Allport’s bipolar religion model was empirically dismantled into multiple independent dimensions

Evidence

It now seems clear, however, that these two scales tap two distinct dimensions of personal religion, each of which is a component of what Allport (1950) referred to as mature religion. Although it may be tempting to propose a typology in which individuals scoring high on both the Intrinsic and Quest scales would be typed as displaying mature religion, a typology once again seems inappropriate. Associations with prejudice seem best predicted by scores on one or the other of these scales, Intrinsic or Quest, not by a combination of the two. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2556 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Scores on his Intrinsic scale have been found to be highly correlated (typically 0.50 or higher) with scores on Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism scales (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Batson et al., 1993). This finding has led some researchers to adopt a strategy of using partial correlations to assess the relationship between the Intrinsic scale and prejudice, adjusting for the relation with Orthodoxy or Fundamentalism. It is not clear that this strategy is wise, however, for two reasons. First, the correlations of the Intrinsic scale with Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism are so high that the adjusted Intrinsic scores may no longer measure the same construct. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2575 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: Allport’s Intrinsic Religious Orientation Scale failed to measure its own stated construct; Allport’s extrinsic-intrinsic typology fails to capture distinct religion dimensions; Allport’s Intrinsic religiosity scale correlates strongly with Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2575 (+2 more)

Broader Connections