This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire] On: 15 February 2015, At: 23:10 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Personality Differences Between Intrinsically Religious and Nonreligious Students: A Factor Analytic Study Edwin W. McClain Published online: 10 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Edwin W. McClain (1978) Personality Differences Between Intrinsically Religious and Nonreligious Students: A Factor Analytic Study, Journal of Personality Assessment, 42:2, 159-166, DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4202_8 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4202_8
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Jottrnai qf Personalirj. Assessment, 1978. 42, 2
159
Personality Differences Between fntriwsically Welig%ohss and Nonreligious Students: A Factor Analytic Study
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
EDWIN W blcCEkI\ Department of Educational Pskchoiog! The Ynlverslt! of Tennessee Sltnrmsr,r: By means of Aliporr's ReligiousOrientation I n ~ e n r o r vROI) ! 145 rtudents were classified as intrinsicalic reiigmus snd 133 as nonre!:gious. Personality differences kt\ceen therwogrcrups were expjored o n the basis of their scores onEPPS.:heCPI. and I h PP'Questionna:re. Factor analysrs of the combined 49 subscales of :hese three instruments produced elghr factors: Achievement Potential. Seil-Concroi. Socrai Aseendenc~-.Affiiiaticn. Personal and Sociaj d e q u a c y . Egocentric Sexuali:?.. Restlessness, and Stereot\ped Fernkinit?. Analyses ohariance ofrhe factor scores oithe tn o groups of s~bjec:sshowrdsignificr?r,r differences on five of theeipht iactors. accounrmg for a total of25Ci o l i h e iatal\-a-iance. The in?rinsicaily religious scored srgn:ficant!y higher on Self-Conrroi. Personal and Snc:d 4dequacy, and Stereotyped Femininity;the nonreliplous scored h~ghero n Egocenrric Se~ualltk and Restlessness. These results were discussed in r e i a t i o n : ~s o n e o! il1lpor:'s ideas on rri~_rion as a dmensron olpersonalrtl.
Most studies of religion as a component of personality have dealt with it as a unitary factor without any attention to different kinds of religious involvement. These investigations have tended toclassify people as religious and nonreligious
tnnslc. rather than orthodou) of behefs In order t o pro\ ~ d ae means of assessmg the nature of rel!grau\ ~ m O \ e m e n t . Allport ( I90F) de\eloped :he Rei~grous 1 ROII. focus,ng O r ~ e n t a t ~ oIn\en?or! n on the eutrinslc-intr~nw contrnuurn
i n t e r m s of a d h e r e n c e or n o n a d h e r e n c e
I r e a s r u r n e d t h d t the e x t r i n s x o n e n t a -
to orthodox doctrines a n d cocventional tron character~zesthe mmature person reiigious practices. u ho tends :o ube religron instrumental:\. Typica! of these investigations are u hiie intrinssc or1enta:ion 1s found In the those of Adorno, F r e n k e l - B r u n s ~ i c k ~ more mature person. the one comartted to rel~glousvalues as ultimates Persons Levinson, and Sanford (1950): Biumand o re~ngrowsoat of extrrnzlc EnoElMann (1968); Cline and Richards (I965); ~ h are Gregory ( 1957): Khanna (1 9%); Rokeach wtions may find their relrgron use% m a varret! of w a y e g , to provide seccri:! ( 1960): Stark ( 1 963); Webster (1966): and Wilson and Miller (1968). These re- and comfort. socmb~Iit\and distractton. ports have consistently presented evi- or status and jurtlf cation These people dence that when religious subjects are ma! take t h e ~ creeds r Irghth or elseshape identified in terms of orthodox beliefs ihem to Fii other needs Incontrast those and conventional religious observances, who are ~ntrms~caI!y rnotnated find :her they tend t o have more prejudice, rigid- central motwe :n rehggon. H o w % e rstrong ity, suspicion, and general personal im- therr other needs ma! be the? are permaturity than the nonreligious. Allport cerved as Sa\.rng Iess s:gnificance than 11957, 1965. 1968) has protested that their need t o h e ~n ia~rhfwinesst o lherr the concept of religion as a unitary com- religious cornmtment The! seek to like ponent is too vague and too broad to be therr religion In that the\ endeahor to inuseful in studying differences among rernalsze religious \ alues and to follow people. because religious sentiment them fulij Ailporr helmed that thns kind varies in depth, breadth. content. and of reIig~ousm\olvement ser\es as a En:mode of functioning. He has argued that fiex of p e r s o n a h t ~ ,thus contrrbur!ng to as a component of personality related t o the well-bemg of the person When the RQI has been ured :n s:udles personal well-being, the critical issue is the nature of one's involvement with re- of r e l i o n as a component of pe:soniaht\. ligioc. i.e., whether it is extrinsic or in- the results have consrstentl~shown that
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
extrinsic orientatjm is associated with the same negative characteristics found in the studies based on orthodoxy of helief's. but that :ntrinsic involvemem is associated with the opposite healthier personal characteristics. Such studies based a n the ROI irac!ude those of Allport and Ross (1967). Brannan ( 1970), Feagin (1964). Phatiadis and Biggar ( B 962), and Rice ( 19.7 1). Since these studies support Allport's idea that religion as an eicmenr in personality varies XI kind, a q comparison of the personali~iesdreiigious and nonre!iious people should ident~fy?he orientation of the reiigiczas subjects being studied. (It ma:; well be that the nonreligious subjects aiso vary in their orientaiions, but that possibility is outside the scoFe of ihis paper. j The ROH is constructed so that it can identify a no~retigiousorientation as well as three different types of religious invoivernerit. The instrument is composed of 20 statements, I J expressing exrrinsic involvernen~and 9 expresskg intrinsic. The su5jects respond to each statement wirh one of four choices ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement. Then, depending on their tendency t o agree or disagree with the two types of statements. they can: be assigned to one of four ckassifications: intrinsically religious (agreement with intrinsic and dlsagreemenr wit h extrinsic), extrinsically reiigiorrs (agreement with extrinsic and disagreement with intrinsic). indiscriminately proreligious (agreement with bath intrinsic and exim~sicj, or nonre1igio:ss (disagreement with both intrinsic and extrinsic). These categories are, of course. not discrete but represent tendencies toward the various orientations Within the dassification sysrem based on tendencies toward acceptance and re-jeciion of intrinsic and extrinsic staternenrs on religious inwlvement, the intrinsically religious and the nonreligious are aiike in that they both tend to reject the extrinsic statements. This common rejection suggests that they both function a: a higher level of maturity than the extrinsically religious and the indiscrim~natelyproreligious, bath of whom tend
