis that "the high-prejudiced personls thinking about given groups should be more frequently rooted in the concrete individual objects comprising such groups, while the low-prejudiced person's thinking should be more frequently in terms of the abstract principles for which the given groups stand."24 Gregory, in an item-analysis of his Religious Belief Scale, reported that "what we ordinarily think of as religious conservatism, orthodoxy, or fundamentalism' is in reality a tendency 22Chown, Sheila M., "Rigidity: a Flexible Concept," Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, Rokeach, M., "Prejudice, Concreteness of Thinking, and Reification of Thinking," J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1951, 42, Ibid., 83.

18 9 toward concreteness (as against abstractness)."25 He has found an apparent concern with concreteness as a basic characteristic of the religious conservative. "It is reasonable to assume that this may be the common factor which has produced the relatively high correlation between religious conservatism and the authoritarian personality." 26 His further statement that "the whole New Testament might be said to be a protest against literalness and concreteness in favor of the 'spirit' behind all the laws and codes"27 once more raises the question basic to the hypothesis: is this "tendency toward concreteness" among religious conservatives a simple, linear relationship, or can abstract thinking be found within this group, statistically predictable on the basis of some criterion of "interiorized faith? d. Narrow Cognitive Organization and Prejudice.--From his research in the area of prejudice, Rokeach has found that "the social attitudes of high ethnocentrics [which] are resistant to change may be attributed to the fact that they organize significant aspects of their social world relatively more narrowly and concretely. This is consistent with the fact that they are found to be relatively more rigid and concrete in solving nonsocial problems. Resistances in both social and nonsocial areas are 25Gregory, W.E., "Orthodoxy of the Authoritarian Personality," J. soc. Issues, 1957, 45, ' 261bid. 27Ibid.

19 10 seen as functions of 'narrowmindedness' and both are equally characteristic of the authoritarian personality."28 Rokeaeh further hypothesized, following Maslow's concept of higher-andlower-order needs, that narrow organizations are motivated by the lower-order safety needs while comprehensive organizations arise to gratify higher-order self-actualization needs. It may further be hypothesized that organizations falling intermediate between narrow and comprehensive--that is, isolated organizations-- represent a sort of a compromise attempt on the part of the person which is motivated at least partially by his need for safety on the one hand and his need for self-actualization on the other.29 Allport has profiled the authoritarian personality in the following terms: "need for aligning oneself with a strong authority figure, and with a protective in-group. Present too are a... conventionalism, rigid moralism, and a need for definiteness.... The authoritarian seeks well-marked safety-islands where he can resist the confusing cross-currents of life in a democracy."30 The parallels become apparent between the authoritarianism inherent in the ethnocentric and the safety needs being "met" in narrow cognitive organization. 3, Statement of the Thesis Looking at the religious individual in the light of persistent correlations of ethnocentrism with dogmatism, rigidity, 28Rokeach, M., "Narrowmindedness and Personality," J. of Pers., 1951, g9, zglbid. 30Allport, G.W., "Prejudice: Is It Societal or Personal?", J. soc. Issues, 1962, 18,

20 11 concrete thinking, and "narrowmindedness," one is forced to ask whether such a person is indeed "motivated by the lower-order safety needs." What is, in fact, the raison d'stre of his religious belief? What degree of safety do his religious practices provide? Allport has suggested that such an individual 'places "extrinsic" values on religion; "it is something useful to his existence. It serves him; he does not serve it. For him religion confers status, provides sociability, pleasant excitement at Christmas and Easter, as well as comfort and support in time of trouble and bereavement. Nothing in the extrinsic religious orientation requires the surrender of pet prejudices."31 Conversely, for others religion seems to have "intrinsic" value, and a curvilinear relationship has been reported as these persons score low in measures of bigotry. If, therefore, the notion of qualitative differences in religious adherence as a factor in prejudice can be demonstrated experimentally, then it should follow that those variables which correlate with prejudice (e.g. dogmatism, rigidity, concrete thinking, and narrow cognitive organization) may also have a curvilinear relationship to the degree of "interiorized faith the subject manifests. The problem, thus, is to see if in fact a significant relationship exists between these personality variables and ex-. trinsic religious values and to investigate further the quality of religious faith in question. 3libid.

21 12 Two possible factors reported in the literature which may explain this hypothesized correlation are l)frequency of church attendance and 2) membership in a study group. It is also of interest to this investigator to look further at the relationship of these two factors to the notion of intrinsic or interiorized faith.

22 II. A PRELIMINARY STUDY To see whether the preceding hypotheses were worthy of more extensive research, a preliminary study was undertaken in 1962 with a limited sample. A. The Instrument The research tool used was a questionnaire battery incorporating four measures reported in the literature. Part I was the Wilson Extrinsic Religious Values Scale (hereafter referred to as the ERV scale), designed to distinguish between interiorized faith and an extrinsic religious orientation. This instrument has "shown that extrinsic religious orientation can be measured by a questionnaire scale with some success, and that as measured it has a high correlation with ethnic prejudice."32 The personality variable of rigidity was tapped by Part II of the battery, the Fx (Cough-Sanford Flexibility) Scale, now a part of the California Psychological Inventory. Parts 111 and IV were procedures devised at Michigan State College in 1950 by Rokeach, and were used to measure abstract] concrete thinking, and broadness or narrowness of cognitive organization respectively. In Part III, each subject was asked to 32Ibid. 13

23 14 define ten religious and political concepts, e.g. capitalism, Catholicism, Christianity, etc. Part IV of the battery consisted of putting the ten concepts into one paragraph to determine the breadth of cognitive organization. B. The Sample In the interest of noting what other variables might also be involved in the factors being considered, a heterogeneous sample was derived with the distributions given in Table 1. TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF PRELIMINARY STUDY SAMPLE (m: 30) nu u - T L L 1 Variable Categories Age Education 8-11 grde 12 grade college post-grad Denominational ~ Baptist Catholic Methodist Other Prot. None Preference Frequency of Church Attend'ce Once a Twice a Once a Rarely Never week Month Month Occupation Home- Office Student Blue White Professmaker Collar Collar ional This sample was obtained by the seemingly haphazard method of distributing questionnaires to family members who in turn asked

24 15 friends and business acquaintances to fill them out. While such a sampling procedure may appear a bit untidy, it actually produced two beneficial results: 1) the sample thus obtained was uncontaminated by the unconscious bias of the investigator; and 2) the heterogeneity of the sample clarified certain distribution problems that could thus be controlled in the main research, e.g. the skewing of the ERV scores by protocols obtained from persons having no religious adherence of any sort. Age and level of education also emerged as significant factors in this preliminary study and could thus be controlled in the larger research procedure. C. Scoring The fifteen-item ERV scale gave the subject two alternatives to each statement involving religious feeling. One alternative in each pair was slanted toward "the individual's acceptance of religion for its benefits to him."33 Choosing these alternatives gave the subject a high ERV score. The twenty-two item Fx scale was a true-false type measure in which all "true" responses were tallied as the rigidity score. Each of the ten concept definitions was rated as "abstract," "reified," or "concrete" and was assigned a numerical value from which a mean score was derived. 33Wilson, J. abnorm. & soc. Psychol.,

25 16 The concluding paragraph was rated as "broad" if all ten concepts were somehow related as a unit, "isolated" if all concepts were mentioned but were grouped into two or more categories (e.g., political vs. religious), or "narrow" if only some of the ten concepts were mentioned or implied. These levels were each assigned numerical values of 3, 2, and 1 respectively. D. The Results The most significant finding was the over-all.65 correlation between extrinsic religious values and rigidity, yielding a probability well beyond the.01 level. Table 2 gives the mean scores and the standard deviations, and Table 3 the intercorrelations, for each of the four measures. In an analysis of the data in various sub-categories (according to the Table 1 sample distribution), one significant relationship emerged: level of education was the factor yielding the highest Chi-square value (well beyond the.01 level) for both the ERV and rigidity scales. Of the eighteen protocols from individuals who had completed college or post-graduate studies, ~fifteen scored below the mean on both measures, whereas nine of the twelve protocols for individuals with only high school or less education were above the mean on both scales. In the youngest age group (20-30), seven out of eight protocols were below the mean on the ERV scale, but in the three other age groups (31-40, 41-50, 51-70), the protocols were evenly divided above and below the mean. This could be a function of

