Sergej Flere
University of Maribor, Department of Sociology
Miran Lavrič
University of Maribor, Department of Sociology
Bojan Musil
University of Maribor, Department of Psychology
Rudi Klanjšek
University of Maribor, Department of Sociology
The relation between intrinsic and extrinsic orientations was studied in four samples of believing affiliates (Bosnian Muslims, Serbian Orthodox, Slovenian Catholics and US Protestants). By exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and by multidimensional scaling (MDS), differences in patterns of religious orientations were discerned in the various cultures. By EFA, in the two European settings a closeness between intrinsic (I) and extrinsic personal (EP) orientation was noted. Beside that extrinsic other (EO) items, indicating peripheral nature of the religious sentiment, appeared as a separate dimension. The CFA produced slight differences in this direction, still allowing for a four component finding. The two dimensional presentation in MDS also indicated a similarity in pattern of the dimensions of religious orientation. In all four cases a pattern in the distribution of items appears allowing for naming the vertical axis as indicating the variation between centrality and periphery, and the horizontal one as indicating the variation between social and personal dimensions in religious sentiment.
Keywords: Religious orientation; Extrinsic orientation; Intrinsic orientation; Extrinsic other orientation; Multidimensional scaling
Problem
Behind varied religious behaviours, deeds, often paradoxical and contrary to religious teaching itself, there are also motives, which are often inseparable from substantial religiosity itself. This was the approach taken by G. Allport: to find the »orientation«, the motives behind the actions in order to comprehend the variety of deeds, including the seemingly contradictory prejudice on the part of many Christian believers. Starting from the notions of immature and mature religiosity, he arrived at a typology involving intrinsic (I) and extrinsic (E) religiosity (Allport & Ross, 1967). Extrinsic religiosity was of an instrumental nature, described as immature and utilitarian, whereby a person uses religiosity to achieve extra-religious (psychological and social) ends. In I religiosity, the motive for religiosity would be autonomous and ‘overarching’. Allport summarized this distinction: »the extrinsically motivated individual uses his religion, whereas the intrinsically motivated lives his« (Allport & Ross, 1967, p. 434). Separation gave more robust results when observing the relationship between religion and mental health; while E religious orientation (RO) was negatively correlated to mental health, I RO was generally positively correlated with mental health (James & Wells, 2003). However, additional studies have proven that results were not uniform in confirming that I religiosity would always be psychologically »healthy«. It has been shown that it may also be linked to prejudice (Griffin et al., 1989; McFarland, 1989), to authoritarianism (Kahoe, 1977), to closed mindedness, dogmatism and might even be contaminated by social desirability (Batson & Ventis, 1982).
RO has become the dominant paradigm in the study of religious motivation and of the psychological study of religiosity in general. This is so despite the reservations, which originate, from American scholars themselves. Thus, Hill and Hood (1999) write that ‘Allport’s uncanny popularity among psychologists of religion may have more to do with his apostolic reputation than with the conceptual soundness of his RO framework or the instruments used to assess it.’ (Hill & Hood (eds.), 1999, p. 120). The necessity for many improvements to and expansions of the notions and instruments, starting from Allport and Ross’s original need to reinterpret the analytical framework of data findings, because of the appearance of indisicriminate pro-religious orientation, creating a need to analyze the relationship within an orthogonal framework and not as a continuum, all the way to supplementing the original division into intrinsicness and extrinsicness (I-E) by quest on the part of of Batson and Schoenrade (1991), are indicative of the problems with the framework’s soundness.