t o agree w ~ t hthe extnnsk statements of me :nveniorg What doesdiff,Prentrate the mtr~nsncailyrelrgrous and the onrelig~ousas :hex responses to the rntrmsic statements. The inrrinsrcally religious subjects tend I G accept them. w hiie nonrehgious tend tc reject them Allport (1968) assumed that i n t n n s ~ crehgmus commitmen: should p r o v ~ d an e mtegratlag force not avaiiabie ra the nonreligous and that the presence or absence of such m force cart be the basrs fordrfferes,i:atmg personairty t> pes Thas rnves:ngationr was &ugned to explore whatever persombry differences that might differentrate the two groxps. The subjects for rhls study were taken from a pool of 438 students ~n mental health chsses composed p~rnari1.vof fomrth- and fifth-year unr5ers:ty students. These students were no: representatwe of sluderets In general. since nearly aEE of them were preparing far w r k in he1p:ng professions. Because of known sirniIar:tles amo- them. whatever differences that appear may be eonservatrve esumates of drfferences that w o d d be found among a more heterogeneous sample Bq means of the ROI. 145 were ciassrfied as rntrinsically rehgious and I?as nonrebg~aus Of these were male and 201 were female. Their ages ranged from 19 through 58, with a mean of 25 In order :a obtain a wide range of personaiiry measures, three mukidmensional instruments were empioyed: Sixreen Personahy Factor Qraestionnarre t 16 PF) (CatteU & Eber. I962; CrrteeiE. Eber. & Tatsuoka, 1970): Edwards Personal Preference Schecink (EPPS) (Edwards, 1959): and Ca!ifarnia Psychoiogi a i I~ventoryiCPIj (Gough. 1457; M e g argee. 1972) Together these three Instruments generated a total of 49 different scale scares for each subject. 4 s a means of identifyng broad. underlyrng dimensions of persamai~tythat might exist among these measures, the 49 scores for the whoie subject pool were factor a n a l y ~ e d First . of all, m e correlation matrix was anal] zed by 14 different procedures in order to arrlve at the one
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
that most clearly represented the factors. The one seiected was a principal coinponents analysis. using an oblique rotatron. A Scree plot of percent of iariance accounted for lersus factors and a Scree plot of eigenvalues kersus factors both rndmted eight factors, elgenvalues greater than 1 O indrcared ten, and eight factors were clear1j interpretable. Erght factors were seiected. accor;n:ing for 5 7 4 of the total iariance Next, factor scores were derived for each of the eight for all of the subjects. Then these derxved factor scores were subjected to tvi o-way analyses of varrance. with sex and religion as the tvro variables Sex was ~ntroduced not becailse of interest rn sexual differences per se. but rathertocheckforinteraction effects. Table I presents the factor matrix for the eyght factors Inspection of these Ioad-
ing of 35 and greater led to thefollo%mg descript~onsof the content ofthefactors. ajong u ~ t the h percent of the total varrance and a :entame label for each one. 4il of the h e m y loadings for Factor I
( 1 P 5Cc of total variance) are related to productn 10 or a c h e \ ement. Most of them are measures of modes of coping. while some are sukqect~\econdltmns thar can be expected to contribute to achreuement The greatest loadings are on scaies from the CPI. presented here In descendrng order of magnitude. Achievementby-Independence (.81), Intellectuai Efficiency (.?4), Psychoiogica!-Mlndedness (.6?). dichievement-bj - Conformance ( 3 ) . Capacit) for Status (.54), W'elBerng t .53 ). Self-ControI t .5 I), Fiexlbi1~ t y( 51). Responslbilit> t.491. Good Impresslon ( 4 3 , and Dominance ( 36).These are accornpanled by I6 PF h a g i n a t : \ eness 1.51) and Intellrgence ( 39) and by EPPS Abasement r-.40). This factor 1s labeled Achievement Porentral The scales with high loadmgs for Factor If f 1 2 . 1 5 of 1 ariance) at1 deal H lth rnstmctuaiforces and theircontroIorexpresslon. some of n hlch foc~ason regard for she effects one's impulse impression has on other people. The highest Hoadmg 1s for EPPS Autonomy (-.21).uhichisa measure of the need for unrestrained :m-
pulse gratificatior. Load:ngs from the I6 PF include Self-Besc~phnef.5'1, Superego ( 531, Llberalmn [-,491. and SelfAssertion (- 461 The CPI loadings include Comrnunaiity ( 60). Soclaimtion (.48). Achietement-b\-Conformance ( .39). and Fiexibiht) ( - 391. Loadings from EPPS indude Aggressron (- 43; and Affiliation ( 36) The on!> one of these measures that ma> no: appear to be related to the control or expression of :nst:nctuai forces 1s 16 PF Lrberai~srr,. Karson and O'Deft 1 1976)are persuaded on the basis of clmcal observat~onsthat the scale 1s a measure of mtellectualtzed forms of hostiht! T h s factor has been named SelfiCon!roi Factor IEI ( 7 . 3 5 of variance) has one cluster of high ioadings from the CPI and another from the f 6 PF. both of M hrch are composed largelj of measures of confident assertiveness or ascendem! In ~ n terpersonal relations. The CPI measures are Dominance (.'8l. Soclabllrt~.( - t i ) , Self-Acceptance (.73), Soclaj Presence ( 66). and Capacttj for Status .56) Those from the i 6 PF are i'enturesorneness 49l, i r n p u i s ~ w t ~( 60). .4ssertlveness ( . 5 1). R armth ( 48). and Independence (-.4I). From the EPPS there is also Dom(