26 17 TABLE 2 MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS 0F ALL VARIABLES IN PRELIMINARY STUDY WITH EDUCATIONAL DIFFERENCES NOTED fl ERV Fx Abstr/Concr Broad/Narrow Group N _ ' ' _ X SD X SD X SD X SD Entire Sample Education: High school or less College and/or Post-grad Note.--The following ings: ERV, Extrinsic Scale. abbreviations are used in the column head- Religious Values scale; Fx, Flexibility

27 18 TABLE 3 COEFFICIENTS or CORRELATIONC FOR ALI.VARIABLES IN PRELIMINARY STUDY WITH EDUCATIONAL DIFFERENCES NOTED Group ERV/Fx ERV/AC ERV/BN FXIAC Fx/BN AC/BN Total sample Education HS/less College post-grad Note.--The following abbreviations are used in the column headings: ERV, Extrinsic Religious Values scale; Fx, Sanford-Cough Flexibility scale; AC, Abstract/Concrete thinking measure; BN, Broad/Narrow Cognitive Organization measure. Probability beyond.05. Probability beyond.01. c. All correlations derived by Pearson Product-moment Method.

28 19 changing values with aging, and the likelihood that young people often see less need for religious ties. It could also be a function of the sampling distribution in which four of the nine in the youngest group have no church affiliation, two attend only once a month, and three are regular in attendance.

29 III. RESEARCH DESIGN FOR THE MAIN STUDY 'A. The Instrument The research tool used was a questionnaire battery incorporating the four measures used in the preliminary study with the addition of the Dogmatism Scale, Form E. The latter was developed by Rokeach to measure individual differences in openness or closedness of belief systems, general authoritarianism, and general intolerance. B. The Sample Because the inclusion of non-religious individuals in the sample used in the preliminary study lessened the discrimination of the ERV scale among religious subjects, and because age and education emerged as significant factors in the previous study, the sample for the present investigation was confined originally to college students at Michigan State University who were members of campus religious organizations. The following groups permitted the administration of the questionnaire battery during a regular weekly meeting: Campus Crusade for Christ (nondenominational), Canterbury Club (EpiscOpalian), Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship (non-sectarian), Trinity Fellowship (interdenominational), and Wesley Foundation (Methodist). However, on the basis of Friedrich's data on the significance of Bible study as a factor, two beginning Psychology classes were later added 20

30 21 to the sample from which matched study/non-study pairs could be constructed. The length of the battery resulted in many incomplete protocols. Thus the first three measures were originally analyzed on an E_of 133, the fourth on an N of 128, and the fifth on an N,of 99. The study/non-study variable yielded thirty-three matched pairs with denominational adherence also controlled; broadly, age and education were already controlled in the sample limitation. C. Scoring The fifteen-item ERV scale gave the subject two alternatives to each statement involving religious feeling. One alternative in each pair was slanted toward the individual's acceptance of religion for its benefits to him. Choosing these alternatives gave the subject a high ERV score. The twenty-two-item Ex scale was a true-false type measure in which "true" responses were tallied as the rigidity score. The forty-item Dogmatism scale was scored according to the choice between six values allowed for each item. Before each statement the subject was to write:c+l (I agree a little), +2 (I agree on the whole), +3 (I agree very much), or -1 (I disagree a little), -2 (I disagree on the whole), or-3 (I disagree very much); the 0 point was excluded. For all statements, agreement was scored as closed or dogmatic, and disagreement as open. The total score on the Dogmatism scale is the sum of scores obtained on all the items.

31 22 Each of the ten concept definitions was rated as "abstract," "reified," or "concrete" and assigned a numerical value according- 1y from which a mean score was derived. The concluding paragraph was rated as "broad" if all ten concepts were somehow related as a unit, "isolated" if all concepts were mentioned but in two or more categories, or "narrow" if only some of the ten concepts were mentioned or implied. These levels were each assigned numerical values of l (broad), 2 (isolated), and 3 (narrow) respectively. It should be kept in mind that high scores on all five measures indicate the variable being tapped, e.g. the ERV scores range from non-extrinsic (low) to extrinsic (high), Fx scores from non-rigid (low) to rigid (high), non-dogmatic (low) to dogmatic (high), abstract (low) to concrete (high), and broad cognitive organization (low) to narrow (high).

32 IV. RESULTS The initial statistical analysis of the data was done within the seven groups from which protocols had been obtained. Tables 4 and 5 give the mean scores and standard deviations, and the coefficients of correlation respectively for these groups treated as separate, and perhaps disparate, entities. At first glance, it appears that the wide scatter in correlations casts some doubt on the validity of those correlations which were nevertheless statistically significant. Yet a closer look at Table 5 reveals several findings of some interest. Because of the small-sample distribution of the seven groups tapped, significance has been tested by the use of Fisher's,& Test of a coefficient of correlation. The Wesley Foundation sample yielded correlations significant beyond the.01 level for three of tne four variables tested (ERV/dogmatism, ERV/rigidity, and ERV/narrow cognitive organization), and approached significance on the fourth variable (ERV/concrete thinking): Trinity Fellowship (inter-denominational) yielded significance beyond the.05 level on two of the four variables (ERV/dogmatism and ERV/rigidity); the Campus Crusade sample yielded significance beyond the.05 level on the ERvynarrow cognitive organization variable and approach significance (.104<LO5) on the ERY/concrete thinking variable. While the Canterbury Club 23

33 24 TABLE 4 MEAN SCORES AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ALL VARIABLES IN MAIN STUDY BY ORIGINAL GROUPINGS Group N ERV Dogmatism Rigidity N Abstr/Concr N Broad/Narrow Ti 59 x 89 x 50 x Sb x '.64 Canterbury Club Wesley Foundation Trinity Fellowship Campus Crusade lo ' ' IVCF m Pay 151 #16 :g; Note.-The following abbreviations are used in the group names: IVCF, Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship, Psy 151, two sections of Beginning Psychology.

34 25 TABLE 5. COEFFICIENTS or comaunomc ran ALL VARIABLES IN mm STUDY BY ORIGINAL GROUPS Group _N_ ERV/Dogm ERV/rigid N_ ERV/Con.Th a, ERV/Nrw.0rg. Canter f5:.39; r:.40: r:.27 bury : , : Wesley 3:.47 g:.55 g:.32 5:.70 ' Founda :5.37 Trinity 19 g:.56 g: : :-.02 Fellow. 1: : :.08 Campus 10,3:.11 g: g:.61 8 g:.69" Crusade g:.31-1._: _t_:2.68 ICVF 13 t:.11 g; g: :-.39 _t_:.37 3: $51.41 Pay 151 g:.38 g:.06 g:.07 5:.22 # :1.42 t: ;: _t_:.78 Pay 151 2:.33 z:.36 g: # _t_:l Probability approaching significance (.10 (.05) 0. Probability significant beyond the.05 level " Probability significant beyond the.01 level c. All correlations derived by Pearson Product-Moment Method.