The study of RO was mainly limited to the United States and to Protestantism in the US. Most cross-cultural investigations with different conceptions of RO have been limited to English-speaking environments (e.g., Griffiths, Dixon, Stanley, & Weiland, 2001; Hills & Francis, 2003; Hunsberger, 1995; Maltby, 1999; 2002; Maltby & Day, 2003; Struempfer, 1997). Recently, however, efforts to assess the applicability of the RO constructs to diverse populations have been made: some Asian religions (Gorsuch et al., 1997), Egypt (Gallab & El Disoukee, 1994), Germany (Zwingmann, Hellmeister, & Ochsmann, 1994; Zwingmann, Moosbrugger, & Frank, 1991), Iran (Ghorbani, Watson, Ghramaleki, Morris, & Hood, 2000; Watson, Ghorbani, Davison, Bing, Hood, & Ghramaleki, 2002), Japan (Kaneko, 1990), Korean immigrants (Park, Murgatroyd, Raynock, & Spillett, 1998), Malaysia (Ali, 1998), the Netherlands (Derks & Lans, 1986), Norway (Kaldestad, 1992, 1995; Kaldestad & Stifoss-Hanssen, 1993), Palestine (Elbedour, ten Bensel, & Maruyama, 1993), Poland (Socha, 1999), Russia (McFarland, 1989), Sweden (Hovemyr, 1997), and Thailand (Tapanya, Nicki, & Jarusawad, 1997).
Following the work of Socha (1999), whose findings, although generally supporting the essential replicability of the Religious Orientation Scale (ROS) scales in Polish, also suggested that E items had confounding loadings on both I and E dimensions, Brewczynski and MacDonald (2006) set out to investigate a direct replication of the three-factor structure of the original Allport and Ross instrument, which had been confirmed by several previous studies with American participants (e.g., Genia, 1993; Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989; Kirkpatrick, 1989). Their research confirmed the overall adequacy of the three-dimensional structure of (ROS). On the other hand, their findings were consistent with Socha’s (1999) observation that the E and I dimensions in the Polish samples appear to partially overlap.
The problem of the cross-cultural validity of the I-E framework will be addressed in this paper, considering only a number of religions in situations where they are autochthonous, where they are also major religions, not considering variety in the official status of the religion. We will compare American Protestants, Bosnian Muslims, the Serbian Orthodox, and Slovenian Catholics. We will focus on the articulation of these dimensions of RO in varied cultural environments, and will focus particularly on the EO dimension (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989). This is admissible owing to a doctrine-free nature of the scale (Donahue, 1985).
Tiliopoulos, Bikker, Coxon, & Hawkin have recently published a multidimensional scaling analysis of data (2007, forthcoming) on the subject of the Allportian analysis of (I/E) RO (Allport & Ross, 1967), using the Gorsuch & McPherson scale of extrinsicness and intrinsicnes (I/E-R) (1989) on a sample of British Christians. We are following their examples by applying this procedure in a cross-cultural study.
Method
Procedure
The instrument applied was a questionnaire containing varied items, concentrated on religiosity and its possible correlates. The completion of the questionnaire under controlled circumstances took 40-50 minutes. It was carried out in spring of 2005. The questionnaires were translated from Slovene into the other languages and rechecked. Some wording needed to be adjusted in the cases of the Muslim sample, such as mosque or religious community instead of church and paradise instead of heaven. Otherwise, the instrument was of a uniform type.
Sample
Data were collected from respondents who were undergraduate university students, primarily in the social sciences in environments with predominant and traditional religions in the surrounding population. The sample was limited to affiliates of major religions with at least a medium interest in religion (the sample was limited to those answering 3 and above on a 1 – 5 point pro-trait Likert format belief in God scale): Maribor, Slovenia (N = 297, Roman Catholic), Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (N = 390, Muslim), Niš, Serbia (N= 358, Serbian Orthodox), Auburn, USA (N = 290, Protestant majority). The mean age for the Slovenian sample was 20.3 years (SD=1.3), 20,4 years (SD=1,5) for the Serbian sample, and 20,7 years (SD=1,8) for the Bosnian sample. In all of the samples females formed the majority. The number of males varied from 33.9% in the Bosnia and Herzegovina sample to 41.7% in the Slovenian sample. In all of the analyses only affiliates with the major religion were taken into consideration, comprising a high percent in all cases: 76,8% for the Slovenian sample, 89,8% for the Bosnian sample, and 92,7% for the Serbian sample.