mance ( 57). Th!s factor 1s calied Soaai Asctwdenr~ Factor I \ (6 3% of v a n a x e ) has one cluster from the EPPS - Nurturance ( 64). 4ffihat1on i 50). and Succorance (-42)- that focuses on the need formterpersonal relationships Another group composed of E P P S Order (- 68) and Endurance t- 64). 16 PF Superego (- 40) and Self-Disc~plrnet-.361, and CPI Flexlbllit~( .S7) suggests thar these personal relat~onsh~ps are experienced ~ l t h o u t r n h r b ~ t ~ oThe n factor has been labeled AJfihation. Pactor \ (3.9C;. of variance) 1s composed of scales related to personal and soc~a!adjustment The scales w t h high loadings from the 16 P F - Tenslon (- 82). Ego Strength 1.76). Guilt L- 75). Mistrust (-.53). Self-Drsclpime / 43). and Verxuresomeness (.42) - are precrsely those that Catteii. Eber. and Tatsuoka 11970) have identnfied as compnsing the Second Order Factor Anxlet!. In contrast to the ioadings for Anxnet!. all
Table I
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
Rarated Facrar Mat:= f~^3: CPI, 16 PF, and EPPS (decimds omrtted)
GPX Domnnan ee Capacity far Status Socnahiirty Soc:ai Presence Self-Acceptance Welt-beiag Responsibrlrty Sociahzsrmi Self-Control Goo& Impressmn Camm ~ n s h t y hck..ievement-b y -Con10 " r,- a x e Ack~euerneat-by-Independence Inreilectuai Efficiency Psychc'log~cdMzndedness FEexibilrty Eemininity
16 PF Warmth Intelhpence Egc Strength Assertiveness Impulswity Superego H Verrtwescrmeness L Mlstrust M Imagirratnveness 3 Shrewdxss 0 Guilt Q Liberdism Q2 lndependenie Q3 Self-Disc:pime Q4 l e m o n
A B C E F G
(cont'd next page)
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
EPPS Aduevemen t Deference Order Exhib; tronism Autoraoxp A f f h tion Ir trsception Ssccoraxe hmmance Abssement Na'rturance CIunge End w m c e Hererosexuality Aggress~on of the signs in this factor are reversed, indicating the absence of anxiety. The
has been called Egm enlrri. Sel rinhrr. Factor VI1 ( 2 7CC of \.arlance) has one
scales from the CPf deal with two related themes. One is sensiti\.ity, responsibility. and accommodation in interpersonal relations -- Good Impression (.73j, SelfControl 1.61). Achievement-by-Conforrnance i.59). ResponsibiIity(.4%).Sociability ( . 3 : ) ,and Socialization f.38). The other is persona1 adequacy - - - WellBeing i.63) and Inteiiectuai Efficiency (.47),This factor alsoincludes E P P S Aggression (-.37). The factor has been named Personnl ntzd Social Adeqnacy. Factor \'I (3.5%.of ~ a r i a n c e has ) only one very high loading, E P P S Heterosexuality ( . X I . The items that make up this EPPS scale are a11 expressions of the egocentric need for sexual gratification per
scale u ~ t ha h g h loading. EPPS Change E 72) Since :ts rn~norloadmgs - 16 PF Irnpulsn\.t> t 39). CPI Flexlbilil:, ( 38). and CPI S o c ~ d IPresence t .J6) - also suggest a need for constant s h f t in attention o r actn\it>. th:s factor has been named Resriessness Factor \'I11 ( 2 9q of ~ a n a n c e )has on!! one major ioadmg. CPI femmn~r! ( 7 I ) There are lesser Ioadmgs for 16 P F Ctberahrrn (-.52 1, Assertri eness [- 361. Warmth ( 431, and Shreudness t 41: 1: tor CPI Socialization t.50): and for E P P S Achlevernent (- 4') and Autonomy (- 3 7 ) . Because all of these mmor Ioadrngs are congruent w t h the fem~nine stereotype of passir lt!, subeectn.it>.af-
one's self u:ith the partner who is valued as a person. E P P S Exhibition i.43) is also a measure of a n egocentric need. The remaining scaies. ail loaded negatively. are expressions of serrsitivit~ro the impact of one's behavior upon other people. These are E P P S lntraception (-.Tl), CPI Good Impression 1-.40). and CPI Self-Contro! (-,391. The factor
tion, this factor Ir iabeied S:ereu:~peri Fe~urnznirl . The mean factor \cores bh sex and b! reiigious orrentatron aregk en ~ n T a b i 2. e and the results of the analyses of \anance are summarized i n Table 3 Since the project Has not concerned u ~ t hsex differences for rherr ownsake, lt u ~ i onlk : be noted :n passmg that signrficant differ-
se, not statements about the sharing of
fihatm. sensmilt!. and accornmoda-
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
Factor
Female fr?.
= 30l)
ences were fournd for three of rhefactors. Maies were higher on P e r s o d and Social Adequacy: and femaies were higher on Restlessness and Stereotyped Penireinity. There were no significant interaction efiects for sex and religion. For religious orientation as a main eEect, significant differences appeared for five of the eight factors. The intrinsicaily religious scored higher on Self-Control. Personal and Sociai Adequacy, and Stereotyped F e n hlnity. while the nonreligious scored higher on Egocen:ric Sexmliiy and Restlessness. These five factors combined accorrnred for 24.97;'of the total variance. The two grscps did not differ ss:gnificantly on Achievement Potenliai, Social Ascenciency. and Affifiation, these three factors accounting for 32.1% of ihe total variance. It shouM be recaiied that nearly all of the suD-jestsin r his study were preparing for work in helping professions. Tbe k e e fzctors for which the intrinsically religious and the nonreligious did not differ significant!g are all personal cha.racteristics appropriate for people in such professions. An inspection of the mean scores for all ofthe subjecrs ir; this study on the scales thai have heavy weighti n g ~for these three factors has shownaT1 of them to be higher than the norms for
c o k e students in general. Since the comparison groups In ehss study are so homogeneous along rhese dimensions, an ixvestigatron of sw~jectsdrawn from a more heterogeneous source mnght produce more d:fferencea between the mrrrnsmxlly relrgrous and the nonrekigjogs than have appeared Ic th:s prqrect These results provide some confirmation of 4llpori's expectation that the intrinslcaliy relngnoas arad the nonrehg,orrs nould &fir on some basic personal~ly drmens~ons The hlgker mean scores sf the zehg~o~ts subjects on Self-Conirol and Stereotqped Femmnrty a m rher: lower mean1 score on Egocenfnc Sexzallry aEI indacate greater control of thei: pnrnrtrve impulses out of regard for somet h n g or sorneorpe other than theaselires Th:s apparently represents the erhical and the socialrzmg rrngact of relgmus commitment Therr hrgher mean on Personal and Social Adeqaacy and therr icwer mean on Restlessiless bothsuggest higher levels of personal rntegratnon or fuEfilEmect T h ~ sresnlt prob,des some support for Allport's clam :hat mtrinsic reilgrom rnh olvernent functions as a propnum that is Elk enhancing for that person.