35 26 sample did not yield.05 significance on any variable, both the DRY/rigidity and the ERV/concrete thinking variables approached significance (.10<:.05). Neither of the two psychology classes nor the Inter-Varsity Fellowship samples yielded or approached significance on any of the variables. The implications of this difference between groups will be discussed in the next section. The whole-sample coefficients of correlation for ERV with the four personality variables are presented in Table 6. TABLE 6 COEFFICIENTS or CORRELATIONc FOR EXTRINSIC RELIGIOUS VALUES WITH DOGMATISN, RIGIDITY, CONCRETE THINKING, AND NARROW COGNITIVE ORGANIZATION m ERV/Dogmatism ERV/Rigidity ERV/Conc.Th. ERV/Nrw.Cog.0rg. N: 128 N: 128 N: 128 a: 99 _ g, p, c. All correlations derived by Pearson Product-Moment Method. A third statistical analysis was undertaken by setting up thirty-three pairs of protocols to form a matched studyynon-study sample. Using Fisher's t.test of a difference between means, the data in Table 7 were obtained. It will be noted that significance beyond the.005 level was obtained in the hypothesized direction between pairs on both the ERV and the Dogmatism scales. Further statistical treatment of the data involved

36 27 TABLE 7 DIFFERENCE BE SEEN MEANS OF MATCHED STUDY/NON-STUDY SAMPLE W ERV Dogmatism Rigidity Concr.Th. Nrw.Cog.Org. N: 33 prs N: 33 prs N: 33 prs N: 30 prs N: 20 prs Bt ldy 2 4 O C 15 8 O 67 l C46 l O6 SE 821) ' t, p_ collapsing the seven groups into a single sample, from which 2x2 tables were constructed by placement above or below the mean on each of the two scales. Table 8 gives the sum of the Chi-squares and the significance level for each of the variables. In computing observed values against expected values, the sum of the Chi-squares is significant beyond the.001 level fer both ERV/Ex 1 and Eflflydogmatism, and beyond the.01 level for ERV/concrete thinking. A further statistical analysis of much interest was based on a breakdown of the entire sample (N: 128) into four equal quartiles of thirty-two subjects each, based on ERV scores. Tables 9 and 10 give the Means and Standard Deviations and the Difference between Means between Quartiles respectively for the

37 28 variables of rigidity, dogmatism, and narrow cognitive organiz.t1 ne TABLE 8 SUM OF CHI-SQUARES FOR EXTRINSIC RELIGIOUS VALUES SCALE AND PERSONALITY VARIABLES ERV Rigidity Dogmatism Concr.Th. Nrw.Cog.0rg. 3:128 :128 3:128 11:99 'i x2 t bl , The Quartile distribution, based on ERV scores, brought out a significant difference between means for both the FX and Dogmatism scales. Only between Quartiles III and IV are the differences minimal. The t_test scores reveal significance beyond the.02 level in all but one Difference between Means for the two variables. Only in the quartile analyses for narrow cognitive organization is significant probability limited to two group comparisons between 011 and 0111, and between 011 and QIV. The statistical analysis of the concept definitions measure is presented in Tables 11 and 12. Once again the quartile distri bution, based on ERV scores, brought out a clear trend in the mean

38 29 TABLE 9 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND STANDARD ERRORS OF TOTAL SCORES FOR RIGIDITY, DOGMATISM, AND NARROW COGNITIVE ORGANIZATION FOR QUARTILES I, II, III AND IV Rigidity Dogmatism Nrw.Cog.0rg. Quartile E I ' ;, Quartile H 3? ;, Quartile N E r ;, Quartile _ N " 3E '

39 30 TABLE 10 DIFFERENCE 0F MEANS OF TOTAL SCORES FOR RIGIDITY, DOGMATISM, AND NARROW COGNITIVE ORGANIZATION FOR QUARTILES I, II, III AND Iv Rigidity Dogmatism Narrow Cog.0rg. Between _1_'._ Q! 8: QIV P Between _t_ : QIII g Between Q1 8: 011 B.01.10<.05.lO<.05 Between 3; : QIII P..02 < <.Ol Between ' & QIV g <.ol.05<.02 Between 1', no difference QIII 8: QIV B.50< in means

40 31 TABLE 11 DEFINITIONS GIVEN T0 TEN CONCEPTS BY ERV OUARTILES I, II, 111, AND IV Category Quartile Abstract Reified Concrete Miscellaneous I e II ' N:32 q h III N:32 q fig, V N232 2 q ;

41 32 TABLE 12 DIFFERENCE 0F MEANS OF DEFINITIONS GIVEN TO TEN CONCEPTS BY ERV QUARTILES I, II, III, AND IV Abstract Reified Concrete Miscellaneous. Between e QI-QIV 2.05 (.02 e e 50 Between QI-QIII E e10(005 e50<e eos<e02 Between _t_ QI-QII E.50( <.10 Between ~ Between QII-QIV B e 50( (010 e01 050<e10 Between QIII-QIV 2 e50..50(.10 e02<e01 005(002

42 33 scores for abstract, reified, and concrete definitions. While E'Test scores yielded significance in only six of the twenty-four Differences between Means computed, the actual difference between means observable in Table 11 is invariably in the hypothesized direction, with the exception of the Quartile IV miscellaneous category. In the first section of this paper, various investigators were cited as providing in the literature definitions as follows: dogmatism as "a total ideological defense against threat,"34 rigidity as a kind of defensive behavior...warding off personal failure,"35 concrete thinking as "a means of self-defense against threat,"36 and narrow cognitive organization as being "motivated by lower-order safety needs."37 The prevailing tone of these definitions is that of security-need or threat. Fer a further understanding of this underlying concept, the fifteen items of h the ERV scale have been analyzed in terms of item responses by subjects rated high and low in the personality variables under consideration. The thirty-two subjects with the highest scores in rigidity, dogmatism, and concrete thinking respectively were compared with the thirty-two subjects having the lowest scores 34Rokeach, Psycho]. Monograph, (Whole No. 425). 35Brown, J. Abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., 1953,,48. 36Rokeach, J. Abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., 1951, Rokeach, J. Pers., 1951, 29.

43 34 in each of these variables. The percentage of high rigids, high dogmatics, etc., responding to each ERV item was computed against the percentage of response to each item by the low rigids, 10w dogmatics, etc., and a Chi-square of two proportions was derived for those yielding an appreciable difference. These data are given in Table 13 in which those items yielding a significant difference are indicated. Because only eight of the ninety-nine subjects completing the broad/narrowmindedness measure had narrow organizations, this item-analysis proceeded along slightly different lines. All protocols were divided according to the broad, isolated, or narrow categories, and Chi-squares of two proportions were calculated between the two percentages showing the greatest spread for agreement with each item. These data are given in Table 14. Since frequency of church attendance was suggested as an indicator of interiorization of faith, an item analysis of the ERN responses for this variable is also included. Table 15 presents the percentage in each frequency-of-attendance category of responses to the ERV item in the extrinsic values direction. It is immediately obvious that those "rarely" attending religious services responded to only two items (#1 and #8) more Often in the ERV direction than those who attended church more often. Some miscellaneous findings not presented tabularly concern the subjects in the high and low quartiles for the three variables of dogmatism, rigidity, and concrete thinking. No significant difference was found between quartiles in any of

44

45 RESPONSE PERCENTAGE TO ERV ITEMS BY SUBJECTS HIGH AND LOW IN RIGIDITY, DOGMATISM, AND CONCRETE THINKING 35 TABLE 13 ERV Dogmatism Rigidity Concrete Thinking 9' High Low % Diff- High Low % Diff- High Low % Difference erence erence 19% 25% 6% 13% 28% 15% % 22% 3% 91% 59% 32% % 63% 21%7 75% 69% 6% 25% 6% 19% % 6% 7% 44% 9% 35% % 19% 19% % 13% 25% % 19% 9% 38% 13% 25% % 13% 28% % 25% 13% O NI DQ'IO 53% 28% 25% % 25% 38% % 31% 25% % 9% 32% % 16% 15%77 31% 25% 6% 19% 16% 3% 16% 16% same 22% 13% 9% 31% 19% 12%7 38% 25% 13% 31% 22% 9% teams: '10 31% 38% 7% 38% 28% 10% 38% 28% 10% % 59% 16% 63% 69% 9% 66% 66% same 12 16% 6% 10%77 13% 6% 7% 6% 9% _ 3% 13 44% 19% 25% % 28% 3% 41% 19% 22% % 66% 15% 75% 75% same 78% 78% same 15 84% 59% 25% % 12% 75% 72% 3% Probability for the difference derived by Chi-square of Two Proportions as follows: - approaching significance (.10(.05) " - significant beyond the.05 level " - significant beyond the.02 level " - significant beyond the.01 level " - significant beyond the.001 level

