commitment agama

8/8/2019 Commitment Agama

1/5

T o w a r d t h e M e a s u r e m e n t o fC o m m i t m e n t S t r e n g t h *R o n a l d C . W i m b e r l e yNorth Carolina State University

This paper sugg ests that s trength of commitment be measured apart fr om the underlyingcomm itment positions. This sug gestion is empirically directed to the study o f religious com mit-ments where mu ch conceptual and empirical e f fort has been spent. G uttma n att i tudinal compo-nents plus i tems of ah intr insic-extrinsic nature ate of fered as possible guidelines f or m easuringthis strength. D ata on com mitment a nd its strength i n the dimension of religious experience areconsidered fo r content an d intensity respectively. Inferences are draw n fo r increasing thepredictive ability of religious comm itments an d fo r stu dying extra-religious com mitments.T h e c o n c e p t o f c o m m i t m e n t s t r e n g t h c a n b e d i s t i n g u i sh e d f r o m t h e m e r e

a d h e r e n c e t o a p a r t i c u l a r p o s it io n . T h e t e r m c o m m i t m e n t w il l r e f e r t o a p o s it io n so r a lt e rn a t iv e w h i ch o n e m i g h t h o ld w h i l e c o m m i t m e n t s t r e n ~ t h r e f e r s t o t h ed e g r e e s u c h a p o s i t io n is h e l d .

G u t t m a n ( 1 9 54 ) o u tl i n e s a n d d e s c r i b e s f o u r p r in c i p a l c o m p o n e n t s o f s c a la b lea t t i t u d e s - - c o n t e n t , i n te n s i ty , c lo s u r e , a n d i n v o l u t io n - - - w h i c h m i g h t b e u s e d a sp o in t s o f d e p a r t u r e f o r m e a s u r i n g c o m m i t m e n t s a n d t h e i r s t r e n g th s . C o n t e n tr e f e r s t o v a r i o u s p o s i ti o n s w i t h in a p a r t i c u l a r u n i v e r s e . T h e r e f o r e , c o n t e n t s c a le sw o u l d s e e m t o i n d ic a t e c o m m i t m e n t d i m e n s i o n s . T h e c o m p o n e n t s o f i n te n s it y ,c l os u re , a n d i n v o l u ti o n s u g g e s t i n d ic a t o rs o f c o m m i t m e n t s t r e n g t h t o th e u n d e r l y -i n g p o si ti o ns . I n t e n s i t y r e f e r s t o th e i m p o r t a n c e a t t a c h e d t o a p o s i ti o n . C l o s u r es u g g e s ts a d i s r e g a r d f o r a l t e rn a t i v e p o s i t io n s . I n v o l u t i o n is u s e d t o i m p l y t h a t o n eh a s s t o p p e d c o n s i d e o t h e r al te r n a ti v e s o r h a s b e g u n t o a c t o n a c e r ta i na l t e rn a t iv e . U n t i l n o w , G u t t m a n ( 1 95 4 ) h as b e e n t h e o n l y r e s e a r c h e r t o e s ta b li s he m p i r i c a l l y a ll f o u r a t ti t u d e c o m p o n e n t s , a l t h o u g h o t h e r i n v e s t i g a to r s ( H e n r y ,1 9 57 ; R i l a n d , 1 9 5 9 ; a n d D o t s o n , 1 9 6 2 ) h a v e b e e n a b l e t o f i n d c o n t e n t a n di nt en si ty . C o n s e q u e n t ly , m e a s u r es o f c o m m i t m e n t a n d c o m m i t m e n t s t r e n g th t h a ta r e a n a l o g o u s t o c o n t e n t a n d i n t e n s it y w il l b e o f c o n c e r n h e r e .R e l i g i o u s C o m m i t m e n t a n d I t s S t r e n g t h

