This article was downloaded by: [LIU Libraries]On: 08 May 2014, At: 09:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal for the Psychology ofReligionPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpr20

RESEARCH: "Intrinsic Religious Orientation AmongMinorities in the United States: A Research Note"Jai Ghorpade , James R. Lackritz & Gangaram SinghPublished online: 16 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Jai Ghorpade , James R. Lackritz & Gangaram Singh (2006) RESEARCH: "Intrinsic Religious OrientationAmong Minorities in the United States: A Research Note", The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 16:1,51-62, DOI: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr1601_5

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1601_5

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

RESEARCH

Intrinsic Religious Orientation AmongMinorities in the United States:

A Research Note

Jai Ghorpade, James R. Lackritz, and Gangaram SinghSan Diego State University

We developed and tested a refined version of the intrinsic religious orientation (IRO)component of the Religious Orientation Scale (ROS) using a lay sample of 4 minor-ity ethnic groups (African Americans, Asian Americans, Filipinos, and Latinos) thatare collectively now an increasing proportion of the population of the United States.We explored whether IRO is affected by ethnicity, religious affiliation, and gender,and also whether levels of IRO have implications for psychological acculturation ofminority groups into White, Anglo American culture and alienation from society.Ethnicity, religious affiliation, and gender explained 41% of the variation of IRO.Relative to Asian Americans, African Americans and Filipinos were more likely tobe intrinsically religious. In comparison to those who had no religious preference,Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelical Christians were more likely to be in-trinsically religious. Women showed a higher level of IRO than did men. IRO, in turn,was negatively correlated with psychological acculturation and positively correlatedwith alienation. The negative correlation between IRO and psychological accultura-tion held true for Asian Americans and African Americans, and the positive correla-tion between IRO and alienation applied to Asian Americans.

Research on religiosity has taken an empirical turn since the design of the Reli-gious Orientation Scale (ROS) by Gordon Allport and his associates (Allport,1959; Allport & Kramer, 1946; Allport & Ross, 1967). The ROS captures two dis-

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION, 16(1), 51–62Copyright © 2006, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Jai Ghorpade, Professor of Management,College of Business Administration, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego,CA 92182–8238. E-mail: ghorpade@mail.sdsu.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4

tinct dimensions of religious commitment: intrinsic religious orientation and ex-trinsic religious orientation. Individuals who are intrinsically religious live theirreligion, whereas those who are extrinsically religious use their religion for per-sonal and social gains. The ROS, and its intrinsic–extrinsic distinction, is now adominant paradigm for studying the psychology of religion (Kirkpatrick & Hood,1990). It has also generated many unresolved issues (Genia, 1993; Kirkpatrick &Hood, 1990; Masters, 1991). Our objective, in this research note, is to focus on fiveof these issues that we feel will strengthen the foundation for subsequent researchon the psychology of religion.

First, we developed and tested a refined version of the intrinsic religious orien-tation (IRO) dimension of the ROS. This is significant because the ROS in its origi-nal form has frequently yielded unsatisfactory psychometric results (Genia, 1993;Hoge, 1972). Second, following the suggestion by Kirkpatrick and Hood (1990),we used a lay sample of respondents, rather than individuals identified a priori asreligious, which has been the traditional practice among researchers using theROS. Third, we broadened the demographic scope of the study of religiosity to in-clude ethnic groups that have not traditionally received sufficient attention. We ad-ministered the revised IRO scale to a sample of students from minority groups inthe United States. In particular, our sample consisted of 4 minority ethnic groups(African Americans, Asian Americans, Filipinos, and Latinos) that are collectivelynow an increasing proportion of the population of the United States (Judy &D’Amico, 1997). Fourth, we attempted to trace the demographic antecedents ofIRO to find out the extent to which the IRO is influenced by group affiliation. Fifth,following the suggestion by Donahue (1985a), we further broadened the scope ofstudy of religiosity by tracing its correlations with two psychological states thathave relevance for the functioning of minority groups in the United States: accul-turation into White, Anglo American culture and alienation.

RELIGIOSITY: INTRINSIC RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION

In studying religiosity, we focused on IRO for two reasons. Donahue (1985a)pointed out that “intrinsic religiousness serves as an excellent measure of religiouscommitment, as distinct from religious belief, church membership, liberal–conser-vative theological orientation” (p. 415). In addition, the results so far with combin-ing the two orientations, intrinsic and extrinsic, have not been fruitful from a meth-odological perspective (see Genia, 1993).

Allport and Ross (1967) argued that individuals with higher levels of IRO findtheir “master motive” in religion. All other needs that they may have are broughtinto harmony with the religious beliefs and prescriptions. This would suggest thatIRO is an independent force, something that individuals arrive at by themselves,

52 GHORPADE, LACKRITZ, SINGH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4

and hence free of ethnic, denominational, and gender influences. Hence, IROshould not be influenced by ethnicity, religious affiliation, or gender.

Based on a meta-analysis, Donahue (1985a) concluded that IRO serves as anexcellent measure of religious commitment and it is related to locus of control(Kahoe, 1974), purpose of life (Crandall & Rasmussen, 1975), and lack of anxiety(Baker & Gorsuch, 1982). IRO, however, has not been found to be predictive ofmuch that is of interest to personality-social psychologists (Donahue, 1985a). Ourresearch note addresses this issue by exploring the relationship between IRO andtwo psychological states. One of these, psychological acculturation, is of particu-lar significance to minority groups in the United States. The other, alienation, is ofgeneral interest to all social scientists and society.

Psychological Acculturation

Acculturation refers to the cultural adaptation and change that takes place whentwo cultures come into contact with each other (Sayegh & Lasry, 1995). Al-though acculturation into the mainstream culture can bring many benefits to im-migrants, not all acculturating groups seek to, or are able to, blend in with thehost culture. The most complete form of acculturation is assimilation, wherebythe acculturating individuals relinquish their cultural heritage and blend in en-tirely with the dominant host culture. Such assimilation is most possible whenpeople of similar racial characteristics move across national boundaries (e.g.,Northern Europeans moving to the United States). A second acculturating strat-egy is integration, whereby those in the acculturating group strike a balance be-tween their own heritage and the host culture by selectively adopting customs ofthe majority that do not conflict with those of their own group. A third way bywhich a migrating group can cope with the demands of acculturation is throughseparation or maintaining a separate existence. This can happen voluntarily, aswhen a group decides to live a separate existence (e.g., British occupiers of colo-nial lands), or forcibly, as when the dominant group forces those in the minorityto stay in their place (e.g., the days of segregation in the South of the UnitedStates). A fourth category, known as the marginals, comprises individuals whohave become estranged from both cultures and live on the psychological fringeof society (Berry, 1994; Sayegh & Lasry, 1995).

Although the acculturation literature has traditionally focused on changes at thegroup level, there is now growing realization that groups in transition seldom con-sist of a homogeneous set of individuals. Some individuals break out of their heri-tage cultures faster than others. Changes at this individual level are labeled as psy-chological acculturation, and it takes place along two dimensions: (a) increase inknowledge and understanding of the host culture’s traditions, customs, values, be-liefs, attitudes, behaviors, and life styles; and (b) increase in appreciation and emo-

INTRINSIC RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION 53

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4

tional attachment to the host culture and a shedding of the heritage culture (Berry,1994; Tropp, Erkut, Coll, Alarcon, & Vazquez-Garcia, 1999).

It is at this individual level of acculturation that we seek to link it with religios-ity. Joining a religion and involving oneself in religious activities has been a primevehicle for participating in communal life in the United States (Bellah, Madsen,Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985). Throughout the history of the United States,churches have provided an avenue for immigrants to become a part of the socialfabric of the country. It seems logical, therefore, to expect that involvement in reli-gious activities should accelerate the process of acculturation. But IRO is not reli-gious involvement in that traditional sense. It is rather a personal commitment toGod and a belief system. Or, in Allport’s words, IRO is a master motive that tran-scends all other needs (Allport & Ross, 1967).

Alienation

Broadly viewed, alienation refers to a condition of being an outsider, being iso-lated from the objective world (Morris, 1979). Researchers using this concepthave defined it in various ways, typically using components or specific dimen-sions of alienation—powerlessness, normlessness or anomie, purposelessness,estrangement, and meaninglessness (Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightsman, 1991).Stack (1981) found in a national sample that anomie is more prevalent amongindividuals who attended church and those who believed in an afterlife.Schumm, Bollman, and Jurich (1980), in contrast, found little connection be-tween anomie and religiosity.

METHOD

Procedure

The participants for this study were recruited at San Diego State University in Cali-fornia. Participants were recruited in two settings: in meetings of campus studentorganizations and in classrooms. In both cases, ensuring a diverse sample was akey concern. Questionnaire administrations (20 min) at student organization meet-ings were conducted by prior appointment with their leaders and at the end of theirformal programs. Students were recruited at the end of class meetings by prior ar-rangement with the professors, who had agreed in advance to participate. Somestudents remained in the classroom after the class was dismissed and completedthe survey. Others took it home, completed it, and returned it to a box in a centralsupervised location. Our confidence in the accuracy of the self-reported data isstrengthened by the fact that the subjects volunteered to participate.

54 GHORPADE, LACKRITZ, SINGH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4

Sample Characteristics

We collected data from 721 students, of which 281 were members of minoritygroups. Of these 281 minority respondents, we excluded 30 because they belongedto groups (e.g., Muslims, Hindus, and Jews) from which we received too few re-sponses and that were too dissimilar to count as one group. Hence, we focused onthe remaining 251 respondents, who belonged to the religious groups from whichwe received a large number of responses. In terms of religious affiliation, the sam-ple consisted of 130 Roman Catholics; 45 participants who placed themselves inthe No Religious Preference category, which included those who identified them-selves as agnostics and atheists; 15 Protestants belonging to the traditional liturgi-cal Protestant churches (Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian);and 61 Other Christians (Baptists, Disciples of Christ, Pentecostal, FundamentalistChristian, Born Again, and Disciples of Jesus), hereafter referred to as EvangelicalChristians (distinction based on Rosten, 1975). In terms of ethnicity, our sampleconsisted of 51 Asian Americans (Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Taiwanese, andSoutheast Asians, excluding Filipinos), 51 African Americans, 75 Latinos (Mexi-can, and Central and South Americans), and 74 Filipinos. The gender compositionof our sample was 105 men and 146 women.

Measures

We used a modified version of Allport’s ROS (see Appendix), which can be seen inits entirety in Genia (1993, p. 285). Following the suggestions by Genia, wedropped three items (14, 15, and 16, all of which make references to particular reli-gious associations) from the intrinsic version of Allport’s scale and added threeitems classified by him as extrinsic, but which, when slightly modified and reversecoded, provide measures of intrinsic religiosity. In fact, as Genia pointed out, Hoge(1972) used these three items, reverse coded, in his Intrinsic Religious MotivationScale. Also, as ours was a religiously heterogeneous sample (including some withno religious preference), we removed wording from two of these three questionsthat assumed a belief in religion. The resulting scale was thus a pure IRO scale,yielding an alpha of 0.93.

We used the Psychological Acculturation Scale (PAS) developed by Tropp et al.(1999). This instrument has several notable features. First, it gives the individualrespondents an opportunity to choose between two groups—their own racial eth-nic group, and the White, Anglo-American cultural group. Second, the focus onPAS is on the emotional attachment, understanding, and appreciation of the values,beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of the two groups. Third, it enables assessment ofdegrees of acculturation, allowing for differences in responses among individualswho may be similarly situated with regard to personal histories and behavioralpreferences. In this study the PAS yielded an alpha of 0.92.

INTRINSIC RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION 55

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4

We constructed a scale with 9 items that emphasized normlessness (or anomie)and estrangement (see Appendix). The first 8 of these items were from a scale onanomie developed by McClosky and Schaar (1965). One of these items wasslightly modified from the original. The 9th item was from Neal and Rettig (1967);it emphasized lack of trust and moral compromise. This combination of questionsyielded an alpha of 0.75.

Data Analysis Technique

We analyzed the data in three steps. First, we determined analysis of variance(ANOVA) results of the means for IRO by ethnicity, religious affiliation, and gen-der. Second, we developed a regression-based prediction model of IRO based onethnicity, religious affiliation, and gender. Third, we examined the correlation ofIRO with psychological acculturation and alienation broken down by ethnicity.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the difference in means for IRO by ethnicity, religious affiliation,and gender. A one-way ANOVA showed that religiosity was significantly relatedto ethnicity, F = 14.79, p = .000. A post hoc Tukey honestly significant difference(HSD) test of differences in means indicated that African Americans (M = 5.10)and Filipinos (M = 4.66) scored significantly higher than did Asian Americans (M= 3.83) and Latinos (M = 3.73).