Table 3 Afialyses of Variance Based on Factor Scores
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
Factor
Source Sex Rehgmus Orientatioc Sex X R 0 Crror Sex Rehglous Or~er~tatror. Sex X R O Error Sex Relaglous Orrentatror: Sex X K 0 Erro: Sex ReIigous Orientation Sex X R 0 Error
Sex Reiigaous 0rier:tataon Sex X R 0 L r:or Sex Rehglous 0:ientstion Sex X R 0 Error Sex Rehgous Qrientat~on Sex X R 0 Error Sex Rei~g~ous Orie~tatmn Sex X R O Error
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
References Adorno, T. W., Fre3kci-Brunsaik. E.. Levirison, U. I., & Sanford, R. N. The oulhorirorianpersonad:i?. New Y o r k Harper; 1950. ihiiport, G . W. TJ~eind:r'rdua/andhire?zgror;. New York: Macmillnn, 2357. M p o r t , G. W.Patlern undgra~.lliinpcrsonulil~,. Neu Yark: EIolt, Rlnehart & Wins:oc: 1955. .4lipor:. G. M:. 7'heperson inpsyrimio~..B o s r o ~ : Beaco~:Press, 196s. Ailpo:t. G . W., % Ross, J . M. Personal religious orientation and prejudrce. Joummi qf Persondsiy un~1S'ucia~P.~ycLluic~g.~, lY67,5:4:,432-A43.
B i m , B., L Mann, 5. H. The effec? of religious membership on reiigious prqjudice. Journni of Socini Psychology, 1960.52, $7- I0 1. Brannan. R. C. Gimme that 016 :me racism. Al;choiog~Today, 1993. :. 4-2-44, Cattei!, R. B., & ESer. FI. W.,'dunua~or~forms.S & B, Six>ren Personctli:) .kclor Questionnaire Charnpa~gn.X.: Iristl?ute for Personality % hbility 'Testing. 1962. Cattell, R. B., Eber. El. W.. b Tatsaoka. M M!. -Vanilhool, - k r rhe .sr.xiern Personalily Fac.tc,r Quertronnaire Champaign: II!.: Iastitute for Personality % Ability Testing, 1970. Cline, V. B.. 6: Richards, j.M .A factor-anafiytlc study ofreiinious beiiefanrf behsvio:. Journaio!
Karson. S.,, B Cs'Deli. 3. W . A guide to theciinicui lisp qf':ht.:t: PF. Chenpaign. Ili.: lnstjrute for Personahry % A b i i i : ~Testing. 1976. Khanna. .I. L.R study of the reiarionship between some aspects of ~ersonalityand certeix; aspects of religious beiiefs. (Gniversity of Colorado. 1956.) Drs.\errulim A hstrwm, 1957. i 7. 26962697. Megargec. E. 1. The Cdrjornia !'s.~i~huiogiidInvmiory hancibooic. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, E 972. Photiadis; 3. 13.. & Biggar. J. Religiosity, education. and elhci: distance. American Journa:of .For:ologi~,1'362, 671.6). 556-672.
Rice.,C:. .4. Thc relatranshi:, between intiinsic and extrinsic :irientaimns t o seiec~edz;lteria of mental heakh. :Bosror, University Graduale SchooI: 1971.) @isserm:ion Ahstruc:.~, 197 1. 32!4-Ai, 2:94.
Rokeach. M . The oy~!a,rticiosei/n;;nd Yewh'ork: Basic BOOKL;, I9h9. Sizik, R. On the compatibility uf rei:gicm and sclence: 4 suwev 3f Amencar. erad.mte studenrs. Webs!er. A C . Parterns and rela!ions of dogmatism. rnentai health and psychological health in seiected reiigiotis groups. (Syracuse i-niversity. 196fy L)isser>ar!on.4hstracls. i964. ??, 4i 42. Wilson. W.., & Miiler. H. I.. Fear. enxiely, and religiousness Journai.fir zhe Scienri:ficS:u& qf Rellgior;. !968. 71 1). I i i .