A l t h o u g h a s c a le o f p o s it i o n s i n a r e l i g i o u s d i m e n s i o n c a n in d i c a t e a n a l t e r n a t i v et o w h i c h o n e is c o m m i t t e d , o n e ' s c o m m i t m e n t t o a p a r t i c u l a r a l t e r n a t i v e d o e s n o tn e c e s s a r i l y r e v e a l t h e s t r e n g t h w i t h w h i c h t h a t p o s i ti o n i s h e l d . F o r i n s t a n c e , as c al e o f c o m m i t m e n t t o a r e l ig i o u s b e l i e f m a y f i n d a p e r s o n e i t h e r l ib e r a l o rc o n s e r v a ti v e , b u t i t c a n n o t b e a s s u m e d t h e r e is a w e a k c o m m i t m e n t t o r e l ig i o nb e c a u s e h e o r s h e is l ib e r a l, o r a s t r o n g c o m m i t m e n t b e c a u s e h e o r s h e is c o n s e r v a -t iv e , o r v ic e v e r s a . T o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e c o m m i t m e n t is s t r o n g o r w e a k , a*Comm ents and suggestions by Louis E. Dotson are appreciated. Da ta were made available by theEducation D ivision and the R esearch and Statistics Dep artment of the Southe rn Baptist Conve ntion.

2 1 1

byguestonSeptember16,

2010

socrel.oxfordjournals.org

Down

loadedfrom
http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/http://socrel.oxfordjournals.org/


2/5

2 1 2 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSISs e p a r a t e m e a s u r e m e n t is n e e d e d . A l t h o u g h t hi s d i s ti n c t i o n m a y s e e m f a ir ly o b vi -o u s , c o n f u s i o n a p p e a r s i n l i t e r a t u r e o n re l i g i o u s d i m e n s i o n s . G l o c k a n d S t a r k( 1 9 6 5 : 2 5 - 2 6 ) a c k n o w l e d g e a d i s t in c t i o n b e t w e e n b e l ie f s a n d t h e i r s al ie n c e. T h e ya ls o p o i n t to th e n e e d f o r s t u d y i n g d e g r e e o f re l ig i o u s c o m m i t m e n t s ( S ta r k a n dG l o c k , 1 9 6 8: 2) . H o w e v e r , t h e d i s t in c t i o n is v a g u e i n p a r t s o f t h e i r o w n a n a l y s e sa n d i n s o m e o f L e n s k i 's c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s . 1

B a s e d o n t h e s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , a t t e n t i o n is n o w d i r e c t e d t o t h e p r o b l e m o fm e a s u r i n g a d i m e n s i o n o f r e l i g io u s c o m m i t m e n t p o s i t io n s a p a r t f r o m a d i m e n -s io n o f c o m m i t m e n t s t r e n g t h a n d to th e a n a ly s is o f t h e i r in t e r r e l a t io n s h i p s a l o n gt h e li ne s o f G u t t m a n ' s c o m p o n e n t s o f c o n t e n t a n d i n te n s it y . T h e r e f o r e , t hi sa t t e m p t is t o w a r d a n e m p i r i c a l a s w e ll a s a c o n c e p t u a l e x p l i c a t i o n .Methods

D a t a o n r e l ig i o us p o s i t io n s a n d s t r e n g t h o f c o m m i t m e n t to s u c h p o s i ti o n s w e r eo b t a i n e d b y m a i l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s f r o m 8 1 2 S o u t h e r n B a p t i s t a d u l t s in T e x a s .S a m p l i n g w a s t h r o u g h a r a n d o m , m u l t i - s t a g e p r o c e d u r e . L e n s k i' s ( 1 96 1 ) i t e m s o nd e v o t i o n a l i s m p r o v i d e d a n a p p r o a c h t o s o m e c o m m i t m e n t p o s it io n s . A m e a s u r eo f s t re n g t h o f c o m m i t m e n t to s u c h p o s i ti o n s w a s p r o v i d e d w i th i n F e a g i n ' s (1 9 64 )s u b s c a l e i t e m s o n i n t r i n s i c a n d e x t r i n s i c r e l i g i o n .

I t e m s o n d e v o t i o n a l i s m , a s d e s i g n e d f o r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , i n q u i r e d " H o w o f t e nd o y o u p r a y ? " a n d " W h e n y o u h a v e d e c is io n s t o m a k e in y o u r e v e r y d a y l if e d o y o ua s k y o u r s e l f w h a t G o d w o u l d w a n t y o u to d o ? " D e s p i t e b e i n g r e s t r ic t e d i n n u m b e r ,t h e s e i t e m s w e r e s u b j e c t e d t o v a r i o u s c r i te r i a f o r s c al a bi li ty a n d f o u n d a d e q u a t e , z