Measures
The questionnaire contained items on I and E RO, taken from Gorsuch and McPherson’s Intrinsic-extrisnic/revised (I-E/R) scale (1989). Although the Cronbach alphas for the E items at the level of all affiliates in the three surroundings was high (α= .814), we later decided to separate the social EP, ES and EO scales into two separate scales, because they functioned differently within the analysis of total RO. This was, firstly, in line with Kirkpatrick’s (1989) and Trimble’s (1997) suggestion on separating extrinsicness into two scales. Secondly, we decided not to recode the 3 EO items (later titled as I owing to raising reliability this way, by Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989). Gorsuch and McPherson enter them into the I scale on the basis of these 3 items elevating the reliability of the I scale (1989, 351). In our study, this was not the case in any of the samples. See Table 1.
In Table 1, the I RO scale diminishes in reliability when EO items are entered. We thus decided to retain the EO items as a separate scale, in spite of their sub-optimal reliability, because of Gorusch and McPhersons’s findings and instruction (1989, 351) and because of the focus on the limitation of the religious sentiment to periphery in this paper.
A five-point Likert-type pro-worded scale was used for all statements.
Plan of analysis
Initially, descriptive findings were computed in the form of means and standard deviations. To assess the psychometric properties exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis was employed. In the latter, for each of the three samples, we tested the goodness of fit for a two-factor model, distinguishing I and EP items as one dimension and ES items as another, and for a three-factor model, distinguishing items I, EP and ES items as three separate dimensions. No error terms were allowed to correlate.
Next, MDS was applied, by the Proxscal routine (in SPSS). MDS has the ability to generate a visual representation of the latent structure of the data in low two-dimensional space (Shepard, 1962). MDS has fewer and less strict assumptions than factor analysis and can be applied to any kind of data (Bartholomew, Steele, Moustaki & Galbraith, 2002). The classic metric MDS configuration and the interval model (due to the Likert format of the items) were used. We applied PROXSCAL study of Euclidian distances (dissimilarities) with a primary approach to ties.
In the sample of Slovenian Catholic affiliates, stress1 amounted, for two dimensional representation, to .083, which is good fit (Cox & Cox, 2001, 77) (optimal scaling factor = 1,007, normalized raw stress =.007). The raising of the number of dimensions from 1 to 2 signified an improvement of .21 in normalized raw stress, whereas further rise did not signify significant improvement (.01 in the first following step).
In the sample of Bosnian Muslim believing affiliates, stress1 amounted for two dimensional representation to .080 which is good fir (Cox & Cox, 2001, 77), (optimal scaling factor = 1,007), normalized raw stress = .006. The raising of the number of dimensions from 1 to 2 signified an improvement of .22 in normalized raw stress, whereas further rise did not signify significant improvement ( .01 in the first following step).
In the sample of the Serbian Orthodox affiliates, stress1 amounted, for two dimensional representation, to .093 which is good fit (Cox & Cox, 2001, 77) (optimal scaling factor = 1,009, normalized raw stress =.009). The raising of the number of dimensions from 1 to 2 signified an improvement of .24 in normalized raw stress, whereas further rise did not signify significant improvement (less than .01 in the first following step).
In the sample US Protestant affiliates, stress1 amounted, for two dimensional representation, to .054 which is good fit (Cox & Cox, 2001, 77) (optimal scaling factor = 1,003, normalized raw stress =.003). The raising of the number of dimensions from 1 to 2 signified an improvement of .23 in normalized raw stress, whereas further rise did not signify significant improvement (.01 in the first following step).
