Religiosity in 5-D: A Critical Note

Abstract

T ^ he equivocation which may result from violation of natural language or face validity is manifested in an article by Faulkner and DeJong (1966), Religiosity in 5-D: An Empirical Analysis. The authors (1966:246-247) claim to be measuring and testing the associations among Glock's (1962) five dimensions of religiosity. They adequately refer to his dimensions as (feeling, emotion), ritualistic (religious behavior, i.e., church attendance), ideological (beliefs), intellectual (knowledge), and consequential (the effects in the secular world of the prior four dimensions) The empirical definition of the dimensions, however, is given by the items used to measure them. It cannot be overemphasized that precisely at the juncture of the epistemic correlation, or the operationalization, the question of validity is not to be denied. The gap between stimulus and concept is one major arena for the sociology of social science. Qua sociologist, the relevant explanation for the acceptance or rejection of a posited link between the concept and a measured event, i.e., the event as known, is the prevailing norms and expectations of the scientific community concerning the nature of evidence and the form of inference. In the Faulkner and Dejong article, these expectations are violated. The items which they used to operationalize the ideological (belief) dimension correctly include such stimulus words as idea, opinion, and view (all the items are listed on pages 252-254 of their article). The face validity of these stimuli is acceptable. What conclusions about validity can be drawn, however, when the same semantic category of stimuli, viz., view, opinion, believe, is found in three out of four items on the intellectual (knowledge) dimension? Campbell and Magill (1968: 83) also note that the knowledge dimension which Faulkner and Dejong present contains three belief items. The only knowledge (in the usual sense of the term) item is a question asking for the names of the four Gospels or the first five books of the Old Testament. The ritualistic (religious practice, e.g., church attendance) five-item scale includes the following two items (italics added): Do you feel it is possible for an individual to develop a well-rounded religious life apart from the institutional church? and Do you believe that for your marriage the ceremony should be performed by: . . . ? The experiential (feeling, religious emotion) five-item scale includes only one item which asks about feeling 'close' to the Divine. The other items ask whether you would say that religious commitment gives a certain purpose to life; or a sense of security in the face of death; how you would respond to a statement that religion provides a nonrational interpretation of existence; and whether you agree that faith is essential to a religious life. These items are proffered as operationalizations of real emotional or felt experiences of a Divine presence (Glock, 1962). Most of the stimuli reported above are akin