I t e m s w e r e s e le c t e d f r o m F e a g i n ' s ( 1 9 64 ) s ca le s w h i c h m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e l yr e f l e c te d t h e s t re n g t h o f t h e c o m m i t m e n t c o n t e n t p o s i t io n s in th e i t em s o nd e v o t io n a l i s m . T h e a s s u m p t i o n is t h a t a m e a s u r e o f s t r e n g t h s h o u l d c o r r e s p o n dt o a d i m e n s i o n o f a p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e n t . C o n s e q u e n t l y , t h e in t r i n s i c -e x t r i n s i c i te m sc h o s e n w e r e : (a) " T h e p u r p o s e o f p r a y e r is t o s e c u r e a h a p p y a n d p e a c e f u l l if e ."(b ) " Q u i t e o f t e n I h a v e b e e n k e e n l y a w a r e o f th e p r e s e n c e o f G o d o r o f th e D i v in eB e i n g . " (c) " T h e p r a y e r s I s a y w h e n I a m a l o n e c a r r y as m u c h m e a n i n g a n dp e r s o n a l e m o t i o n a s t h o s e s a i d b y m e d u r i n g a s e r vi c e ." ( d) "I r is i m p o r t a n t t o m et o s p e n d p e r i o d s o f ti m e i n p r i v a te r e l i g io u s t h o u g h t a n d m e d i t a t io n . " F i v e - p o i n t

In th e belief dimension, Glock and Stark (1968: 57) prop ose to categorize individuals by the deg ree o fcomm itment to religious beliefs. How ever, in their me asure o f the ritual dimension fo ra nationwidesample, Stark a nd Glock ( 1968:104-105) combine questions on the general importarlce of religion w ithan item on com mitment to a religious behavior. Th ey also combine frequency of private pray er withimportance ofp ray er to me asure private religious (Stark and Glock, 1968:121). Likewise, Lenski(1961:57) conceptually associates orthodox belief with being strongly committed to religious beliefs.He also define s devotionalism as the impo rtance of person al comm unication with God, yetoperationalizes the concept as types of religious behavior positions (Lenski, 1961:25,57).2This is certainly not offe red as a rigorous example of a Gu ttman scale since there were only two items.How ever, assurance of scalability was slightly improved by trichotomizing the freq uenc y of the item onpray er. Th e item on asking help in everyday matters was only dichotomized because of a prepon der-ance o f responses in two categories. T he ir coefficient of reproducibility (Edw ards, 1956:184-188) is.91. Not only does this coefficient m eet the conventional requ irem ent of a .90 level, but it comparesfavorably to the minimum marginal reproducibility (Edwards, 1956:191-193) of .64 for these itemsand response catego Likewise, the Borgatta (1955) erro r ratio for this scale, .56, is quite low asdesired. Th erefo re, the items on devofionalism are no t foun d to be unscalable and th eir scaling isthought to representan improvement of Lenski 's procedure of summated scoring.


2010


Down

loadedfrom


3/5

M E A SU R EM E N T O F C O M M I T M E N T S T R E N G T H 213a g r e e m e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s f o l lo w e d e a c h i t e m . A s f o r t h e i t e m s o n d e v o t i o n a l i s m ,v a r i o u s m e a s u r e s o f i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n cy d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e s e f o u r i t e m s a ls of o r r o a s a t i s f a c t o r y G u t t m a n s c a l e ?

T h e s c a l e d i te m s o n d e v o t i o n a l i sm m a y be t r e a t e d a s a m e a s u r e o f c o m m i t m e n tp o s i ti o n s f o r r e l ig i o u s e x p e r i e n c e . 4 T h e y d e p i c t a c o n t i n u u m o f c o m m i t m e n t s to: e r t a i n p e r s o n a l , r e l ig i o u s b e h a v i o r s a m o n g f u n d a m e n t a l i s t - o r t h o d o x C h r i s t i a n sa s f o u n d i n t h is s a m p l e . T h e s e p a r a t e l y s c a l e d i n t r in s i c - e x t r i n s i c i t e m s a r e o b -s e r v e d to s h o w t h e s t r e n g t h o f c o m m i t m e n t s t o s u c h u n d e r l y i n g e x p e r i e n c e s .T h e r e f o r e , t h e e x p e r i e n c e p o s it io n s c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e c o m p o n e n t o n c o n t e n t a n dt h e i m p o r t a n c e o f h a v i n g a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f r e li g io u s e x p e r i e n c e c o r r e s p o n d s t ot h e c o m p o n e n t o n i n t e ns i t y .Rela t io n o f Co n ten t a n d ln t en s i t y