The appropriateness of combining factor analysis with MDS pursues from the prior’s indicating interindividual differences, while being possibly under the influence of acquiescence, while MDS at the most marginally under the influence of acquiescence and lacking indication of interindividual differences, it represents relations between items (Fontaine, Durize, Luyten & Hutsebaut, 2003, 508-9).
Findings
Descriptive findings
If we focus on I scale (table 2), it pursues that we are basically confronted with the Slovenian Catholic and Serbian Orthodox samples as being of low scoring, lagging behind the normative mean, in contrast to the other two samples. If personal extrinsicness is considered, the situation is somewhat different the US Protestants scoring behind the Serbian Orthodox, indicating a complexity in the situations. Slovenian Catholics attain the highest score with the EO dimension, the Serbian Orthodox do so with the EP one, as do Bosnian Muslims, at an exceptionally high level, whereas American Protestants attain their highest level with the I dimension. As to the EO dimension the two samples found being strong in religious I sentiment indicate averages below the normative means and vice versa, suggesting a form of low commitment religiosity.
Factor analysis
The factor matrices in Table 3 indicate good functioning of the Gorsuch & McPherson scale (1989) in this cross-cultural study, even though the fit is not perfect. The fall of the Eigenvalue total below the restrictive Kaiser rule in the fourth factor in three samples is within the allowed range (Field, 2000, 437). There are significant crossloads between I and EP items in the non-American samples which are not an accident, dealt with elsewhere (Flere & Lavric, forthcoming). This is the way to explain the appearance of the ‘Divine presence’, an I item in the EP factor only in the Bosnian Muslim sample, as well. The EO item ‘It doesn’t much matter…’ in the Serbian Orthodox sample does not reach a requested loading level for presentation in any factor. Conditionally, one may say that the scale functions best in the American Protestant environment with very few crossloads, particularly all EO items appearing in the ES factor and one item even having the highest value there.
The variety in the strength of the dimensions is interesting, the I dimension appearing strongest in the US Protestant and Bosnian Muslim settings, whereas two different E dimensions appear first in the other two environments. EO items appear weakest in all environments, except for the US Protestant one. In this last case this relative strength derives from the significant cross-loads from the I items.
The basic substantial finding is that in all environments a meaningful four factor structure appears. This structure includes beside the three dimensions usually noted (Kirkpatrick 1989; Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989), a distinct EO dimension. The clarity of its appearance is somewhat obfuscated in the US Protestant case, but it is, in this case as well, a factor separate of the I one, albeit contaminated by I loadings. This dimension was entered into the scale by authors because it raised the reliability and not for theoretical reasons, although it allows for theoretical explanation. This structure casts doubt in this respect, even in the American Protestant case and tempts for a substantial standing of this dimension. EO items all indicate a peripheral position, a limited nature of the religious sentiment.
In order to further explore these findings, confirmatory factor analysis was employed. We studied separately the situation with E items and the situation for the entire scale. See Tables 4 and 5.
Validity of the three factor solution pertaining to E dimension was tested with CFA and compared with one factor solution, as presented in Table 4. CFA indicated that one factor model including all of the nine E items did not meet the usual fit criteria for a model, regardless of which sample was used. The three factor solution, conceptualized as noted above (the E dimension was split in to three separate dimensions EP, ES, EO) fared much better. Although the model did not meet usual fit criteria – RMSEA for Slovenian and Serbian sample was above the recommended value of .05 – it indicated that separation of E scale in to three dimensions proved to be a warranted one in all of the samples observed as the three factor solution fitted data significantly better than one factor solution. In addition, analysis of the modification indices indicated that model could be improved further if one would allow error terms to correlate.
Results presented in Table 5 indicated that four factor solution, where all hypothesized dimensions of RO were separated, fitted data better than three factor-model (supposing for I and EP items as single dimension). Consequently, compounding of I and EP dimensions, in spite of item-cross loadings did not prove as a meaningful as EFA might indicated. Nevertheless, it is important to note that this separation between I and EP scales yielded best improvement in the fit when US sample was used, meaning that separation of I and EP is less warranted when non-Protestant samples are used.