Edwards; PI. t.Manuai, Edslwi;rd.s PersonuiPr.@rence Scheduie (re\. ed.). New Yo:k: The Psychoiogicsi Corporauon. 1959. Feagin, J. R. Prejud~ceand religious types: A hcused stud?;of southern fundamentalism. Journ a i f o ; the Scieni!fii 5;uc'j. ?fReligr,-in, 1964, 4(1), 3-13. Prof. Edwin McCiain Gounh. H . G. C'oM~rrric.~s~~c.hoIo~il~a:lnvenror~ Dept of E.duc. ?s!.choiagy wanuai. Psia Altc. Consnltmg Psyckoiog~cal The Uiaiiers!ty of Tennessee Press, 1957. Knoxville. Tenr:. 3 9 1 6 Gregory. W.E.Theorthoduxy o f t h e a u h x h a r i a n personaky. Jvu.rnalc~f.Soira/P.s?:i~hoic)gy.1957, Received: May 15: i976 45,2 i7-232. Revised: August 1 . 1977 . 2
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
Personality Differences Between Intrinsically Religious and Nonreligious Students: A Factor Analytic Study Edwin W. McClain Published online: 10 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Edwin W. McClain (1978) Personality Differences Between Intrinsically Religious and Nonreligious Students: A Factor Analytic Study, Journal of Personality Assessment, 42:2, 159-166, DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4202_8 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4202_8
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Jottrnai qf Personalirj. Assessment, 1978. 42, 2
159
Personality Differences Between fntriwsically Welig%ohss and Nonreligious Students: A Factor Analytic Study
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
EDWIN W blcCEkI\ Department of Educational Pskchoiog! The Ynlverslt! of Tennessee Sltnrmsr,r: By means of Aliporr's ReligiousOrientation I n ~ e n r o r vROI) ! 145 rtudents were classified as intrinsicalic reiigmus snd 133 as nonre!:gious. Personality differences kt\ceen therwogrcrups were expjored o n the basis of their scores onEPPS.:heCPI. and I h PP'Questionna:re. Factor analysrs of the combined 49 subscales of :hese three instruments produced elghr factors: Achievement Potential. Seil-Concroi. Socrai Aseendenc~-.Affiiiaticn. Personal and Sociaj d e q u a c y . Egocentric Sexuali:?.. Restlessness, and Stereot\ped Fernkinit?. Analyses ohariance ofrhe factor scores oithe tn o groups of s~bjec:sshowrdsignificr?r,r differences on five of theeipht iactors. accounrmg for a total of25Ci o l i h e iatal\-a-iance. The in?rinsicaily religious scored srgn:ficant!y higher on Self-Conrroi. Personal and Snc:d 4dequacy, and Stereotyped Femininity;the nonreliplous scored h~ghero n Egocenrric Se~ualltk and Restlessness. These results were discussed in r e i a t i o n : ~s o n e o! il1lpor:'s ideas on rri~_rion as a dmensron olpersonalrtl.
Most studies of religion as a component of personality have dealt with it as a unitary factor without any attention to different kinds of religious involvement. These investigations have tended toclassify people as religious and nonreligious
tnnslc. rather than orthodou) of behefs In order t o pro\ ~ d ae means of assessmg the nature of rel!grau\ ~ m O \ e m e n t . Allport ( I90F) de\eloped :he Rei~grous 1 ROII. focus,ng O r ~ e n t a t ~ oIn\en?or! n on the eutrinslc-intr~nw contrnuurn
i n t e r m s of a d h e r e n c e or n o n a d h e r e n c e
I r e a s r u r n e d t h d t the e x t r i n s x o n e n t a -
to orthodox doctrines a n d cocventional tron character~zesthe mmature person reiigious practices. u ho tends :o ube religron instrumental:\. Typica! of these investigations are u hiie intrinssc or1enta:ion 1s found In the those of Adorno, F r e n k e l - B r u n s ~ i c k ~ more mature person. the one comartted to rel~glousvalues as ultimates Persons Levinson, and Sanford (1950): Biumand o re~ngrowsoat of extrrnzlc EnoElMann (1968); Cline and Richards (I965); ~ h are Gregory ( 1957): Khanna (1 9%); Rokeach wtions may find their relrgron use% m a varret! of w a y e g , to provide seccri:! ( 1960): Stark ( 1 963); Webster (1966): and Wilson and Miller (1968). These re- and comfort. socmb~Iit\and distractton. ports have consistently presented evi- or status and jurtlf cation These people dence that when religious subjects are ma! take t h e ~ creeds r Irghth or elseshape identified in terms of orthodox beliefs ihem to Fii other needs Incontrast those and conventional religious observances, who are ~ntrms~caI!y rnotnated find :her they tend t o have more prejudice, rigid- central motwe :n rehggon. H o w % e rstrong ity, suspicion, and general personal im- therr other needs ma! be the? are permaturity than the nonreligious. Allport cerved as Sa\.rng Iess s:gnificance than 11957, 1965. 1968) has protested that their need t o h e ~n ia~rhfwinesst o lherr the concept of religion as a unitary com- religious cornmtment The! seek to like ponent is too vague and too broad to be therr religion In that the\ endeahor to inuseful in studying differences among rernalsze religious \ alues and to follow people. because religious sentiment them fulij Ailporr helmed that thns kind varies in depth, breadth. content. and of reIig~ousm\olvement ser\es as a En:mode of functioning. He has argued that fiex of p e r s o n a h t ~ ,thus contrrbur!ng to as a component of personality related t o the well-bemg of the person When the RQI has been ured :n s:udles personal well-being, the critical issue is the nature of one's involvement with re- of r e l i o n as a component of pe:soniaht\. ligioc. i.e., whether it is extrinsic or in- the results have consrstentl~shown that
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
extrinsic orientatjm is associated with the same negative characteristics found in the studies based on orthodoxy of helief's. but that :ntrinsic involvemem is associated with the opposite healthier personal characteristics. Such studies based a n the ROI irac!ude those of Allport and Ross (1967). Brannan ( 1970), Feagin (1964). Phatiadis and Biggar ( B 962), and Rice ( 19.7 1). Since these studies support Allport's idea that religion as an eicmenr in personality varies XI kind, a q comparison of the personali~iesdreiigious and nonre!iious people should ident~fy?he orientation of the reiigiczas subjects being studied. (It ma:; well be that the nonreligious subjects aiso vary in their orientaiions, but that possibility is outside the scoFe of ihis paper. j The ROH is constructed so that it can identify a no~retigiousorientation as well as three different types of religious invoivernerit. The instrument is composed of 20 statements, I J expressing exrrinsic involvernen~and 9 expresskg intrinsic. The su5jects respond to each statement