46 36 TABLE 14 RESPONSE PERCENTAGE TO ERV ITEMS BY SUBJECTS WITH BROAD, ISOLATED, OR NARROW ORGANIZATIONS ERV Broad Isolated Narrow Items Organizations Organizations Organizations 5: 50 _:41 31: ' ' Gassa ~ Chi-squares of Two Preportions yielded probabilities as follows: - approaching significance (.10 (.05) - significant beyond the.05 level significant beyond the.01 level

47 37 TABLE 15 RESPONSE PERCENTAGE TO ERV ITEMS BY FREQUENCY OF CHURCH ATTENDANCE ERV Once Twice Once Items Weekly Monthly Monthly Rarely 51:10!) 5:12 91:9 {11: ' 6 e

48 38 the three variables for those engaging or not engaging in some sort of personal Bible study. This finding must be distinguished from the matched pairs study/non-study finding which had been derived from the entire N on the basis of denominational preference. These present miscellaneous data emerge.from the high and low quartiles for the personality variables in which approximate- F7 ly the same number of subjects in each quartile engage regularly. in some sort of personal religious study. Membership in religious clubs did not emerge as a significant variable between the high and low quartiles for dogmatism 4- (2:.70(.50) or rigidity (B:.20(.10), but was significant (2:.02(.01) on the concrete thinking variable; significantly more subjects (22) in the high concrete thinking quartile are members of religious clubs than are subjects (12) in the low quartile, thus corroborating the extension of Friedrichs' hypothesis concerning members of church societies cited on page 3. In all three personality variables approximately the same number of subjects in the high and low quartiles attend church at least once weekly.

49 V. DISCUSSION Discussion of these data must begin with the question of how well they support the basic two-part hypothesis: 1) do the four personality variables correlating with prejudice also correlate with extrinsic religious values; and 2) can those religious subjects scoring low in these variables be predicted on the basis of some factor such as either regular Bible study or regular church attendance. ' In general the data presented in Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 support the first part of the hypothesis well. Consistently rigidity, dogmatism, and concrete thinking correlated with the extrinsic religious values scale in the sum of Chi-squares for the sample taken as a whole, in the t_test scores of the Quartile analysis, and in part in the matched pairs Difference between Means. Only the variable of narrow cognitive organization failed to correlate consistently with extrinsic religious values. An important consideration, however, is that of what is actually being measured by the scales used in this study. The principal measure is the Wilson Extrinsic Religious Values scale, first reported in the literature in 1960 and used in the present research in Early questions in the mind of this investigator about the limitations of this scale have been corroborated more recently by others. Allport has observed: 39

50 40 Wilson did not attempt to measure intrinsicness of orientation, but assumed without warrant that it was equivalent to a low score on the extrinsic measure. Further, since the items were worded in a unidirectional way there may be an error of response set... Finally, the factor of educational level plays a part... To an appreciable extent, therefore, Wilson's high correlations may be "ascribed" to educational level.38 A careful reading of the items included in Wilson's scale makes it clear that only a completely non-religious person could or should score at the bottom, the end of the scale presumed to denote "interiorized faith." Wilson has defined his ERV responses as being of two general types: 1) reflecting an allegiance '@ to, and dependence upon, the external or institutional structure of a church; and 2) reflecting a utilitarian orientation toward religion, i.e. acceptance of religion as a means.39 Nearly every item is weighted so that any benefit derived from one's religious practice automatically marks one as having extrinsic religious values. Recognizing the limitations and faulty assumptions of Wilson's scale, a seminar at Harvard University in the Spring of 1963 greatly revised the ERV scale in order to tap the intrinsic orientation as well. Working with this more developed scale, Feagin (1964) reported among his conclusions that extrinsic and intrinsic items did not fall on a unidimensional scale but represented two independent dimensions, and further, that 38 Allport and Ross, J. Pers. & Soc. Psychol., 1967, g. 39 Wilson, J. Abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., 1960, g9.

51 41. orthodoxy, while positively related to prejudice, was not related to either the extrinsic or intrinsic orientation.40 Allport and Ross, working in 1967 with the revised ERV scale, reported not only the two independent dimensions of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation, but also a third: an indiscriminately pro-religion orientation, one wide category in which "religion is 0.x."41 Thus it becomes more apparent that earlier categorical assumptions made by social scientists require continual refining as the complexity of the subject un- folds. '52:: The danger of eitherjbr-typc generalization is ever present, and it therefore cannot be inferred from the data set forth in this paper that a low score on the ERV scale denotes "interiorized faith" or that a low score on the Ex scale denotes flexibility (though its name suggests that). One can go no further than to say that low scores may imply the absence of extrinsic orientation or the absence of some form of rigidity. The measures of concrete thinking and narrow cognitive organization do present the possibilities of generalization in the direction of abstract thinking or broad cognitive organization, but once again, such inferences, as correlated with the ERV scale, can only be made to the extent that abstract thinking may relate to the absence of extrinsic religious values. The restriction of these 4oFeagin, Joe R., "Prejudice and Religious Types," J. for Scient. Study of-religion, 1964, 3, Allport and Ross, J. Pers. & Soc. Psychol., 1967, g.

52 14: observations points up the theoretical difficulty of the second part of the hypothesis herein presented. Part one, the correlation of extrinsic religious values with dogmatism, rigidity, concrete thinking and narrow cognitive organization, presents no problem because of the linearity of the proposition and the fact that all scales in the battery were devised to tap this end of In. i each continuum. But in Part two, no attempt can be.made to infer that those not evidencing the pejorative variable are, in fact, the opposite of said variable. Extrinsicness can be noted as such, but religious persons low in the ERV scale cannot be presumed to be intrinsically oriented toward religion; they may be merely pro-religious or fall into some not-yet-defined category. Thus Bible study or church attendance as indicators of interiorized faith cannot be validated beyond the point of inference that such study or regular attendance may have something to do with the fact that an individual scores low on measures of rigidity, extrinsic religious values, etc. lnferences can be made, of course, concerning the abstract thinking and broad cognitive organization in relation to Bible study or church attendance because these are bi-directional measures. A. ERV and dogmatism Assuming Rokeach's definition of the dogmatic person or group as being: diaposed to accept closed systems or thinking and believing in preportion to the extent to which they are made to feel alone or isolated in the world they live in, and thus

53 43 fearfully anxious of what the future holds in store for them,42 an item-analysis of the ERV responses by those scoring high on a measure of dogmatism should theoretically also reveal ERV choices designating the "safety" aspects of religious adherence. Thus, before analyzing the data, the four following items were selected from the ERV scale for their obvious inclusion of the concepts of protection and safety: #3: A person who does not belong to some church must at heart feel very insecure. ~ 3#4: The principal reason I am a member of the church is that it gives me a deep feeling of security in this troubled world. #6: While the church serves me in a good many ways, on the whole it seems especially important to me personally because it teaches, guides, and protects me. #9: Prayer is, above all else, a means of obtaining needed benefits, protection, and safety in a dangerous world. ' H'- These items turn out to discriminate the high dogmatic quartile ( 332) from the low dogmatic quartile (N332) very well. Highly dogmatic subjects chose the ERV reaponse over low dogmatic subjects significantly more often as follows: Item #3, p:.001; Item #4, 2:.02(.01; Item #6, 2:.01(.001; and Item #9, 2:.10(.05. Other ERV items which discriminated significantly between high and low dogmatism quartiles are: #2: Religion helps to keep my life balanced and steady in much the same way as my citizenship, friendships, and other memberships do. (2:.001) #5: Without the church mankind would have no concepts of right or wrong. (2:.001) 42Rokeach, Psychol. Monograph, (Whole No. 425).