Thus, the above findings point to a difference between the Protestant and the non-Protestant structuring of orientation components, although it cannot be asserted that EP and I elements have blended into a single one in either of the non-Protestant samples. The separates of EO items was not questionable at all. Non-metric geometrical presentation may assist in clarifying the issue.
Multidimensional scaling
It was possible and made sense to conduct the analysis as a two dimensional representation, with a view to the relation between the three orientation dimensions. See Figures 1 through 4.
A basic uniform pattern is discernible at visual inspection of Figures 1 - 4.
In all cases each of the four groups of items populates one of the four quadrants of the quadrangular. The distribution is particularly ‘perfect’ in the Slovenian case, where each of the groups is leaning towards one angle of the quadrangular. On the other hand, in the Serbian case, there is no clear visual separation between the intrinsic and EP items.
As the EP and I items always populate the same vertical half, while the EP and ES items were distributed horizontally into clusters, we were tempted to title the horizontal axis as the one pertaining to the personal – social dimension; the vertical axis always contained the I and the Eo items in separate space, tempting us to title the vertical axis as indicating a variation between periphery and centrality. The fact that in the Slovenian Catholic sample (Fig. 1), the vertical distribution is directed oppositely than in the other samples is without relevance in this type of analysis. All of the three EO items speak of the lack of relevance or impact of religion in one’s life. One might say that at least Eo2 and Eo3 pertain to (lack of) consequentiality (Glock & Stark, 1968).
In all cases, EO items are closer to the bottom/top of the quadrangular (interpreted as irrelevance) than the other group of items populating this half, indicating Eo items are more peripheral (in comparison to EP items). ES items are never peripheral, in fact they are central, but always in vertical relationship to EP items. At closer inspection, one finds in all 4 figures that Intrinsic items pertaining to relevance of prayer (I_2) and to religion holding central position in one’s outlook (I_5) (the one considered the most indicative by Gorsuch & McPherson, among the I items, 1989, 352), being vertically in locations closest to the axis in all figures. By way of contrast, the I_1 reading item holds a low position in the American Protestant sample only, as to be expected owing to the special relevance of reading the holy scriptures within Protestantism. This supports the suggestion that we are dealing with the centrality – periphery dimension.
The findings pertaining to reliability to the factor structure observed explanatorily and confirmatorily and particularly the two dimensional representation suggest that there are no problems as to equivalence of meaning in the different, although Abrahamic religions.
Discussion
The above findings allow for a number of conclusions:
Firstly, it is admissible to allow for the application of the Gorsuch & McPherson (1989) scale to some non-Christians, lending further support to the endeavors of Ghorbani, Watson, Ghramaleki, Morris & Hood (2000) and Watson, Ghorbani, Davison, Bing, Hood and Ghramaleki (2002) and questioning Tiliopoulos et al. (2006) contentions to the opposite effect.
Secondly, there is a slight difference in the findings for US Protestants, suggesting further study whether intrinsicness as a separate dimension might not be peculiar to them; Stark and Bainbridge consider intrinsicness a Protestant peculiarity (1985, 13), while Strickland and Weddell (1972) opined that intrinsicness expressed ‘Southern Baptist theology’.
Thirdly, MDS appears as a particularly fruitful methods in the study of conceptual differences within the I-E/R framework, as four groups of items, indicating four dimensions appearing in a very similar patterns in four rather different religious environments, although all within the Abrahamic religious traditions.
Fourthly, our findings lend support for a contention of extrinsic otherness being a special, distrinct although not potent dimension of RO, indicative of a limited strength of this sentiment and of its expulsion from most other areas of life. This dimension appears particularly strong among the Slovenian Catholics, believing ones, otherwise low on intrinsicness. This dimension appears particularly clearly by two dimensional presentation, which is to do away with acquiescence, always appearing in a separate angle, always appearing closest to a horizontal axis, tempting us to title the axis as indicating periphery.
