4. General Discussion
On the whole, both samples replicated the main points of the CRC model as well as supporting the CROI as a reliable and valid measure of religious orientation. At present, this study is the only known replication of
Krauss and Hood’s (
2013) work on the foundational concept of how religious orientations relate to one another. The current study also is the first to examine the test-retest reliability of the CROI. In general, the results show that most of the subscales exhibited good test-retest reliability.
As predicted by the CRC model, Commitment and Reflectivity dimensions were extracted in both samples. All four theorized quadrants were apparent, and no orientations were outside of the hypothesized quadrant. Thus, the general premises of the CRC model were replicated.
Some differences in the Commitment dimension were found between our findings and those reported in
Krauss and Hood (
2013), specifically in what orientations most indicated low commitment. In general, the Uncommitted/Reflective orientations of Tentativeness, Doubt, and Dialog were less committed in the current studies than was found by
Krauss and Hood (
2013). These orientations were derived from the Quest scaleand gives a unique perspective as to what might be motivating an individual high in Quest.
We also replicated the
Krauss and Hood (
2013) finding that Interest captures a highly Committed/Reflective orientation. This is reminiscent of
Allport’s (
1950) influential idea of “mature religion,” lending further support to Krauss and Hood’s claim that the analysis of spiritual and religious beliefs appears to be different than doubt and uncertainty.
Overall, the CROI subscales exhibited good reliability, and were consistently more reliable in both samples than originally found by
Krauss and Hood (
2013). In the nationally representative sample, Obligation was the only subscale that exhibited satisfactory, but not good, reliability. Further research may be useful for examining whether Obligation is measuring multiple constructs - one being how much a respondent’s loved ones care that they go to religious services and the other being how much those loved ones’ opinions influence or pressure the individual into going.
As for the structure of the CROI, the results suggest that the CROI scales accurately represent the measured dimensions. In fact, the current study showed better fit than did
Krauss and Hood (
2013), which is unusual for replication studies. However, there is some room for improvement in the CROI, particularly with regard to the Obligation subscale.
The CROI subscales were strongly and appropriately correlated with the original measures of I, Ep, Es, and Q. The pattern of correlations was virtually identical to that found by
Krauss and Hood (
2013). These correlations are suggestive of the CROI’s construct validity. These correlations also demonstrate the sensitive nature of the CROI subscales, which can provide insight into the original I, Ep, Es, and Q scales.
The I scale had the strongest association with Centrality in both studies, suggesting that the two scales are likely measuring approximately the same thing. Additionally, the I scale had a strong correlation with Personal, moderate associations with Gain, Punishment, and Interest, but was negatively associated with Doubt and Tentativeness. The evidence gives merit to the theory that the I scale is measuring a commitment to faith (Centrality, Personal, and Gain) that tends slightly toward dogmatism with little regard for ambiguity (Doubt and Tentativeness). In short, the I scale seems to be measuring a faith commitment that tends to be somewhat unreflective.
In both samples, Ep showed the strongest association with Personal, followed by positive correlations with Gain, Centrality, and Punishment. Additionally, Ep showed small positive correlations with Interest, and Obligation. Social also demonstrated a small positive correlation, but this was only significant in the much larger, nationally representative sample. Conversely, Ep was negatively correlated with the Uncommitted/Reflective orientations of Doubt and Tentativeness. These findings were similar to findings reported by
Krauss and Hood (
2013). Krauss and Hood suggested that overall, Ep demonstrates a Committed/Unreflective position. With that said, the correlation between Ep and Interest in the present study suggests that Ep may retain some reflective identity. This description makes more sense because, in the CROI’s theoretical structure, Personal borders Interest, which is a Committed/Reflective orientation. Furthermore, previous evidence suggests that I and Ep tend to be positively correlated (
Kirkpatrick and Hood 1990;
Krauss and Hood 2013), and if I is positively correlated with Interest; it would make sense that Ep might be as well.
In both samples, Es was most strongly associated with Social followed by weaker correlations with Obligation, Punishment, and Gain. Interest, and Dialog also demonstrated small positive correlations, but these findings were only significant in the nationally representative sample. These findings support the theory that individuals who score high in Es may vary in levels of faith commitment, but are primarily unreflective in their reasons for joining a religious community and/or participating in religious activities (
Krauss and Hood 2013).