54 44 #7: The religious concept of "Brotherhood of Man" probably refers to: a) a unity of all people regardless who they are or what they believe, or b) a unity of believers in the faith. ("5" is the 8sz choice.) (12:.001) #12: In which would you feel your religious life to be most strengthened: a) as a member of a small struggling church; or b) as a member of a big and influential church. ("b" is the ERV response.) (2:.05(202) #13: In one respect my church is like a lodge or fraternity: I feel more comfortable and congenial with fellow-members than I do with non-members. (.2:.01(.001) P #15: When visiting friends in another city who never go to r church, I would nonetheless make a definite effort myself to attend church on Sunday. (2:.05(.02) Item #2 gives pause for reflection on the nature of dogmatism inherent in this item choice. It is hypothesized, however, N ' A.9 on the basis of Rokeach's definition of the dogmatic person feeling alone or isolated in the world he lives in, that such a person wi11 reach out for identification with his country (citizenship), friends, and organizations to which he belongs. ' Item #5, a highly significant discriminator, clearly indicates the dogmatic subject's need for external authority to teach him what is right or wrong. Item #7 is interest in that it is the only one in the ERV scale tapping objective knowledge of a popular concept rather than personal experience or feelings. The "brotherhood of man" concept classically refers to a "unity of all peeple regardless who they are," (the non-extrinsic response). Choosing the ERV response ("a unity of believers in the faith") seems to indicate. a certain "closedness" to the accepted meaning of a popular term. That high dogmatics should make this choice significantly more often than low dogmatics may be related to their acceptance

55 45 of closed systems of belief as defined by Rokeach. Items #12 and #13 point up the need for identification with an institution of impressive preportions or with a protective ingroup, both as hedges against the feeling of aloneness in a hostile world. Item #15 is interesting for several reasons, though the possible theoretical explanations of these observations are not yet clear. This item distinguished significantly between the high subjects, who would be expected to perservere "come hail or high water" in their church-going habits, were not distinguished from \ lr and low subjects only on the variable of dogmatism. Highly rigid lowbrigids on this item. Nor were subjects high in concrete thinking, who would be expected to follow through on church attendance as part of their rootedness to a concrete object. Nor did this item discriminate between broad, isolated, or narrow cognitive organizations. The only other variable discriminated by this item is frequency of church attendance in which 81% of those attending weekly, 17% of those attending twice monthly, and 0% of those attending once monthly responded in the ERV direction. Yet in the high and low dogmatism quartiles, 29 high dogmatics and 26 low dogmatics attend church weekly. Thus it is not clear why Item #15 should discriminate between subjects high and low in dogmatism.

56 46 B. ERV and rigidity Earlier in this paper (page 33), definitions of the four personality variables were cited to point up the prevailing tone of security needs or threat present in all of them. A look at the ERY scale items which distinguished significantly between the high and low quartiles for each of the variables contributes to an understanding of the significant correlations derived. The items in the Fx scale appear to profile an individual who finds security in the familiar and the routine; his world is manageably narrow and he conscientiously works to keep it tidy. He may be viewed by others as being handicapped by the strictures he has placed upon his life-style, but he prefers the resultant safety to the risks of a more exuberant but less controlled and controlable gggg.gg_!1! g. It appears probable that this person would also score high on measures of other variables tapping Security needs. Thus it is interesting to note that four of the ERV items distinguishing high dogmatics from low also discriminate significantly between the high and low rigidity quartiles. Items #4, #5, and #6 all discriminated the high rigids from the low with a probability beyond the.001 level; Item #7 reached the.05 level of significance for the high rigids. Item #2, which discriminated between high and low dogmatics at the.ol(.001 level, approached significance (.10(.05) on the variable of rigidity. The fact that the same ERV items discriminated both high dogmatics and high rigids from the low dogmatics and low rigids

57 47 corroborates the overlap already noted in the definitions of 'dogmatism as "a total ideological defense against threat" (Rokeach) and of rigidity as "a kind of defensive behavior warding off personal failure" (Brown). These items, taken together, imply the need for a positive external referent for both instruction and F"! protection and fit quite neatly the general portrait of the author- 1, itarian personality. C. ERV and concrete thinkigg In the introductory section of this paper, the question was a; posed: is this "tendency toward concreteness" among religious individuals a simple, linear relationship, or can abstract thinking he found within this group, statistically predictable on the basis I of some criterion of "interiorized faith"? The sum of Chi-squares yielded significance between.01 and.005 (Table 8), and significance was reached in the Difference of Means between Quartiles distributed according to ERV scores, thus confirming the tentative hypothesis. Goldstein and Scheerer have defined the concrete attitude as "realistic. It does not imply conscious activity in the sense of reasoning, awareness or a self-account of one's doings."43 Conversely, the abstract attitude is defined as one which "embraces more than merely the 'real' stimulus in its scepe. It implies conscious activity in the sense of reasoning, awareness 43Goldstein and Scheerer, "Abstract and Concrete Behavior: an Emperimental Study with Special Tests," Psychol. Monograph, 53, (Whole No. 239).

58 INF.. 48 and self-account of one's doings."44 Seen in conjunction with Wilson's criteria for extrinsic religious values (i.e., allegiance to, and dependence upon, the institutional structure of the church) it becomes clear that the two variables are, in fact, related to Rokeach's view of concreteness as a "means of self-defense against threat." Reasoning through one's religious beliefs or 77% assuming responsibility for one's actions in the area of religious adherence are not necessarily corollaries of a dependence upon an external or institutional structure. Further confirmation of the formulation comes from the g3 item-analysis of the ERV responses. Significant beyond the.001 level was the percentage of subjects high in concrete thinking who agreed that "a person who does not belong to some church must at heart feel very insecure" (Item #3). Paralleling this was the finding of significance between the.01 and.001 levels on Item- #6, "While the church serves me in a good many ways, on the whole it seems especially important to me personally because it teaches, guides, and protects me." The third ERV item discriminating between the 32 subjects on the concrete-thinking end of the continuum and those 32 on the abstract end was Item #13: "In one res-_ pect my church is like a lodge or fraternity: I feel more comfortable and congenial with fellow-members than I do with nonmembers," (2.01(.001). This rootedness to the church as a concrete entity (Item #3), the need for external guidance

59 49 (Item #6), and the security inherent in "belongingness" (Item I #13) tie the formulations of Goldstein, Rokeach, and Wilson together into a comprehensive unity subsumed under Rokeach's definition of concreteness as a "means of self-defense against threat." 5' D. ERV and narrow cognitive organization A Combining Rokeach's hypothesis that narrow organizations 2 are motivated by lower-order safety needs, and Wilson's hypothesis g of extrinsic religious values reflecting dependence upon the ex- a, ternal or institutional structure of a church, it appeared logical to anticipate significant correlations between these two variables. Surprisingly, in only half of the Difference of Means between ERV Quartiles (Table 10) did the data relating to narrow cognitive organization yield or approach significance. Returning to look at the ERV scale items, it was found that four yielded a significant difference between percentages of ERV response based on bread, isolated, or narrow organizations. Item #2 ("I agree that religion helps to keep my life balanced and steady in much the same way as my citizenship, friendships and other memberships do") was selected by 77% of those with isolated organizations, and only 50% of those with narrow organizations (25.05). Conversely, on item #5 ("I agree that without the church mankind would have no concepts of right and wrong"), only 22% and 24% of those with isolated and broad organizations respectively reaponded in the ERV direction, whereas 63% of

60 A 50 those with narrow organizations so responded (2:.01). Signifié cance beyond the.05 level was reached on Item #9 in which subjects with isolated organizations agreed more often (33%) than broadminded subjects (22%) that "prayer is, above all else, a means of obtaining needed benefits, protection, and safety in a dangerous world." And finally, Item #13 ("In one respect my church is like a lodge or fraternity: I feel more comfortable and congenial with. fellowbmembers than I do with non-members") found agreement with only 36% of those with broad organizations, 26% of those with isolated organizations, but with 50% of those with narrow organizations (2:.01). What then can be inferred from these items when response to _the others did not discriminate between types of cognitive organizations to any significant degree? Only on Item #2 were those with bread or isolated organizations both greater percentagewise in the ERV direction than those with narrow organizations. Perhaps the words "balanced," "steady," or "other memberships" indicate a breadth of contact or activity which would be unsafe for one concerned primarily with lower-order safety needs. Item #5 is most significant in terms of percentage spread, and the content of the item implies the essentiality of an outside authority figure (the church). Item #9 stresses the need for protection and safety through prayer. Certainly Item #13 indicates a need for the safety of the known or in-group. The last three items, #5, #9, and #13, stand out as an important cluster of dependencies for the person