The entire depiction of religious orientation as indicating two dimensions, including centrality and periphery, on the one hand, and a personal and a social component, on the other, should not come as a surprise to those working in the Allportian schema, since personal and social motivations are universal and as Allport was driven by an urge to differentiate between those who ‘live’ and those who ‘use’ their religion (Allport & Ross, 1967). The ‘use’ component has emerged more complex than might have been expected originally. Beside the ‘use’ being personal and social, it pursues that we may also analyse whether the ‘use’ may be limited in nature.
References
Ali, M. (1998). The family’s influence on RO of women in Malaysia, Asia Pacific Journal of Social Work, 8, 16-29.
Allport, G.W., & Ross, J.M. (1967). Religious orientation and prejudice, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
Bartholomew, D.J., Steele, F., Moustaki, I. & Galbraith, J.I. (2002). The analysis & interpretation of multivariate data for social scientists. London: Chapman & Hall.
Batson, D., Naifeh, S.J., & Pate, S. (1978). Social desirability, religious orientation and social prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 17, 31-41.
Batson, D., & Ventis, W.L. (1982). The religious experience. New York: Oxford University Press.
Batson, D., & Schoenrade, P. (1991). Measuring religion as quest: 1. validity concerns, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 416-429.
Brewczynski, J. & MacDonald, D.A. (2006). “Confirmatory factor analysis of the Allport and Ross religious orientation scale with a Polish sample.” International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 16, 63-76.
Cox, T.F. & Cox, M.A.A. (2001). Multidimensional scaling. Second edition. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall.
Derks, F., & Lans, J. M. (1986). Religious attitudes: A practical approach (1). In J. A. van Belzen & J.M. van der Lans (Eds.), Current issues in the psychology of religion: Proceedings of the Third Symposium on the Psychology of Religion in Europe (pp. 193–199). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Donahue, M.J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: a review and meta-analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419.
Elbedour, S., ten Bensel, R., & Maruyama, G. M. (1993). Children at risk: Psychological coping with war and conflict in the Middle East. International Journal of Mental Health, 22, 33–52.
Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
Flere, S. & Lavric, M. (forthcoming). Is intrinsic religious orientation a culturally specific American Protestant concept? The fusion of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation among non-Protestants. European Journal for Social Psychology.
Gallab, M. A., & El Disoukee, M. E. (1994). A comparative psychological study between intrinsic religious and extrinsic religious on violence attitude and some personality characteristics. Derasat Nafseyah, 4, 337–375.
Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Ghramaleki, A. F., Morris, R. J., & Hood, R. W. (2000). Muslim attitudes towards religion scale: Factors, validity and complexity of relationships with mental health in Iran. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 3, 125–132.
Glock, C. & Stark, R. (1965). Religion and society in tension. Chicago: Rand Mc Nally.
Gorsuch, R.L. & McPherson, S.E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E revised in single item scales, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 348-354.
Griffin, G.A., Gorsuch, R.L. & Davis, L.-A. (1987). A cross-cultural investigation of religious
orientation, social norms and prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 26, 358-
65.
Griffiths, B., Dixon, C., Stanley, G., &Weiland, R. (2001). Religious orientation and attitudes towards homosexuality: A functional analysis. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 12–17.
Hill, P.C. & Hood, R. (Eds.). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL.: Religious Education Press.
Hills, P., Francis, L. J., Argyle, M., & Jackson, C. J. (2004). Primary personality trait correlates of religious practice and orientation. Personality & Individual Differences, 36, 61–73.
Hovemyr, M. (1998). The attribution of success and failure as related to different patterns of religious orientation, International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 8, 107-124.
Hunsberger, B. (1995). Religion and prejudice: The role of religious fundamentalism, quest, and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 113–129.