wirh one of four choices ranging from strong agreement to strong disagreement. Then, depending on their tendency t o agree or disagree with the two types of statements. they can: be assigned to one of four ckassifications: intrinsically religious (agreement with intrinsic and dlsagreemenr wit h extrinsic), extrinsically reiigiorrs (agreement with extrinsic and disagreement with intrinsic). indiscriminately proreligious (agreement with bath intrinsic and exim~sicj, or nonre1igio:ss (disagreement with both intrinsic and extrinsic). These categories are, of course. not discrete but represent tendencies toward the various orientations Within the dassification sysrem based on tendencies toward acceptance and re-jeciion of intrinsic and extrinsic staternenrs on religious inwlvement, the intrinsically religious and the nonreligious are aiike in that they both tend to reject the extrinsic statements. This common rejection suggests that they both function a: a higher level of maturity than the extrinsically religious and the indiscrim~natelyproreligious, bath of whom tend
t o agree w ~ t hthe extnnsk statements of me :nveniorg What doesdiff,Prentrate the mtr~nsncailyrelrgrous and the onrelig~ousas :hex responses to the rntrmsic statements. The inrrinsrcally religious subjects tend I G accept them. w hiie nonrehgious tend tc reject them Allport (1968) assumed that i n t n n s ~ crehgmus commitmen: should p r o v ~ d an e mtegratlag force not avaiiabie ra the nonreligous and that the presence or absence of such m force cart be the basrs fordrfferes,i:atmg personairty t> pes Thas rnves:ngationr was &ugned to explore whatever persombry differences that might differentrate the two groxps. The subjects for rhls study were taken from a pool of 438 students ~n mental health chsses composed p~rnari1.vof fomrth- and fifth-year unr5ers:ty students. These students were no: representatwe of sluderets In general. since nearly aEE of them were preparing far w r k in he1p:ng professions. Because of known sirniIar:tles amo- them. whatever differences that appear may be eonservatrve esumates of drfferences that w o d d be found among a more heterogeneous sample Bq means of the ROI. 145 were ciassrfied as rntrinsically rehgious and I?as nonrebg~aus Of these were male and 201 were female. Their ages ranged from 19 through 58, with a mean of 25 In order :a obtain a wide range of personaiiry measures, three mukidmensional instruments were empioyed: Sixreen Personahy Factor Qraestionnarre t 16 PF) (CatteU & Eber. I962; CrrteeiE. Eber. & Tatsuoka, 1970): Edwards Personal Preference Schecink (EPPS) (Edwards, 1959): and Ca!ifarnia Psychoiogi a i I~ventoryiCPIj (Gough. 1457; M e g argee. 1972) Together these three Instruments generated a total of 49 different scale scares for each subject. 4 s a means of identifyng broad. underlyrng dimensions of persamai~tythat might exist among these measures, the 49 scores for the whoie subject pool were factor a n a l y ~ e d First . of all, m e correlation matrix was anal] zed by 14 different procedures in order to arrlve at the one
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
that most clearly represented the factors. The one seiected was a principal coinponents analysis. using an oblique rotatron. A Scree plot of percent of iariance accounted for lersus factors and a Scree plot of eigenvalues kersus factors both rndmted eight factors, elgenvalues greater than 1 O indrcared ten, and eight factors were clear1j interpretable. Erght factors were seiected. accor;n:ing for 5 7 4 of the total iariance Next, factor scores were derived for each of the eight for all of the subjects. Then these derxved factor scores were subjected to tvi o-way analyses of varrance. with sex and religion as the tvro variables Sex was ~ntroduced not becailse of interest rn sexual differences per se. but rathertocheckforinteraction effects. Table I presents the factor matrix for the eyght factors Inspection of these Ioad-
ing of 35 and greater led to thefollo%mg descript~onsof the content ofthefactors. ajong u ~ t the h percent of the total varrance and a :entame label for each one. 4il of the h e m y loadings for Factor I
( 1 P 5Cc of total variance) are related to productn 10 or a c h e \ ement. Most of them are measures of modes of coping. while some are sukqect~\econdltmns thar can be expected to contribute to achreuement The greatest loadings are on scaies from the CPI. presented here In descendrng order of magnitude. Achievementby-Independence (.81), Intellectuai Efficiency (.?4), Psychoiogica!-Mlndedness (.6?). dichievement-bj - Conformance ( 3 ) . Capacit) for Status (.54), W'elBerng t .53 ). Self-ControI t .5 I), Fiexlbi1~ t y( 51). Responslbilit> t.491. Good Impresslon ( 4 3 , and Dominance ( 36).These are accornpanled by I6 PF h a g i n a t : \ eness 1.51) and Intellrgence ( 39) and by EPPS Abasement r-.40). This factor 1s labeled Achievement Porentral The scales with high loadmgs for Factor If f 1 2 . 1 5 of 1 ariance) at1 deal H lth rnstmctuaiforces and theircontroIorexpresslon. some of n hlch foc~ason regard for she effects one's impulse impression has on other people. The highest Hoadmg 1s for EPPS Autonomy (-.21).uhichisa measure of the need for unrestrained :m-
pulse gratificatior. Load:ngs from the I6 PF include Self-Besc~phnef.5'1, Superego ( 531, Llberalmn [-,491. and SelfAssertion (- 461 The CPI loadings include Comrnunaiity ( 60). Soclaimtion (.48). Achietement-b\-Conformance ( .39). and Fiexibiht) ( - 391. Loadings from EPPS indude Aggressron (- 43; and Affiliation ( 36) The on!> one of these measures that ma> no: appear to be related to the control or expression of :nst:nctuai forces 1s 16 PF Lrberai~srr,. Karson and O'Deft 1 1976)are persuaded on the basis of clmcal observat~onsthat the scale 1s a measure of mtellectualtzed forms of hostiht! T h s factor has been named SelfiCon!roi Factor IEI ( 7 . 3 5 of variance) has one cluster of high ioadings from the CPI and another from the f 6 PF. both of M hrch are composed largelj of measures of confident assertiveness or ascendem! In ~ n terpersonal relations. The CPI measures are Dominance (.'8l. Soclabllrt~.( - t i ) , Self-Acceptance (.73), Soclaj Presence ( 66). and Capacttj for Status .56) Those from the i 6 PF are i'enturesorneness 49l, i r n p u i s ~ w t ~( 60). .4ssertlveness ( . 5 1). R armth ( 48). and Independence (-.4I). From the EPPS there is also Dom(