61 51 motivated by "lower-order safety needs," and it is interesting that these are the ERV items which have discriminated significantly the subject with narrow cognitive organization from the others. Need for an external instructional referent, need for protection and safety in a dangerous world, need for the comfort and congeniality of the in-group: whatever else may be said con- F" cerning the correlations reported in the statistical treatment of these data, the basic hypothesis is well-supported in the f f item-analysis, if not in the over-all correlations. ; i E. Bible study and church attendance Part two of the hypothesis concerns Bible study and church attendance as factors in predicting low scores in religious subjects for the variables herein presented. As previously stated in the first part of this paper, the curvilinear relationship of prejudice to religiosity reported in the literature has been explained by Friedrichs on the basis of membership in a study group, and by Rosenbaum on the basis of frequency of church attendance. In the matched sample (Table 7) of those engaged in some sort of Bible study with those not so engaged, the non-study half (2333) of the sample scored very significantly (2;.005) higher on measures of extrinsic religious values and dogmatism than did the study half (2:33) of the sample. Though significance was not reached on the variables of rigidity and concrete thinking, the non-study group tended to score higher on the rigidity measure and lower on the concrete thinking measure than did the study

62 52 group. On the other hand, when the upper (2:32) and lower (3:32) quartiles for each of the personality variables were singled out for comparison, the null hypothesis had to be accepted in every variable regarding religious study. In fact, of those who engage in regular Bible study, twenty are in the high concrete thinking quartile and nineteen in the low, twenty-two in the high dogmatism quartile and twenty in the low, and twenty in the high rigidity quartile and sixteen in the low. While significance was not reached in any of these statistics, the tendency seems to be away a? from the hypothesis that Bible study is a predictive factor in low scores for the variables under consideration. Similar trends are noted in the analysis of church attendance habits of those in the high and low quartiles of the personality variables: among those in the high concrete thinking. quartile (2:32) twenty-seven attend church every week, four twice a month, and one once monthly; the low concrete thinking quartile has twenty-seven attending church weekly, one twice monthly, and four once monthly. In the high dogmatism quartile, twentycnine attend weekly, one twice monthly, and two once monthly; among the low dogmatism quartile, twenty-six attend weekly, two twice monthly, and four once monthly. Similar proportions obtain for the high and low rigidity quartiles. However, it cannot be inferred from these data that frequency of church attendance is either valid or invalid as an indicator of interiorized faith. Friedrich's data presented the hypothesized curvilinear

63 53 relationship based on church attendance of more than sixty times during a year, whereas the present data do not discriminate frequency of church attendance beyond once weekly. While sixty times a year does not appear to be very different from the fifty-two times a year implicit in once weekly, the difference is real. Attendance once weekly can be considered a kind of.. institutional norm. But most religious groups offer their communicants the Opportunity to exceed this norm through daily masses, matins, evensongs, weekly prayer meetings, etc. Those who exceed the once-weekly norm, however occasionally, indicate. -a difference in attitude toward religious adherence from those who make no effort in this direction. Nevertheless, taken at face value, the data herein presented suggest that whatever correlations exist between extrinsic religious values and the personality variables studied, the factors proposed to explain such relationships are not necessarily Bible study or regular church attendance. Both church attendance and Bible study can be mechanical and superficial means to extrinsic ends, and one concludes that elusive factors of quality, motivation, etc., are more important than the more performance of a religious routine per se. F. Further observations Some consideration should be given to the diversity of correlations seen in the seven original sub-samples. Allport has reported that "denominational groups differ appreciably in

64 54 prejudice scores and in religious types."45 Rokeach demonstrated that "value differences remain among the groups varying in religion even after social class and race have been held constant."46 Table 5 giving the coefficients of correlation for the four personality variables with the ERV scale by original groups points up some findings of interest. The seven groups appear to fall In into three categories: 1) homogeneous denominational groups (Canterbury Club - EpisCOpalian, and Wesley Foundation - Methodist); 2) less homogeneous non-denominational groups (Trinity Fellowship, Campus Crusade, Inter-Varsity Fellowship); and I h? 3) heterogeneous non-religious groups (two beginning psychology class sections). The correlations between the ERV scale and the personality variables reached or approached significance in every case among Wesley Foundation subjects and in half of the correlations for the Canterbury Club subjects. In sharp contract, none of the correlations for any of the variables even approached sig~ nificance among the heterogeneous psychology class sub-samples. Into a somewhat nebulous middle area fell the non-denominational religious groups. sort of continuum. Even these, however, can be seen to form some Of these three, Trinity Fellowship most approximated a denominational grouping, and not surprisingly, correlations between ERV/dogmatism and ERV/rigidity reached significance within 45Allport and Ross, J. Pers. & soc. Psychol., 1967,.2. 46Rokeach, M., "Value Systems in Religion," The H. Paul Douglass Lectures for 1969, Rev. of Relig. Research, 1;, 3-23.

65 \ 55 this sub-sample. For Campus Crusade, whose membership is drawn from a broader religious spectrum than that of Trinity Fellowship, the ERV/narrow cognitive organization correlation was significant, and the ERV/concrete thinking correlation approached significance. Inter-Varsity members are drawn from diverse religious backgrounds and the group homogeneity grows more out of philosophical discussions than from the activist endeavors of Campus Crusade. This may account for the fact that the Inter-Varsity sub-sample, like the two psychology classes, produced no significant correlations between variables. [jut-t." Thus a continuum emerges, ranging from highly homogenized interest groups to completely heterogeneous groups with virtually no communally-held background or interest. The question thus suggests itself to what extent are the significant correlations a function of homogeneous group thought and past doctrinal instruction? The very fact of a denomination's existence tacitly attests to its conviction that all other groups are to some degree or another in error in either theology or polity; the inherent superiority and exclusiveness of the organization is manifested in varying degrees among its members in proportion to its defensive stance vis-d-vis other religious groups. This defensive stance is implicit in all groups but is more visible in those groups which emphasize their distinctiveness from all others, e.g. Catholics, Baptists, Missouri-synod Lutherans, etc. The extremes of the denominational continuum often reported in the literature

66 I 56 can perhaps be understood in these terms. While the present study is limited to research into personality variables and ex- Itrinsic religious values without controlling denominational adherence as a dependent variable, a further study which could be fruitful is in the area of those personality variables present in an individual which predispose him toward one or another de- F' nomination. Recent research in values47 reports on the values most esteemed by members of various religious groups. In some social research a kind of implication is made that pejorative personality variables such as dogmatism, rigidity, etc., are the ll outcroppings of unhealthy religious training. But has the question been equally explored concerning the personality structures that predispose individuals to the religious adherences they choose? The large amount of denominational line-crossing that goes on points up the fact that many peeple are free to seek the religious expression that most satisfies their needs. But what of the constellation of factors that keeps others from exercising the same freedom to change? Significant at this point is Rokeach's observation (made in describing the function of a belief system) concerning the need to "understand the world insofar 47Rerer to: Milton Rokeach, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., Also: Rokeach, "Value Systems in Religion," The R. Paul Douglass Lectures for 1969, Rev. of Relig. Research, ll, Also: Rokeach, "Religious Values and Social Compassion," The R. Paul Douglass Lectures for 1969, Rev. of Relig. Research, 2;, '

67 57 as possible, and to defend against it insofar as necessary."48 If these simultaneous functions--"the need to know and the fear of knowing"--govern what one believes about his own and other groups, than the case made for prejudice, dogmatism, etc. resulting from the introjection of negative religious values is not necessarily valid. While such a line of questioning may appear to be little more than academic shadow-boxing, the pragmatic implications for religious organizations are real. A11- -port and Ross have published data on differences in correlations of prejudice and ERV within various denominations49; Rokeach has presented data demonstrating differences in value systems between denominationsso. To what extent are these values the result of religious teaching? Or can they be seen as necessary concomitants of lower-order safety needs that predispose one to the denominational choice most closely satisfying those needs? Denominations would perhaps do well to examine objectively both the personality factors and the value systems most often evidenced by their adherents, and then to seek means of effecting honestly and positively the meeting of the individual's safety needs while at the same time holding out to the adherent the greater possibility for self-actualization. Rokeach's statistics 48Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind..49Allport and Ross, J..Pers. & Soc. Psychol., 1967, 2: 50 ' Rokeach, "Value Systems in Religion," Rev. of Relig. Research,.l;.