James, A. & Wells, A. (2003). Religion and mental health: towards a cognitive behavioural framework. British Journal of Health Psychology, 8, 359-76.
Kaldestad, E. (1992). Religious orientation, personality, mental health, and religious activity. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 321–328.
Kaldestad, E. (1995). The empirical relationships of the religious orientations to personality. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 36, 95–108.
Kaldestad, E. & Stifoss-Hanssen, H. (1993). Standardizing measures of religiosity for Norwegians, International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 111-124.
Kaneko, S. (1990). Dimensions of religiosity among believers in Japanese folk religion, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 1-18.
Kirkpatrick, L.A. (1989). A psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin measures
of intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation. In M.L. Lynn & D.O. Moberg (Eds.), Research in
the Social Scientific Study of Religion (pp. 1-31), Greenwich CT: JAI Press.
Maltby, J. (1999). The internal structure of a derived, revised, and amended measure of the Religious Orientation Scale: The “Age-Universal” I-E Scale-12. Social Behavior & Personality, 27, 407–412.
Maltby, J. (2002). The Age Universal I-E Scale-12 and orientation toward religion: Confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Psychology, 136, 555–560.
Maltby, J.,& Day, L. (2003). Religious orientation, religious coping and appraisals of stress: Assessing primary appraisal factors in the relationship between religiosity and psychological well-being. Personality & Individual Differences, 34, 1209–1224.
McFarland, S.G. (1989). Religious orientations and targets of discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 324-336.
Park, H., Murgatroyd,W., Raynock, D. C., & Spillett, M. A. (1998). Relationship between intrinsic–extrinsic religious orientation and depressive symptoms in Korean Americans. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 11, 315–324.
Shepard, R.N. (1962). The analysis of proximities: multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. Psychometrika, 27, 125-140.
Socha, P. W. (1999). Ways religious orientations work: A Polish replication of measurement of religious orientation. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9, 209-228.
Stark, R. & Bainbridge, W.S. (1985). The future of religion. Secularization, revival and cult formation, Berkeley: University of California Press.
Strickland, Brad R. and Weddell, Cone S. 1972. “Religious Orientation, Social Prejudice, and Dogmatism. A Study of Baptists and Unitarians.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 11: 395-99.
Struempfer, D. J. (1997). The relation between religious motivation and work-related variables amongst agricultural workers. South African Journal of Psychology, 27, 134–142.
Tapanya, S., Nicki, R., & Jarusawad, O. (1997). Worry and intrinsic/extrinsic religious orientation among Buddhist (Thai) and Christian (Canadian) elderly persons. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 44, 73–83.
Tiliopoulos, N., Bikker, A.P., Coxon, A.P.M. & Hawkin, P.K. (2007). The means and ends of religiosity: A fresh look at Gordon Allport’s religious orientation dimensions. Personality and Individual Differences, In Press, Available online 19 December 2006.
Trimble, D.E. (1997). The religious orientation scale: review and meta-analysis of social desirability effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 970-986.
Watson, P. J., Ghorbani, N., Davison, H. K., Bing, M. N., Hood, R. W., & Ghramaleki, A. F. (2002). Negatively reinforcing personal extrinsic motivations: Religious orientation, inner awareness, and mental health in Iran and the United States. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,12, 255–276.
Zwingmann, C., Hellmeister, G., & Ochsmann, R. (1994). Intrinsische und extrinsische religiöse Orientierung: Fragebogenskalen zum Einsatz in der empirisch-religionspsychologischen Forschung. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 15, 131–139.
Zwingmann, C., Moosbrugger, H., & Frank, D. (1991). Religiöse Orientierung and ihre Bedeutung für den Zusammenhang zwischen Religiosität und Lebenszufriedenheit. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 5, 285–294.
Corresponding author
Sergej Flere
University of Maribor, Department of Sociology
E-mail: sergej.flere@uni-mb.si, tel. 386 51 349 971