M e d i a n s o f i n t e n s i t y o r s t r e n g t h a r e p l o t t e d o n t h e m i d p o i n t s o f t h e c o n t e n tp o s i t io n s in F i g u r e 1. T h i s p r o c e d u r e h a s b e e n s u g g e s t e d a n d u s e d b y G u t t m a n( 1 9 5 4 : 2 3 1 ) a n d o t h e r s ( S u c h m a n , 1 9 50 ; H e n r y , 1 9 57 ; a n d D o t s o n , 1 96 2) . F i g u r e1 is b a s e d o n T a b l e 1. T h e c o m m i t m e n t a n d c o m m i t m e n t s t r e n g t h r e l a t i o n s h i pa p p r o x i m a t e a s t r a i g h t li ne h a v i n g a s li g h t b e n d a t t h e t h i r d c o n t e n t m i d p o i n t .T h e l in e s u g g e s t s t h a t a s f r e q u e n c y o f t h e b e h a v i o r a l e x p e r i e n c e i n c r e as e s , s o d o e sc o m m i t m e n t s t r e n g t h t o t h e e x p e B u t , a s s h o w n i n t h e t a b l e , t h e r e isv a r i a t i o n o f s t r e n g t h a t p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e n t c a t e g o r i e s .

T h e i n te n s i t y c o m p o n e n t o f a t t i t u d e s p r o p o s e d b y G u t t m a n ( 1 95 4 ) is a s s u m e dt o f o r m a U o r J s h a p e d c u r v e w h e n p l o t te d a g a i n s t a c o m p o n e n t o f a t t i t u d ec o n t e n t . T h e l i ne f o u n d i n F i g u r e 1 d o e s n o t s h o w s u c h a c u r v e . S i n c e f o r th i sa n a ly s is e x p e r i e n t i a l r e l ig i o u s c o m m i t m e n t c o n t e n t is m e a s u r e d i n t e r m s o f b e -

3The .96 coefficient of reproducibility (E dw ards, 1956:184-188) is w ell above the .72 min imu mmarginal reproducibil ity (Edwards, 1956:191-193). The Borgatta (19 55) erro r ra t io of .52 is a lsoconside red quite satisfactory. It is note d that in term s of Guttm an co m pone nts, this construction of ascalable intensity measure is apparenfly unique. Suchman (1950) was unable to establish ah intensityscale and there is no known evidence of success since his try.4King (1967:176) and King and Hunt (1979) note that the religious experience dimension which theypro du ccd from facto r and cluster analyses was similar to Glock's (Glock and Stark, 1965) experientialdim ension and Lenski's (1961) ctevotionalism orientation . S ince then, S tark and Glo ck (1968: 15,108-124) have used devotionalism asa differe nt conceptual d im ension of re lig ious com mitm ent fromexpe W hereas they rega rd devotionalism as an e lement of the r itual is tic d imension whichdesignates pr ivate , informal dimension o f re l ig ious r i tual behavior including p ray er and Bible read-ing, the experience dimension perta ins to one 's comm unication w ith adivi ne being. Th is conceptualdistinction seems to draw a very fine line. In fact, the pr odu ct m om ent correlations betw een me asuresof these two dimensions were the fourth highest for Protestants , +.467, and the second highest forCatholics , +.424, in 36 such correla t ions among rel ig ious dimension measurements for each group(Stark a nd Glock, 1968:177-178). N ude lm an ( 1971) rep orts a factor analysis of these scale interco rrela-tions and finds exp e and devotionalism in the same general dimension for the Protestant andCatholic samples . A lthoug h a factoring of scales is not an adequ ate tes t of the dimensionali ty o f theiri tems, Nudelman 's factoring of i tems from Chris t ian Scientis t data produce the same results .

To the exte nt that the devotionalism items on pra ye r and consultation with God involve com mu nica-t ive experience with ad iv ine being, these i tems seem equally ap prop ria te as indicators of pr ivatereligious ritual or experience commitments. At any tate, the conceptual distinction is moot forpurposes a t hand. Th e i tems used here on freq uency of comm unication with God and i tems onimpo rtance of th is comm unication are the o perat ional substances, regardless of whethe r such com-mu nication is called devotionalism or experie nce.