mance ( 57). Th!s factor 1s calied Soaai Asctwdenr~ Factor I \ (6 3% of v a n a x e ) has one cluster from the EPPS - Nurturance ( 64). 4ffihat1on i 50). and Succorance (-42)- that focuses on the need formterpersonal relationships Another group composed of E P P S Order (- 68) and Endurance t- 64). 16 PF Superego (- 40) and Self-Disc~plrnet-.361, and CPI Flexlbllit~( .S7) suggests thar these personal relat~onsh~ps are experienced ~ l t h o u t r n h r b ~ t ~ oThe n factor has been labeled AJfihation. Pactor \ (3.9C;. of variance) 1s composed of scales related to personal and soc~a!adjustment The scales w t h high loadings from the 16 P F - Tenslon (- 82). Ego Strength 1.76). Guilt L- 75). Mistrust (-.53). Self-Drsclpime / 43). and Verxuresomeness (.42) - are precrsely those that Catteii. Eber. and Tatsuoka 11970) have identnfied as compnsing the Second Order Factor Anxlet!. In contrast to the ioadings for Anxnet!. all
Table I
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
Rarated Facrar Mat:= f~^3: CPI, 16 PF, and EPPS (decimds omrtted)
GPX Domnnan ee Capacity far Status Socnahiirty Soc:ai Presence Self-Acceptance Welt-beiag Responsibrlrty Sociahzsrmi Self-Control Goo& Impressmn Camm ~ n s h t y hck..ievement-b y -Con10 " r,- a x e Ack~euerneat-by-Independence Inreilectuai Efficiency Psychc'log~cdMzndedness FEexibilrty Eemininity
16 PF Warmth Intelhpence Egc Strength Assertiveness Impulswity Superego H Verrtwescrmeness L Mlstrust M Imagirratnveness 3 Shrewdxss 0 Guilt Q Liberdism Q2 lndependenie Q3 Self-Disc:pime Q4 l e m o n
A B C E F G
(cont'd next page)
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
EPPS Aduevemen t Deference Order Exhib; tronism Autoraoxp A f f h tion Ir trsception Ssccoraxe hmmance Abssement Na'rturance CIunge End w m c e Hererosexuality Aggress~on of the signs in this factor are reversed, indicating the absence of anxiety. The
has been called Egm enlrri. Sel rinhrr. Factor VI1 ( 2 7CC of \.arlance) has one
scales from the CPf deal with two related themes. One is sensiti\.ity, responsibility. and accommodation in interpersonal relations -- Good Impression (.73j, SelfControl 1.61). Achievement-by-Conforrnance i.59). ResponsibiIity(.4%).Sociability ( . 3 : ) ,and Socialization f.38). The other is persona1 adequacy - - - WellBeing i.63) and Inteiiectuai Efficiency (.47),This factor alsoincludes E P P S Aggression (-.37). The factor has been named Personnl ntzd Social Adeqnacy. Factor \'I (3.5%.of ~ a r i a n c e has ) only one very high loading, E P P S Heterosexuality ( . X I . The items that make up this EPPS scale are a11 expressions of the egocentric need for sexual gratification per
scale u ~ t ha h g h loading. EPPS Change E 72) Since :ts rn~norloadmgs - 16 PF Irnpulsn\.t> t 39). CPI Flexlbilil:, ( 38). and CPI S o c ~ d IPresence t .J6) - also suggest a need for constant s h f t in attention o r actn\it>. th:s factor has been named Resriessness Factor \'I11 ( 2 9q of ~ a n a n c e )has on!! one major ioadmg. CPI femmn~r! ( 7 I ) There are lesser Ioadmgs for 16 P F Ctberahrrn (-.52 1, Assertri eness [- 361. Warmth ( 431, and Shreudness t 41: 1: tor CPI Socialization t.50): and for E P P S Achlevernent (- 4') and Autonomy (- 3 7 ) . Because all of these mmor Ioadrngs are congruent w t h the fem~nine stereotype of passir lt!, subeectn.it>.af-
one's self u:ith the partner who is valued as a person. E P P S Exhibition i.43) is also a measure of a n egocentric need. The remaining scaies. ail loaded negatively. are expressions of serrsitivit~ro the impact of one's behavior upon other people. These are E P P S lntraception (-.Tl), CPI Good Impression 1-.40). and CPI Self-Contro! (-,391. The factor
tion, this factor Ir iabeied S:ereu:~peri Fe~urnznirl . The mean factor \cores bh sex and b! reiigious orrentatron aregk en ~ n T a b i 2. e and the results of the analyses of \anance are summarized i n Table 3 Since the project Has not concerned u ~ t hsex differences for rherr ownsake, lt u ~ i onlk : be noted :n passmg that signrficant differ-
se, not statements about the sharing of
fihatm. sensmilt!. and accornmoda-
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
Factor
Female fr?.
= 30l)
ences were fournd for three of rhefactors. Maies were higher on P e r s o d and Social Adequacy: and femaies were higher on Restlessness and Stereotyped Penireinity. There were no significant interaction efiects for sex and religion. For religious orientation as a main eEect, significant differences appeared for five of the eight factors. The intrinsicaily religious scored higher on Self-Control. Personal and Sociai Adequacy, and Stereotyped F e n hlnity. while the nonreligious scored higher on Egocen:ric Sexmliiy and Restlessness. These five factors combined accorrnred for 24.97;'of the total variance. The two grscps did not differ ss:gnificantly on Achievement Potenliai, Social Ascenciency. and Affifiation, these three factors accounting for 32.1% of ihe total variance. It shouM be recaiied that nearly all of the suD-jestsin r his study were preparing for work in helping professions. Tbe k e e fzctors for which the intrinsically religious and the nonreligious did not differ significant!g are all personal cha.racteristics appropriate for people in such professions. An inspection of the mean scores for all ofthe subjecrs ir; this study on the scales thai have heavy weighti n g ~for these three factors has shownaT1 of them to be higher than the norms for
c o k e students in general. Since the comparison groups In ehss study are so homogeneous along rhese dimensions, an ixvestigatron of sw~jectsdrawn from a more heterogeneous source mnght produce more d:fferencea between the mrrrnsmxlly relrgrous and the nonrekigjogs than have appeared Ic th:s prqrect These results provide some confirmation of 4llpori's expectation that the intrinslcaliy relngnoas arad the nonrehg,orrs nould &fir on some basic personal~ly drmens~ons The hlgker mean scores sf the zehg~o~ts subjects on Self-Conirol and Stereotqped Femmnrty a m rher: lower mean1 score on Egocenfnc Sexzallry aEI indacate greater control of thei: pnrnrtrve impulses out of regard for somet h n g or sorneorpe other than theaselires Th:s apparently represents the erhical and the socialrzmg rrngact of relgmus commitment Therr hrgher mean on Personal and Social Adeqaacy and therr icwer mean on Restlessiless bothsuggest higher levels of personal rntegratnon or fuEfilEmect T h ~ sresnlt prob,des some support for Allport's clam :hat mtrinsic reilgrom rnh olvernent functions as a propnum that is Elk enhancing for that person.
Table 3 Afialyses of Variance Based on Factor Scores
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
Factor
Source Sex Rehgmus Orientatioc Sex X R 0 Crror Sex Rehglous Or~er~tatror. Sex X R O Error Sex Relaglous Orrentatror: Sex X K 0 Erro: Sex ReIigous Orientation Sex X R 0 Error
Sex Reiigaous 0rier:tataon Sex X R 0 L r:or Sex Rehglous 0:ientstion Sex X R 0 Error Sex Rehgous Qrientat~on Sex X R 0 Error Sex Rei~g~ous Orie~tatmn Sex X R O Error
Downloaded by [University of New Hampshire] at 23:10 15 February 2015
References Adorno, T. W., Fre3kci-Brunsaik. E.. Levirison, U. I., & Sanford, R. N. The oulhorirorianpersonad:i?. New Y o r k Harper; 1950. ihiiport, G . W. TJ~eind:r'rdua/andhire?zgror;. New York: Macmillnn, 2357. M p o r t , G. W.Patlern undgra~.lliinpcrsonulil~,. Neu Yark: EIolt, Rlnehart & Wins:oc: 1955. .4lipor:. G. M:. 7'heperson inpsyrimio~..B o s r o ~ : Beaco~:Press, 196s. Ailpo:t. G . W., % Ross, J . M. Personal religious orientation and prejudrce. Joummi qf Persondsiy un~1S'ucia~P.~ycLluic~g.~, lY67,5:4:,432-A43.
B i m , B., L Mann, 5. H. The effec? of religious membership on reiigious prqjudice. Journni of Socini Psychology, 1960.52, $7- I0 1. Brannan. R. C. Gimme that 016 :me racism. Al;choiog~Today, 1993. :. 4-2-44, Cattei!, R. B., & ESer. FI. W.,'dunua~or~forms.S & B, Six>ren Personctli:) .kclor Questionnaire Charnpa~gn.X.: Iristl?ute for Personality % hbility 'Testing. 1962. Cattell, R. B., Eber. El. W.. b Tatsaoka. M M!. -Vanilhool, - k r rhe .sr.xiern Personalily Fac.tc,r Quertronnaire Champaign: II!.: Iastitute for Personality % Ability Testing, 1970. Cline, V. B.. 6: Richards, j.M .A factor-anafiytlc study ofreiinious beiiefanrf behsvio:. Journaio!
Karson. S.,, B Cs'Deli. 3. W . A guide to theciinicui lisp qf':ht.:t: PF. Chenpaign. Ili.: lnstjrute for Personahry % A b i i i : ~Testing. 1976. Khanna. .I. L.R study of the reiarionship between some aspects of ~ersonalityand certeix; aspects of religious beiiefs. (Gniversity of Colorado. 1956.) Drs.\errulim A hstrwm, 1957. i 7. 26962697. Megargec. E. 1. The Cdrjornia !'s.~i~huiogiidInvmiory hancibooic. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, E 972. Photiadis; 3. 13.. & Biggar. J. Religiosity, education. and elhci: distance. American Journa:of .For:ologi~,1'362, 671.6). 556-672.
Rice.,C:. .4. Thc relatranshi:, between intiinsic and extrinsic :irientaimns t o seiec~edz;lteria of mental heakh. :Bosror, University Graduale SchooI: 1971.) @isserm:ion Ahstruc:.~, 197 1. 32!4-Ai, 2:94.
Rokeach. M . The oy~!a,rticiosei/n;;nd Yewh'ork: Basic BOOKL;, I9h9. Sizik, R. On the compatibility uf rei:gicm and sclence: 4 suwev 3f Amencar. erad.mte studenrs. Webs!er. A C . Parterns and rela!ions of dogmatism. rnentai health and psychological health in seiected reiigiotis groups. (Syracuse i-niversity. 196fy L)isser>ar!on.4hstracls. i964. ??, 4i 42. Wilson. W.., & Miiler. H. I.. Fear. enxiely, and religiousness Journai.fir zhe Scienri:ficS:u& qf Rellgior;. !968. 71 1). I i i .
Edwards; PI. t.Manuai, Edslwi;rd.s PersonuiPr.@rence Scheduie (re\. ed.). New Yo:k: The Psychoiogicsi Corporauon. 1959. Feagin, J. R. Prejud~ceand religious types: A hcused stud?;of southern fundamentalism. Journ a i f o ; the Scieni!fii 5;uc'j. ?fReligr,-in, 1964, 4(1), 3-13. Prof. Edwin McCiain Gounh. H . G. C'oM~rrric.~s~~c.hoIo~il~a:lnvenror~ Dept of E.duc. ?s!.choiagy wanuai. Psia Altc. Consnltmg Psyckoiog~cal The Uiaiiers!ty of Tennessee Press, 1957. Knoxville. Tenr:. 3 9 1 6 Gregory. W.E.Theorthoduxy o f t h e a u h x h a r i a n personaky. Jvu.rnalc~f.Soira/P.s?:i~hoic)gy.1957, Received: May 15: i976 45,2 i7-232. Revised: August 1 . 1977 . 2