68 58 on the inverse relationship of social compassion to religious values51 are damning; but if the correlations between ERV and dogmatism, rigidity, concrete thinking, and narrow cognitive _organization are valid, the condemnation of organized religion may rest less on the prescriptive teaching of negatives than on the failure of religious leaders to recognize the deep safety PT» needs that motivate individuals to seek comfort and security in religious adherence. In a study correlating the original Wilson scale with the g Edwards Personal Preference Schedule, Tisdale has profiled the high-scoring male college freshman with the following descriptions: He feels comfortable in belonging to groups such as the church and probably finds a feeling of security in accepting religious beliefs without much question or criticism-- and, perhaps, without much comprehension either. He is ready to avoid strife, to accept blame, to exhibit timidity, and to inhibit conscious expressions of anger toward those about him, peers and authority figures alike... The man with extrinsically valued religion has had a childhood marked by a certain amount of insecurity, which may well leave him with dependency needs that are still fairly strongly Operative; who thus finds in his church a sort of protecting) group in which these needs may be satisfied. This is the person, further, who has many of the Adorno authoritarian personality characteristics.52 In discussing the relationship of religion to prejudice, Allport has observed: T d '5:Rokez;g}71,'M.5 ggaigg, Hope, and Bigotry," Paychology O 8!, pr. 0' 3 -? '0 52Tisdale,'John R., "Selected Correlates of Extrinsic Religious Values," Rev. of Rel. Res., 1966, 2,

69 59 The reason why churchgoers on the average are more prejudiced than nonchurchgoers is not because religion instills prejudice. It is rather that a large number of p80p1e, by virtue of their psychological make-up, require for their economy of living both prejudice and religion. Some, for example, are tormented by self-doubt and insecurity. Prejudice enhances their self-esteem; religion provides them a tailored security. Others are guilt-ridden; prejudice provides a scapegoat, and religion relief. Still others live in fear of failure. Prejudice provides an explanation in terms of menacing outgroups; religion promises a heavenly, if not terrestrial, reward. Thus for many individuals the functional significance of prejudice and religion is identical. One does not cause the other; rather both satisfy the same psychological needs. Multitudes of churchgoers, perhaps especially in times of social anemia and crisis, embrace both supports. According to this line of reasoning we assume that nonchurchgoers on the whole have less psychological need for prejudice and for religion.53 The key to the understanding of the relationships between extrinsic religious values and the personality variables of rigidity, dogmatism, concrete thinking, and narrow cognitive organization would seem to lie in analogue to Allport's analysis of prejudice and religion. These personality variables are functionally satisfying many of the same psychological needs. Rokeach has observed: ' The extent to which a person has an intrinsic or extrinsic outlook depends...on the particular quality of his experiences with others, especially with parents in early childhood. A person is more apt to be extrinsically oriented if his early experiences included threat, anxiety, and punishment or if religion was used punitively, as a club to discipline and control him.54 Earlier it was shown (page 33) that definitions of the four 53Allport, G.H., "The Religious Context of Prejudice," J. for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1966, 2, Rokeach, Beliefs._Attitudes, and Values.

70 60 personality variables overlapped considerably, that all were means of handling safety needs in the face of threat. The individual engaged in defending himself against a hostile world will more likely accept the aid the church offers him; his orientation to an ecclesiastical institution will be extrinsic: instrumental and utilitarian. In Allport's words, "persons with this orientation may find religion useful in a variety of ways-~to provide security and solace, sociability and distraction, status and selfjustification. The embraced creed is lightly held or else selectively shaped to fit more primary needs."55 y It is this selective shaping of religious teachings to fit more primary needs that leads to understanding the correlations of religiosity with bigotry, rigidity, dogmatism, and the inconsistency between espoused values and conduct. 55Allport and Ross, J. Pers. & Soc. Psychol., 1967, g.

71 -. «tun... q.i. _ g, p LIST OF REFERENCES

72 LIST OF REFERENCES Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., and Sanford, R.N. The Authoritarian Personality. New York:Harper, Allport! G. w" and Kramer g.be W."'Some ROOtB Of Prejudice," 5 J. Psychol., 1946, 2g, Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, Mass: Addison-t Hesley, Allport, G. W. "Prejudice: Is It Societal or Personal?", J. soc. s Issues, 1962, lg, hj Allport, G. W. "The Religious Context of Prejudice," J. for Sci. Stud. Relig., 1966, Q, Allport, G. 3., and Ross, J. M. "Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice," J. Pers. & soc. Psychol., 1967, g, Brengelmann, J. C. "Abnormal and Personality Correlates of Certainty," J. Ment. Sci., 1959, 105, 'Brengelmann, J. C. "Extreme Response Set, Drive Level, and Abnormality in Questionnaire Rigidity," J. Ment. Sci., 1960, 106, Brown, T. "Authoritarianism and Rigidity," J. abnorm. soc. PBXChOIQ Chown, Sheila M. 1959,., "Rigidity: A Flexible Concept," Psychol. Bull. Feagin, Joe R. "Prejudice and Religious Types," J. for Sci. Stud. Relig _ Friedrichs, Robert W. "Christians and Residential Exclusion: an Empirical Study of a Northern Dilemma," J. soc. Issues, 1959, Goldstein and Scheerer. "Abstract and Concrete Behavior: an Experimental Study with Special Tests," Psychol. I'.onqg_., 53, (whole No. 239). Gregory, '3. E. "Orthodoxy'of the Authoritarian Personality," J. soc. Issues, 1957, 2Q,

73 62 Rokeach, M. "Generalized Rigidity as a Factor in Ethnocentrism," J, abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1948, 33, Rokeach, M.. "A Method for Studying Individual Differences in 'Narrowmindedness'," J. Pers., 1951, g9, Rokeach, M. "Narrowmindedness and Personality," J. Pers., 1951,.2 o-, Rokeach, M. "Prejudice, Concreteness of Thinking, and Reification of Thinking," J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1951, 29, Rokeach, M. "Political and Religious Dogmatism: an Alternative. to the Authoritarian Personality," Psychol. Monogr., 1956, 29, (Whole No. 425). Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books, Rokeach, M. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. Jossey-Bass Inc., San Francisco: Rokeach, M. "Value Systems in Religion," The R. Paul Douglass Lectures for 1969, Rev. ReIig. Res., 11, Rokeach, M. "Religious Values and Social Compassion," The H. Paul Douglass Lectures for 1969, Rev. Relig. Res., 11, Rokeach, M. "Faith, Hope, and Bigotry," Psychology Today, Apr., 1970, 33-37, 58. Rosenbaum, A. L. "Ethnic Prejudice as Related to Social Class and Religiosity," Sociol. & soc. Res., 1958, 33, Tisdale, John R. "Selected Correlates of Extrinsic Religious Values," Rev. Relig. Res., 1966,lz, Vanecko, James J. "Religious Behavior and Prejudice: Some Dimensions and Specifications of the Relationship," Rev. Relig. Res., 1966,, 27., Wilson, w. Cody. "Extrinsic Religious Values and Prejudice," J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1960, 92,