2010


Down

loadedfrom


4/5

214 SOCIOLOGICALANAI.YSIS

MediansIntens ity Percentiles

High

Inten sity Percentiles

LowMidpointContent Percentiles

62

51

4033

Low

FIGURE 1C o n t e n t a n d I n t e n s i t y

7JJ/ /' 433 78

Conten t Percentiles HighT A B L E 1

Re la t i on o f Commi tme n t S t r eng th t o Commi tme n t Pos i t i onsIntensity Rank Religious Cont ent Totals CumulativeLow High Percentile

0 1 2 3High 4 2 15 39 69 117 1003 14 13 51 121 199 842 22 16 35 47 120 571 55 34 70 82 241 41Low 0 27 12 l0 II 60 8

Totals 120 90 205 322 737**Cumula tive Percent 16 29 56 100Midpoi nts Con ten t % 8 23 43 78Median Inte nsit y % 33 40 51 62* 0 = Praying less than once a day and consulting on decisions seldom of never; 1 = Praying once a dayand consulting seldom or never; 2 = Praying once a day and consulting o ften; 3 = Praying more t hanonce a day and consulting often.

** This tota l excludes responde nts who failed to indicate response to at least one in eith er scale.Consequently, N = 737 and not 812.

havior rather than attitudes, the linear relationship might be due to the behavioralcontent. Had there been enough persons in the sample displaying infrequentcommunication behaviors, which would have warranted several scale types inplace of the single lowest position shown for these data, the line of relationshipmight have extendedlower and further to the left. In other words, a greater rangeof content positions probably would have revealed weaker commitments andalower intercept.


2010


Down

loadedfrom


5/5

M E A S U R E M E N T O F C O M M I T M E N T S T R E N G T H 215Conclusions

F o r a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f r el ig i o u s c o m m i t m e n t a n d i ts s t r e n g t h , i t w o u l db e b e n e f i c ia l t o k n o w i f t h is r e l a t i o n s h i p is s i m i la r f o r d i f f e r e n t s c a l e s o f r e li g i o u sc o m m i t m e n t o r r e l ig i o u s c o m m i t m e n t s t r e n g t h s , fo r d i f f e r e n t s a m p l e s, a n d o v er ap e r i o d o f t i m e .

S t u d i e s b y B a h r , B a r t e l, a n d C h a d w i c k ( 1 9 7 1 ) a n d b y G ib b s , M u e l l e r, a n d W o o d( 1 9 7 3 ) h a v e a l r ea d y f o u n d r e li g io u s s a l i en c e a n d o r t h o d o x y t o b e u s e f u l p r e d i c-t or s. H o w e v e r , in e a c h c a se a n in s p e c t i o n o f t h e ir sa l ie n c e m e a s u r e s f i n d s m a n yi te m s r e l a t iv e t o t h i n g s o t h e r t h a n o r t h o d o x y . Ir is p r o p o s e d h e r e t h a t w h e ns p e ci fi c st r en g t h m e a s u r e s a r e li n k e d to c o r r e s p o n d i n g c o m m i t m e n t d i m e n s i o n s ,p r e d i c t i o n s f r o m r e l i g i o u s f a c t o r s s h o u l d i m p r o v e m a r k e d l y .

R E F E R E N C E SA l l p o r t , G . an d J . Ro ss . 1 9 6 7. " Pe r s o n a l r e l i g i o u s o r i e n t a t i o n an d pre judice ."Journal o fPersonal i ty andSocial Psychology 5: 432-443 .B a h r , H . M . , L . F . B a r t e l, a n d B . A . C h a d w i c k . 1 9 71 . " S a l ie n c e o f r e li g i o n a s a c o n d i t i o n f o r c o r r e l a t e s

o f r e l i g io n . " Jour nal for the Sc ient if ic S tudy o f Re l ig ion 10:69-75 .Bo rg a t t a , E . F . 1 9 5 5 . " A n e r ro r r a t i o fo r s ca l o g ram an a l y s i s . " Public Opinion Quarterly 16:96-100 .D o t s o n , L . 1 96 2. " A n e m p i r i c a l s tu d y o f a t t i t u d e - c o m p o n e n t t h e o r y . " Public Opinion Quarterly

2 6 : 2 2 7 -2 3 5 .E d w a r d s , A l l en L . 1 95 7 . T e c h n i q u e s o f A t t i t u d e S c a le C o n s t r u c t i o n . N e w Y o r k : A p p l e t o n - C e n t u r y -

Cro f t s .F e a g i n , J . R . 1 9 64 . " P r e j u d i c e a n d r e l i g io u s t yp e s : a f o c u s e d s t u d y o n s o u t h e r n f u n d a m e n t a l i s t s . "Jou rna l fo r the Scient i fic Study o f Rel igion 4:3-13 .G i b bs , D . R . , S . A . M u e l l e r , a n d J . A . W o o d . 1 9 73 . " D o c t r i n a l o r t h o d o x y , s a l i e n c e , a n d t h e c o n s e q u e n -

t ia l d i m e n s i o n . " Jou rna l fo r the Sc ienti fi c S tudy o f Re l ig ion 12:33-52 .G l o c k , C h a r l e s Y . a n d R o d n e y S t a r k . 1 96 5. R e l i g i o n a n d S o c i et y i n T e n s i o n . C h i c a g o : R a n d M c N a l ly .G u t t m a n , L . 1 9 54 . " T h e p r i n c i p a l c o m p o n e n t s o f s c a l a b l e a t ti t u d e s ." P p . 2 1 6 - 2 5 7 i n P a u l F. L a z a r s f e l d

(ed . ) M athematical Thin king in the Socia l Sciences. N e w Y o r k : D r y d e n P r e s s .H e n r y , A . F . 1 9 57 . " A h e m p i r i c a l s t u d y o f a t t i t u d e c o m p o n e n t s . " Soc ia l Forces 3 6 : 2 6 -3 1 .H o g e , D . R . 1 9 7 2 . " A v a l i d a t ed i n t r i n s i c r e l i g i o u s mo t i v a t i o n scale ."Jou rna l for the Sc ient if ic S tudy o fReligion l 1 :369-376 .H u n t , R . A . , an d M . B . K i n g . 1 9 7 1. " T h e i n t r i n s i c - ex t r i n s i c co n cep t : a r ev i ew an d e v a l ua t i on . " J our na lfor the Scient i f ic Study of Rehgion 1 0 : 3 3 9 -3 5 6 .K i n g M . 1 9 67 . " M e a s u r i n g t h e r e l i g i o u s v a r i a bl e : N i n e p r o p o s e d d i m e ns i on s . " J our na l f o r t he Sci en t if icStudy of Rel igion 7 : 1 7 3 -1 9 0 .K i n g , M. B . , an d R . A . H u n t . 1 9 7 2. " M eas u r i n g t h e r e l i g i o u s v a r i ab l e : r e p l i c a t i o n . " J o u r n a l f o r th eScient if ic Study of R el igion 11:240-251 .L e n s k i , G e r h a r d . 1 9 6 I . T h e R e l ig i o u s F a c t o r . G a r d e n C i t y: D o u b l e d a y .N u d e l m an , A . E . 1 9 7 1 . " D i me n s i o n s o f r e l ig i o s i t y : a f ac t o r - an a l y t i c v i ew o f P ro t e s t an t s , Ca t h o l i c s an d

Ch r i s t i an Sc i en t i s t s . " Review of Rel igious Research 13:42-56 .P u t n e y , S . , a n d R . M i d d l e t o n . 1 96 1. " D i m e n s i o n s a n d c o r r e l a t e s o f re l i g i o u s id e o l o g i e s ," Socia l Forces

3 9 : 2 8 5 -2 9 0 .R i l a n d , L . H . 1 9 59 . " R e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e G u t t m a n c o m p o n e n t s o f a t ti t u d e i n t e n s i ty a n d p e r s o n a l

i n v o l v e m e n t ." Jour nal o f Appl ied Psychology 4 3 : 2 7 9 -2 8 4 .S t a r k , R o d n e y , a n d C h a r l e s Y . G l o c k . 1 9 68 . A m e r i c a n P i e ty . B e r k e l e y : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s.S u c h m a n , E . A . 1 9 5 0 . " T h e i n t e n s i t y c o m p o n e n t i n a t t i t u d e a n d o p i n i o n r e s e a r c h . " P p . 2 1 3 - 2 7 6 i n

S a m u e l A S t o u f f e r et al, (eds.), M easurement and Predict ion. N e w Y o r k : J o h n W i le y .


2010


Down

loadedfrom

commitment agama

Documents