Quest (
Batson et al. 1993) was most strongly associated with Doubt, Tentativeness, and Dialog, which are the three CROI orientations in the Uncommitted/Reflective quadrant. Quest also had small positive correlation with Interest, Obligation, and Social, which are the orientations in both quadrants neighboring the Uncommitted/Reflective quadrant. This indicates that Quest is clearly part of the Uncommitted/Reflective quadrant.
Quest (
Batson et al. 1993) was originally developed to measure the reflective portion of
Allport’s (
1950) concept of a mature religion, which combines faith commitment with the ability to deal with complex questions pertaining to morality and evil, viewing uncertainty as healthy, and remaining open to change. In short, Allport’s mature religion was a Committed/Reflective orientation, similar to the CROI’s Interest orientation. However, Quest demonstrated only a small relationship with Interest in both samples and the CROI scales that were derived from Quest loaded at the low pole of the Commitment dimension in both samples. Both of these findings suggests that Quest is not measuring pure reflectivity, but instead a kind of reflectivity that is pulling away from religion. This finding supports
Krauss and Hood’s (
2013) contention that the Quest scale appears to be measuring something closer to agnosticism and spiritual struggle, with no real interest in religious theory. For example, Quest has been shown to predict a lack of interest in religion in multiple cultures (
Beck and Jessup 2004;
Krauss and Hood 2013;
Watson et al. 1989).
Krauss and Hood (
2013) also found that Quest had no relationship with interest in world religions in 5 Romanian samples and an inconsistent, but generally positive, relationship with interest in world religions in 3 US samples. In contrast,
Krauss and Hood (
2013) found that Interest was consistently related to an interest in religion and an interest in world religions in both the US and Romania. Interest was also the only religious orientation to predict lower ethnocentrism in both US and Romanian samples after controlling for right wing authoritarianism (
Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1992), and social dominance orientation (
Pratto et al. 1994). In short, these two types of reflectivity are very different and indicate different levels of commitment.
Although this study supports the adequacy, reliability, and validity of the CROI and the CRC model, future research should be focused on the further development of the CRC model and the CROI. It is typical for circumplex models to measure quadrants more equally than the CROI does. For example, additional orientations beyond Interest should be added to better measure the Committed/Reflective quadrant. With that said, the CRC model does largely represent the current field of measurement in this respect. Additionally, it is possible that the finding in the current studies would not replicate in all populations. Future research should be focused on examining the functionality of the CRC model across nonwestern cultures.
A short version of the CROI that measures the CRC model should also be established. In the meantime,
Krauss and Hood’s (
2013) recommendation to use the Centrality, Interest, Doubt, and Social subscales seems justified. For researchers interested in measuring just reflectivity, Doubt (7 items) and Interest (6 items) may suffice, and would be very close in length to the 12-item Quest scale (
Batson et al. 1993).
Practitioners may find the CROI useful for gaining a greater understanding of how religion is practiced in their clients’ lives. This may lead to identifying potential orientations that may be associated with negative mental health issues and maladaptive behaviors. The measure could then be used as an evaluation metric to determine if an individual’s religious orientation can be changed through interventions. In conclusion, The CRC model and CROI have been helpful in highlighting how religious orientations relate and can be grouped into families. This approach has highlighted that previous measurement approaches have rarely captured a committed and reflective orientation.
Allport (
1950) laid out the benefits that he observed in churchgoers who are both committed and reflective. However, Allport’s attempts to measure this orientation with survey instruments (i.e., the Intrinsic Scale and the Four-Fold typology) were unsuccessful (
Batson et al. 1993;
Krauss and Hood 2013). Batson attempted to capture the reflectivity within
Allport’s (
1950) committed and reflective orientation with his Quest scale, but the Quest scale has been shown to a capture an uncommitted approach that shows a lack of interest in religion (
Beck and Jessup 2004;
Krauss and Hood 2013;
Watson et al. 1989). In contrast,
Krauss and Hood’s (
2013) Interest scale within the CROI appears to capture a committed and reflective approach.
The data from this study support
Krauss and Hood’s (
2013) assertion that the orientations measured by the established scales of I/E-Revised and Quest have been incorporated into the CROI. The CROI appears to clarify much of the ambiguity inherent in the older scales by breaking down what were very broad orientations into very specific suborientations and integrating them in a much larger landscape. This landscape can be used to clarify and group additional established models of religious and spiritual orientations so that future researchers can better make decisions about measurement. The CRC model and the CROI can thereby help simplify the field, while also ensuring more comprehensive measurement.