The relationship between IRO and religious affiliation was also statistically sig-nificant, F = 42.08, p = .000. A post hoc Tukey HSD test indicated that the means forProtestants (M = 5.04) and Evangelical Christians (M = 5.26) were significantlyhigher than that of Roman Catholics (M = 4.30), which was in turn significantlyhigher than thatof respondents in theNoReligiousPreferencecategory(M=2.76).

Gender differences also existed with respect to IRO. The mean score for menwas 3.92 and that for women was 4.57. Results of a t test show that the mean forwomen was significantly higher than that for men, t = 3.68, p = .000.

In Table 2, we examine the simultaneous impact of ethnicity, religious affilia-tion, and gender on IRO. Results of Table 1 indicate that on an individual basis,IRO was significantly related to ethnicity, religious affiliation, and gender. Exam-ining the impact of the three variables simultaneously indicated somewhat similarresults (Table 2). Relative to Asian Americans (in brackets in Table 2), AfricanAmericans (also in brackets in Table 2) and Filipinos scored higher on IRO. Whencompared to the No Religious Preference group, each of the three religious groups(Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelical Christians) scored higher in terms of IRO.Women scored higher than did men on the IRO scale. The model shows adequate

56 GHORPADE, LACKRITZ, SINGH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4

57

TABLE 1Means of IRO by Ethnicity, Religious Affiliation, and Gender

Demographic Characteristics N M SD

EthnicityAsian Americans 51 3.83 1.49African Americans 51 5.10 1.48Latinos 75 3.73 1.31Filipinos 74 4.66 1.06Total 251 4.30 1.42F test = 14.79p value = .000Post hoc Tukey results: African Americans, Filipinos > Asian Americans, Latinos

Religious affiliationRoman Catholics 130 4.30 1.01No religious preference 45 2.76 1.15Protestants 15 5.04 1.32Evangelical Christians 61 5.26 1.41Total 251 4.30 1.42F test = 42.08p value = .000Post hoc Tukey results: Protestants, Christians > Catholics > No religious preference

GenderMale 105 3.92 1.43Female 146 4.57 1.36t test = 3.68p value = .000

TABLE 2Multiple Regression of Intrinsic Religious Orientation

Variable Unstandardized Coefficients p value

Constant 2.398 .000[Asian Americans][African Americans] 0.418 .093Latinos –0.189 .349Filipinos 0.641 .002[No religious preference]Roman Catholics 1.428 .000Protestants 2.089 .000Evangelical Christian 2.234 .000[Male]Female 0.481 .001

Notes. F = 25.54. p = .000. Adjusted R Squared = 0.408. N = 251.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4

fit, F = 25.54, p = .000, and ethnicity, religious affiliation, and gender explained al-most 41% of the variation of IRO.

Table 3 shows the correlations between IRO and psychological acculturationand alienation for the sample as a whole, and also broken down by ethnicity. Thecorrelation between IRO and psychological acculturation for the total sample was–0.287, p = .000. This negative pattern of correlation between IRO and psychologi-cal orientation holds for Asian Americans, r = –.355, p = .011, and African Ameri-cans, r = –.234, p = .102.

Table 3 also shows the correlations between IRO and alienation. In this case,positive correlations mean that higher levels of IRO were associated with higherlevels of alienation, that is, the more intrinsically religious the subjects, the morealienated they tended to be. And that is generally what our data appear to suggest.For the sample as a whole, the correlation between IRO and alienation was 0.18, p= .005. Viewed according to ethnic background, all reported correlations were pos-itive, ranging from 0.04 to 0.25. Only the correlation for Asian Americans, r =.250, p = .076, however, was statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

We now discuss our findings in light of the five objectives. Since its formulation byAllport (Allport & Ross, 1967), the ROS has been plagued by psychometric prob-lems (Donahue, 1985a; Genia, 1993; Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990). One of these hasbeen low internal consistency reliability. To remedy this for the IRO portion of theROS, Genia suggested a set of changes. We followed her suggestions and arepleased to report that the refined IRO yielded an alpha score of 0.93, which is

58 GHORPADE, LACKRITZ, SINGH

TABLE 3Correlation of Intrinsic Religious Orientation With Psychological

Acculturation and Alienation by Ethnicity

Psychological (p value) Alienation (p value)

Overall –.287 .179(.000) (.005)

Asian Americans –.355 .250(.011) (.076)

African Americans –.234 .217(.102) (.131)

Latinos .003 .161(.983) (.167)

Filipinos –.110 .038(.351) (.751)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4

higher than has been reported in the past and which is certainly very good from apsychometric perspective (DeVillis, 1991, p. 85).

Breaking away from tradition, which limited the samples to persons known tobe religious, we administered the IRO to a lay sample, which can be expected tocontain a mix of religious commitment ranging from very strong to none. To facili-tate this, wording of two questions in the original IRO, which assumed an a prioricommitment to religion, were modified. The range of mean scores yielded by theIRO suggests that it is a discriminating tool. The significantly low score attained bythe No Religious Preference group on the IRO adds to its claim of being a pure reli-gious commitment scale. Note also that the Evangelical Christian group, a denomi-nation that demands high personal religious commitment from its members, hadthe highest IRO score (for a summary and interpretation of interdenominationaldifferences on ROS scores, see Donahue, 1985b).

Our primary substantive interest was with extending the application of IRO to aminority sample and with tracing its correlations for this sample with psychologi-cal variables. In this regard, it is interesting to note that highly significant differ-ences exist among the four minority groups studied, with African Americans andFilipinos scoring significantly higher than Asian Americans and Latinos on theIRO. For the total minority sample, women scored significantly higher than men, afinding that is consistent with what has been found for samples of Whites(Donahue, 1985a).

A critical question is the implication of levels of religious commitments to psy-chological–social issues. Our results show that for the sample as a whole, the cor-relation between IRO and psychological acculturation was negative and signifi-cant. This negative correlation held true for Asian Americans and AfricanAmericans. This suggests that intensity of religious commitment has implicationsfor the adaptation of minorities in the mainstream White, Anglo American culture.We are, of course, unable to conclude whether failure to adapt drives people to reli-gious intensity or whether religious intensity prevents them from moving into themainstream.

The reported correlations between IRO and alienation are also of concern. Forthe sample as a whole, the correlation between these two variables was positiveand significant, thus suggesting that high religious commitment is associated withalienation. This positive correlation held true for Asian Americans. Again, it is notpossible to establish directionality, but the fact that the connection exists is inter-esting, particularly when viewed alongside the negative correlation discussed ear-lier between IRO and psychological acculturation. These two findings jointly sug-gest that religiously committed members of certain minority groups are morelikely to be psychologically separated from both the White, Anglo-American cul-ture and society.

Our task in this research note was to validate the IRO in a sample that has not re-ceived attention: ethnic minority groups in the United States. The results of our

INTRINSIC RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION 59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4

study, in this regard, are encouraging. We also connected IRO to psychological ac-culturation and alienation. If psychological acculturation is considered as a desir-able state, then IRO seems to have a negative impact. This is also true with respectto alienation. However, psychological acculturation can be considered as a nega-tive outcome if members of ethnic minority groups see it as abandoning their cul-ture. In this case, IRO can be seen as a positive psychographic characteristic ingrounding ethnic minorities in their cultures. But these are unanswered questionsthat warrant further investigation.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1959). Religion and prejudice. The Crane Review, 1–10.Allport, G. W., & Kramer, B. M. (1946). Some roots of prejudice. Journal of Psychology, 22, 9–39.Allport, G. W., & Ross, M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 5, 432–443.Baker, M., & Gorsuch, R. (1982). Trait anxiety and intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness. Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 119–122.Bellah, B. S., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the heart.

New York: Harper & Row.Berry, J. W. (1994). Acculturation and psychological adaptation: An overview. In A. M. Bouvy, F. J. R.

Van de Vijer, P. Boski, & P. Schmitz (Eds.), Journeys into crosscultural psychology (pp. 129–141).The Netherlands: Offsetdrukkerij Kanters B. V.

Crandall, J. E., & Rasmussen, R. D. (1975). Purpose in life as related to specific values. Journal of Clin-ical Psychology, 31, 483–485.

DeVillis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and application. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Donahue, M. J. (1985a). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400–419.Donahue, M. J. (1985b). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: The empirical research. Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, 24, 418–423.Genia, V. (1993). A psychometric evaluation of the Allport–Ross I/E scales in a religiously heteroge-

neous sample. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 284–290.Hoge, D. R. (1972). A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 11, 369–376.Judy, R., & D’Amico, C. (1997). Workforce 2020: Work and workers in the 21st century. Indianapolis,

IN: The Hudson Institute.Kahoe, R. D. (1974). Personality and achievement correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orienta-

tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 812–818.Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hood, R. W. (1990). Intrinsic–extrinsic religious orientation: The boon or bane of

contemporary psychology of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 442–463.Masters, K. S. (1991). Of boons, banes, babies, and bath water: A reply to the Kirkpatrick and Hood dis-

cussion of intrinsic–extrinsic religious orientation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30,312–318.

McClosky, H., & Schaar, J. H. (1965). Psychological dimensions of anomy. American Sociological Re-view, 30, 14–40.

Morris, W. (1979). The American heritage dictionary of the English language. Boston: HoughtonMifflin.

60 GHORPADE, LACKRITZ, SINGH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4

Neal, A. G., & Rettig, S. (1967). On the multidimensionality of alienation. American Sociological Re-view, 32, 54–64.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Measures of personality and social psycho-logical attitudes: Vol. 1. Of measures of social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic.

Rosten, L. (1975). Religions of America: A new guide and almanac. New York: A Touchstone Book.Sayegh, L., & Lasry, J. (1995). Immigrants’adaptation in Canada. Canadian Psychology, 34, 98–109.Schumm, W. R., Bollman, S. R., & Jurich, A. P. (1980). Marital communication or marital convention-

ality? A brief report on the Relationship Inventory. Psychological Reports, 46, 1171–1174.Stack, S. (1981). Religion and anomia in the Midwest. Journal of Social Psychology, 114, 299–300.Tropp, L. R., Erkut, S., Coll, C. G., Alcarcon, O., & Vazquez-Garcia, H. A. (1999). Psychological ac-

culturation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 531–568.

APPENDIX

Note: All questions in the religiosity and alienation measures were anchored to7-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (neither agree nordisagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Intrinsic Religious Orientation (Allport & Ross, 1967, asmodified by Genia, 1993)

1. I try hard to carry my religion over into all my other dealings in life.2. Quite often I have been keenly aware of the presence of God or the Divine

Being.3. My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life.4. Religion is especially important to me because it answers my questions

about the meaning of life.5. I read literature about my faith.6. It is important to me to spend periods of time in private religious thought

and meditation.7. It doesn’t matter so much what I believe so long as I lead a moral life. (Re-

verse coded)8. Although I am a religious person, I refuse to let religious considerations in-

fluence my everyday affairs. (Reverse coded)9. Although I believe in my religion, I feel there are many more important

things in life than religion. (Reverse coded)

Notes: (a) Items 7, 8, and 9 were added by Genia (1993) from the original extrin-sic part to the intrinsic part with reverse coding. (b) The struck-through portions ofItems 8 and 9 were not included in the questionnaire as the sample consisted of laypersons rather than persons judged a priori to be religious.

INTRINSIC RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION 61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4

Alienation: Anomy and Normlessness

1. With everything so uncertain these days, it almost seems as though any-thing could happen.

2. What is lacking in the world today is the old kind of friendship that lastedfor a lifetime.

3. With everything in such a state of disorder, it is hard for a person to knowwhere one stands from one day to the next.

4. Everything changes so quickly these days that I often have trouble decidingwhich are the right rules to follow.

5. I often feel that many things our parents stood for traditional American val-ues are just going to ruin before our very eyes.

6. The trouble with the world today is that most people really don’t believe inanything.

7. I often feel awkward and out of place.8. People were better of in the old days when everyone knew just how (they

were) he was expected to act.9. One can be successful in business without compromising one’s moral prin-

ciples. (Reverse coded)

Sources: Items 1 to 8 are from McClosky and Schaar (1965). Item 5 was modifiedfrom the original scale as indicated by the struck-through text. Item 9 is from Nealand Rettig (1967, p. 57).

62 GHORPADE, LACKRITZ, SINGH

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

LIU

Lib

rari

es]

at 0

9:44

08

May

201

4