Journal of Personality and Social Psychology1967, Vol. 5, No. 4, 432-443

PERSONAL RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION AND PREJUDICE

GORDON W. ALLPORT AND J. MICHAEL ROSS

Harvard University

3 generalizations seem well established concerning the relationship betweensubjective religion and ethnic prejudice: (a) On the average churchgoers aremore prejudiced than nonchurchgoers; (b) the relationship is curvilinear;(c) people with an extrinsic religious orientation are significantly more preju-diced than people with an intrinsic religious orientation. With the aid of ascale to measure extrinsic and intrinsic orientation this research confirmedprevious findings and added a 4th: people who are indiscriminately pro-religious are the most prejudiced of all. The interpretations offered are interms of cognitive style.

Previous psychological and survey researchhas established three important facts regard-ing the relationship between prejudiced atti-tudes and the personal practice of religion.

1. On the average, church attenders aremore prejudiced than nonattenders.

2. This overall finding, if taken only byitself, obscures a curvilinear relationship.While it is true that most attenders are moreprejudiced than nonattenders, a significantminority of them are less prejudiced.

3. It is the casual, irregular fringe mem-bers who are high in prejudice; their religiousmotivation is of the extrinsic order. It is theconstant, devout, internalized members whoare low in prejudice; their religious motiva-tion is of the intrinsic order.

The present paper will establish a fourthimportant finding—although it may properlybe regarded as an amplification of the third.The finding is that a certain cognitive stylepermeates the thinking oj many people insuch a way that they are indiscriminatelyproreligious and, at the same time, highlyprejudiced,

But first let us make clear the types ofevidence upon which the first three propo-sitions are based and examine their theoreticalsignificance.

CHURCHGOERS ARE MORE PREJUDICED

Beginning the long parade of findings dem-onstrating that churchgoers are more intoler-ant of ethnic minorities than nonattendersis a study by Allport and Kramer (1946).These authors discovered that students whoclaimed no religious affiliation were lesslikely to be anti-Negro than those who de-

clared themselves to be protestant or Catho-lic. Furthermore, students reporting a strongreligious influence at home were higher inethnic prejudice than students reporting onlyslight or no religious influence. Rosenblith(1949) discovered the same trend among stu-dents in South Dakota. The AuthoritarianPersonality (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Lev-inson, & Sanford, 1950, p. 212) stated thatscores on ethnocentricism (as well as on au-thoritarianism) are significantly higher amongchurch attenders than among nonattenders.Cough's (1951) findings were similar, Kirk-patrick (1949) found religious people in gen-eral to be slightly less humanitarian thannonreligious people. For example, they hadmore punitive attitudes toward criminals,delinquents, prostitutes, homosexuals, andthose in need of psychiatric treatment. Work-ing with a student population Rokeach(1960) discovered nonbelievers to be con-sistently less dogmatic, less authoritarian, andless ethnocentric than believers. Public-opinion polls (as summarized by Stember,1961) revealed confirmatory evidence acrossthe board.

Going beyond ethnic prejudice, Stouffer(1955) demonstrated that among a repre-sentative sample of American church mem-bers those who had attended church withinthe past month were more intolerant of non-conformists (such as socialists, atheists, orcommunists) than those who had not at-tended. It seems that on the average religiouspeople show more intolerance in general—not only toward ethnic but also towardideological groups.

Is this persistent relationship in any way

432

RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION 433

spurious? Can it be due, for example, to thefactor of educational level? Many studiesshow that people with high education tendto be appreciably less prejudiced than peoplewith low education. Perhaps it is the formergroup that less often goes to church. Thereasoning is false. Sociological evidence hasshown conclusively that frequent church at-tendance is associated with high socioeco-nomic status and with college education(Demerath, 1965). Furthermore, Stouffer'sstudy found that the intolerant tendencyamong churchgoers existed only when educa-tional level was held constant. Struening(1963), using as subjects only faculty mem-bers of a large state university (all highlyeducated), discovered that nonattenders wereon the average less prejudiced than attenders.These studies assure us that the associationbetween churchgoing and prejudice is notmerely a spurious product of low education.

Turning to the theoretical implications ofthese findings, shall we say that religion inand of itself makes for prejudice and intoler-ance? There are some arguments in favor ofsuch a conclusion, especially when we recallthat certain powerful theological positions—those emphasizing revelation, election (chosenpeople), and theocracy (Allport, 1959, 1966)•—have throughout history turned one religionagainst another. And among sociological fac-tors in religion we find many that make forbigotry. One thinks of the narrow composi-tion of many religious groups in terms ofethnic and class membership, of their pres-sure toward conformity, and of the competi-tion between them (see Demerath, 1965;Lenski, 1961). It does seem that religion assuch makes for prejudice.

And yet it is here that we encounter thegrand paradox. One may not overlook theteachings of equality and brotherhood, ofcompassion and humanheartedness, that markall the great world religions. Nor may oneoverlook the precept and example of greatfigures whose labors in behalf of tolerancewere and are religiously motivated—such asChrist himself, Tertullian, Pope Gelasius I,St. Ambrose, Cardinal Cusa, Sebastian Cas-tellio, Schwenckfeld, Roger Williams, Ma-hatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, andmany others, including the recently martyred

clergy in our own South. These lives, alongwith the work of many religious bodies, coun-cils, and service organizations would seemto indicate that religion as such unmakesprejudice. A paradox indeed.

THE CURVILINEAR RELATIONSHIP

If religion as such made only for prejudice,we would expect that churchgoers who exposethemselves most constantly to its influencewould, as a result, be more prejudiced thanthose who seldom attend. Such is not thecase.

Many studies show that frequent attendersare less prejudiced than infrequent attendersand often less prejudiced even than non-attenders. Let us cite one illustrative studyby Struening (1963). The curvilinear trendis immediately apparent in Table 1. In thisparticular study nonattenders had lowerprejudice scores than any group, save onlythose devotees who managed to attend 11 ormore times a month. