Showing posts with label religious fundamentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label religious fundamentalism. Show all posts

Monday, December 14, 2020

Metaphors Can Interfere with Understanding Survey Items and Results

Photo for illustration purposes only

“If Jesus is God, how could he create the world if he wasn’t born yet.”

                     —Girl, age 7

It will be a while until this 7-year-old passes through the stage of concrete operations and begins to pull apart various mental constructs in a serious fashion. Along the way she’ll pick up many metaphors, including those that unravel men’s thinking about God hundreds of years ago. And all sorts of other metaphors.

Americans are known for being religious and in particular, for being Christian; however, as is commonly said, the devil is in the details.

In this post, I look at religious survey items to make a point about being careful when writing and interpreting survey items containing concepts with a range of meaning.

*********

God- Who is God?

Gallup keeps tabs on Americans’ views on God. In an interesting article, Hrynowski (2019) reveals a different response rate for beliefs in God depending on how the question is asked. Specifically, they asked the question about belief in God three ways.

1. The simple question, “Do you believe in God?” gets the highest response—86 to 89% in recent years.

2. When given a few options the percentage of belief drops to 79% in recent polling.

3. When asked if they are convinced that God exists and given other options, the percentage of believers in God falls to 64%

Jesus—Who is Jesus?

Centuries after Jesus life on earth ended, religious leaders argued about his nature and formulated statements essentially saying Jesus is both God and man. For Christians, the widely accepted doctrine of the trinity declares God to be “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

In 2020, the State of Theology survey asked Americans about Jesus by presenting a statement: “Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God.” Survey participants could select five options representing levels of agreement. Only 28% strongly agreed. Another 23% chose the “agree” option. So if you combine the two levels of agreement, you get 52% and if you add the opposite two choices of strongly disagree (27%) and somewhat disagree (10%) you obtain a level of disagreement of 36%.

What about evangelicals? Despite the difficulty in defining who is and who isn’t an evangelical, the researchers analysed the results to see how those participants who identified as evangelical answered the question. It turns out, 30% agreed.

The Bible—What is Truth?

When it comes to Christians’ ideas about God and Jesus, it’s reasonable to turn to the source material. Thus, the researchers asked participants their beliefs about the Bible. As with all surveys, how the question is asked can make a difference. Here’s the Statement of Theology survey statement:

“The Bible, like all sacred writings, contains helpful accounts of ancient myths but is not literally true.”

As with other items, participants selected from the range of strongly disagree to strongly agree. The strongly agree level for the US population is 20%.

The statement suggests a dichotomy that ignores an understanding of truth revealed in metaphors. Can you rewrite the statement?

Metaphors

Writers like Marcus Borg (1995) attempt to help Christians deal with various conundrums by pointing out the biblical metaphors about Jesus. So, some writers refer to Jesus as the Son of God. But Jesus is also presented as a lamb and the word.

There are many words in the Bible about God. A dominant presentation is that God is a male figure. Sometimes God is presented as a husband (e.g., Isaiah 54:5)—even a jealous one—and sometimes God is presented as a Father (e.g., Matthew 6: 9-13). But the Bible also refers to God as a Spirit (John 4:24). And in Christian teaching, people lose their distinctiveness as male or female (Galatians 3:28).

So, the point is, are these descriptions of God just reflections of men using metaphors that made sense to people living in male dominated cultures thousands of years ago or must we view God as a man to have a correct understanding? Surely, if Christians do not think metaphorically, the idea that God is like a man is rather limiting.

Of course, there are many religions besides Christianity in the world and those religious people understand God or gods in ways that are different from the diverse views of Christians about the God of the Bible.

Survey Limitations

1. Survey results are interesting but I hope these examples show that people appear to have different perspectives on the central person in their faith.

2. When researchers expand the wording of survey items, the investigators may obtain  more nuanced responses.

3. In some cases, giving participants the opportunity to add a text response to a survey item can help clarify nuances of meaning.

4. In some cases, metaphors make a difference in interpreting the results of a survey. The familiarity of the survey writer and participant with relevant metaphors can enhance or obscure the meaning of the results.

5. When a survey does not consistently tap the same domain of knowledge, reliability is negatively affected to an unknown degree.

6. I once examined the relationship between the intelligence of graduate students to the results obtained when they administered and scored intelligence tests. I never published those data. But I am left with a hypothesis related to this topic— the intelligence of survey writers can affect not only the wording of the items but the interpretation of the results as well. And of course, there is the unknown factor of the intelligence of the people responding to a survey.

Creating Surveys on AMAZON    or   GOOGLE  Worldwide



Final Note

If a 7-year-old girl can ask a thoughtful question about biblical literalism, imagine the difficulty in ascertaining what thoughtful adults really think about a survey topic.

 

Links to Connections

Checkout My Page    www.suttong.com

  

My Books  AMAZON          and             GOOGLE STORE

 

FOLLOW me on   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

 

PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

 

Articles: Academia   Geoff W Sutton   ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

 

 

Friday, October 23, 2020

Biblical Literalism Scale


 The Biblical Literalism Scale (BLS) is a 10-item scale found in an article by Andrew Village (2005).

The content of the scale includes biblical events rated by participants on a scale as follows: ‘definitely happened’, ‘probably happened’, ‘not certain’, ‘probably a story’ or ‘definitely a story.’ High scores indicated a more literal belief.