74 APPENDICES In. I

75 APPENDIX A THE DOGMATISM SCALE, FORM E The following is a study of what the general public thinks and ' feels about a number of important social and personal questions.' The best answer to each statement below is your personal opinion. We have tried to cover many different and opposing points of view; you may find yourself strongly agreeing with some of the statements, disagreeing just as strongly with others, and perhaps uncertain about others; whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many people feel the same as you L. do. Mark each statement in the left hand margin according to how much you agree or disagree with it. Please mark every one. Write +1, 42, +3, or -1, -2, -3, depending on how you feel in each case: 41: I agree a little -1: I disagree a little +2: I agree on the whole -2: I disagree on the whole 43: I agree very much - -3: I disagree very much 1. The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common. 2. The highest form of government is a democracy, and the highest form of democracy is a government run by those 'who are most intelligent. 3. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worth-, while goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict the freedom of certain political groups. 4. It is only natural that a person would have a much better acquaintance with ideas he believes in than with ideas he Opposes. 5. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. 6. Fundamentally, the world we live in is a pretty lonesome place. 7. Most people just don't give a "hoot" for others. 8. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. ' 63

76 _ It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future. There is so much to be done and so little time to do it in. Once I get wound up in a heated discussion I just can't stop. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat myself several times to make sure I am being understood. In a heated discussion I generally become so absorbed in what I am going to say that I forget to listen to what the others are saying. It is better to be a dead hero than a live coward. if The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important. While I don't like to admit this even to myself, my secret ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein, Beethoven, or Shakespeare. If given a chance I would do something of great benefit to the world. In the history of mankind there have been probably just a handful of really great thinkers. There are a number of people I have come to hate because of what they stand for. A man who does not believe in some great cause has not. really lived. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world, there is probably only one which is correct.' A person who gets enthusiastic about too many causes is likely to be a pretty "wishy-washy" sort of person. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually leads to betrayal of our own side. When it comes to differences of opinion in religion, we i3

77 65 'must be careful not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers primarily his own happiness. The worst crime a person could commit is to attack publicly the people who believe in the same thing he does. In times like these it is often necessary to be more on. guard against ideas put out by people or groups in one's E own camp than by those in the opposing camp. A group which tolerates too much difference of opinion among its own members cannot exist for long. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who. are for the truth, and those who are against the truth. 4 My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he is wrong. A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath contempt. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper they are printed on. In this complicated world of ours, the only way we can know what is going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted. It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on until one has had a chance to hear the Opinions of those one respects. In the long run the best way to live is to pick friends and associates whose tastes and beliefs are the same as' one's own. 37. The present is all too often full of unhappiness. only the future that counts. It is If a man is to accomplish his mission in life, it is sometimes necessary to gamble "all or nothing at all." Unfortunately, a good many peeple with whom I have discussed important social and moral problems don't really understand what is going on. Most people just don't know what's good for them.

78 ...,v. APPENDIX B THE EXTRINSIC RELIGIOUS VALUES SCALE Below are some statements about religion. Each has two possible endings. Will you please read each of these statements and mark an X beside the ending which best fits your feeling about the statement. It may be hard to decide which ending to choose for some of the statements, and you may want to mark both, but please mark only one ending for each statement, selecting the one you most nearly agree with. There are no "right" or "wrong" choices, and there will be many religious people who will select each possible ending to the statements: has d~. 1. When saying the Lord's Prayer in unison at church, my mind is more likely to be on:.;:_ the fact that many of us are saying the same prayer. the meaning of the prayer for me personally. 2. Religion helps me to keep my life balanced and steady in much the same way as my citizenship, friendships and other memberships (10 e I agree. I disagree. 3. A person who does not belong to some church must at heart feel very insecure. I this is almost certainly a true statement. _ I think this statement is not necessarily true. 4. The principal reason I am a member of the church is that it gives me a deep feeling of security in this troubled world. _:_.Yes, this is true. No, I do not agree. 5. Without the church mankind would have no concepts of right and wrong. _:_ I agree. I disagree. 6. While the church serves me in a good many ways, on the whole it seems especially important to me personally because: ' it gives me an opportunity to find myself and express my aspirations., ' _1_ it teaches, guides, and protects me. 66

79 ' The religious concept of "Brotherhood of Man" probably refers to: a unity of all people regardless who they are or what they believe. a unity of believers in the faith. 8. One reason for my being a church member is that such a membership helps to establish a person firmly in the community. _:_ Yes, this is one reason. This reason does not apply to me. 9. Prayer is, above all else, a means of obtaining needed benefits, protection, and safety in a dangerous world. _:_ On the whole, I agree. 0n the whole, I disagree. 10. Some people say that they can be genuinely religious without being a member of any church. 'Yes, I agree that they can. _1_ I do not believe this. 11. When I enter a cathedral or a large beautiful church I am'more likely to feel: _:;_respect for the majesty and greatness it represents. some other personal religious emotions of my own. 12. Imagine yourself in the two following situations. In which would you feel your religious life to be most strengthened? As a member of a small struggling church. _: As a member of a big and influential church. 13. In one respect my church is like a lodge or fraternity: I feel more comfortable and congenial with fellow-members than I do with non-members. _:_.Yes, I agree with this statement. No, I cannot agree with it. 14. I have received specific benefits for myself and my family as a result of prayer. _:;_Yes, I can agree with this statement. No, I cannot agree with it. 15. When visiting friends in another city who never go to church, I would nonetheless make a definite effort myself to attend church on Sunday. _:_ Probably yes., Probably no.. Note: The asterisk ( ) indicates the alternative for each item that is considered to reflect the extrinsic religious value. The total score is simply the number of items on which the extrinsic religious value alternative is chosen.

80 ' APPENDIX C SANFORD GOUGH Ex SCALE Please write "true" or "false" in front of each of the following statements according to the way you feel they describe you: ' I am often the last one to give up trying to do a thing. There is usually only one best way to solve most problems. I prefer work that requires a great deal of attention to detail. I often become so wrapped up in something I am doing that I find it difficult to turn my attention to other matters. I dislike to change my plans.in the midst of an undertaking. I never miss going to church. I usually maintain my own Opinions even though many other people may have a different point of view. I find it easy to stick to a certain schedule, once I have started it. I do not enjoy having to adapt myself to new and unusual experiences. ' I prefer to stop and think before I act even on trifling matters. I try to follow a program of life based on duty. I usually find that my own way of attacking a problem is best, even though it doesn't always seem to work in the beginning. I am a methodical person in whatever I do. I think it is usually wise to d9 things in a conventional way. I always finish tasks I start, even if they are not very important. I often find myself thinking of the same tune or phrases for days at a time. I have a work and study schedule which I follow carefully. I usually check more than once to be sure that I have locked a door, put out the light, or something of the sort. I have never done anything dangerous for the thrill of it. 68

81 69 _20. I believe that promptness is a very important personality characteristic. 21. I am always careful about my manner of dress. 22. I always put on and take off my clothes in the same 0rder s

82 APPENDIX D CONCEPT DEFINITIONS AND ORGANIZATION On this page are listed a number of terms used very frequently these days. I am interested in finding out whether differences PH in opinions are due to the fact that different people do not mean the same thing when they use these terms. Would you please write down next to each term what you understand to be its meaning. Don't spend more than a minute or so on each term. You don't have to worry about being too precise in your definitions. Just let me know as briefly as possible what you understand to be the general meaning of each of these terms. It is important that you fi define every term: 5 1. ATHEISM: 2. CAPITALISM: 3. CATHOLICISM: 4. CHRISTIANITY: 5. COMMUNISM: 6. DB IOCRACY : 7. FASCISM: 8. JUDAISN: 9. PROTESTANTISM: 10. SOCIALISM: As you can probably see, the terms which you have just defined refer to important social problems existing in the world today. To some extent all of these are related to each other. Next I would like you to write a paragraph on the back of this sheet in which you describe in what way all of these terms might be interrelated with each other. Do not worry about how well organized your paragraph is, because that isn't important to this research. Just tell me in what way these terms are related to each other. If you do not think all terms are very much related, then just write about those terms which you think egg'related and skip the rest. Do not take more than five minutes to complete. 70

83 FEB

84 HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES Hil Wil "