Findings:

The survey sample consisted of 404 Christian participants. Scores ranged from 10 (all of the items were rated as stories) to 50 (all items rated as “definitely happened”).

Old Testament items were rated as less literal than New Testament items. The average scores were highest in Evangelical churches and lowest in Anglo-Catholic churches.

Correlation of scores with other variables

BLS and frequent charismatic experience (r = .51) (note a)

BLS and frequent Bible reading (r = .47) (note b)

BLS and age (r = -.17)

BLS and education (r = -.14)

Women scored slightly on higher (39.8) literalism than did men (37.2), but the difference was statistically significant.

 Examples of items:

David killed a giant called Goliath.

Jonah was in the belly of a fish (or whale) for three days.

Jesus turned water into wine.

Reliability

The author reported coefficient alpha = .92

Comment

Some items revealed a ceiling effect. For example, “Jesus’ mother was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.” M = 4.4 and SD  = 1.0.

For help creating and analyzing surveys, see Creating Surveys on AMAZON    or   GOOGLE  Worldwide






Notes

a. Related Post see Measuring Religious Fundamentalism

b. For research and scales measuring biblical fundamentalism, see Counseling and Psychotherapy with Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians

Reference

Village, A. (2005) Factors shaping biblical literalism: a study among Anglican laity. Journal of Beliefs & Values, 26:1, 29-38, DOI: 10.1080/13617670500047566

 Resource Link:  A – Z Test Index


 Links to Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

  

My Books  AMAZON          and             GOOGLE STORE

 

FOLLOW   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

 

PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

 

Articles: Academia   Geoff W Sutton   ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton 

 

 

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

 

Subscribe to my Travel Channel on YouTube

 

 

Monday, August 28, 2017

Measuring Religious Fundamentalism

Photo by Geoff W. Sutton, 2017
Researchers define religious fundamentalism in different ways. One recent model focuses on the way religious people view their sacred text. I have written about the Intratextual Fundamentalism model in a previous post (October 2013). In this post, I provide some data related to the 5-item version of the Intratextual Fundamentalism Scale (IFS), which I have found useful in research projects.


The revised version of the scale (IFS) has five items--each measuring a dimension of intratextuality (Williamson, Hood, Ahmad, Sadiq, & Hill, 2010). Here are the five dimensions (from my previous blog):

  1. Divine: The sacred text is a revelation from God (or of divine origin) to humans. Regardless of the involvement of people in the writing of the text, God (or a deity) is the author.
  2. Inerrant: The sacred text does not contain errors, inconsistencies, or contradictions. The text is objectively true.
  3. Privileged: The sacred text of the fundamentalist group is not just another sacred writing. It is the truth. Fundamentalists may show respect to people from other religions and their sacred writings but they do not consider other texts to be on the same level as their own text.
  4. Authoritative:  The sacred text is the final authority. If a conflict in belief arises, the sacred text wins.
  5. Unchanging: The sacred text is unchangeable and true for eternity. The truths are absolutes. The truths can be depended on to understand the world and as a guide for life.
You can find the scale items in the article by Williamson et al. (2010)--See reference below.


Reliability and Validity Data

In a recent study (Sutton, Kelly, Griffin, Worthington & Dinwiddie, 2016), coefficient alpha = .92). It was highly correlated with a measure of religious practices (r = .51).

Selected items (alpha = .83), but not the full five, were also correlated with Christian Beliefs Index (.56), Christian Social Values (.64), Christian Service Scale (.23), and Christian Practices (.36) in Sutton, Arnzen, and Kelly (2016).

More recently, Heather Kelly and others (2017) used the IFS in two studies of Christians' views of sin. In study one, alpha = .85. Christian Beliefs (.68) and Practices (.30) were significantly correlated with the IFS. Big Five traits also supported the validity: Conscientiousness (.23) and Openness (-.19). And in study two alpha = .93 following are the significant correlations with the IFS:  Beliefs .64; Practices .44; Openness -.19; Conscientiousness was not significant at -.10.
















Although I have only used the IFS in Christian samples, it has been used with people of other religions.

Resource Link:  A – Z Test Index


References

Kelly, H.L., Sutton, G. W, Hicks, L., Godfrey, A. & Gillihan, C. (2018). Factors predicting the moral appraisal of sexual behavior in Christians. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 37, (2), 162-177.

Sutton, G. W., Arnzen, C., & Kelly, H. (2016). Christian counseling and psychotherapy: Components of clinician spirituality that predict type of Christian intervention. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 35, 204-214. Academia Link ResearchGate Link

Sutton, G. W., Kelly, H., Worthington, E. L. Jr., Griffin, B. J., & Dinwiddie, C. (2018) Satisfaction with Christian Psychotherapy and Well-being: Contributions of Hope, Personality, and Spirituality. Spirituality in Clinical Practice, 5 (1), 8-24, doi: 10.1037/scp0000145  Academia Link    ResearchGate Link

Williamson, W. P., Hood, R. W. Jr., Ahmad, A., Sadiq, M., Hill, P. C. (2010). The Intratextual Fundamentalism Scale: Cross-cultural application, validity evidence, and relationship with religious orientation and the big 5 factor markers. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 13, 721-747. doi:10.1080/13674670802643047


Read more about Applied Statistics available on AMAZON















Connections


My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton




Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


Identity Salience Questionnaire (ISQ)

  Assessment name: Identity Salience Questionnaire (ISQ) Scale overview: The Identity Salience Questionnaire (ISQ) is a 6-item self-repor...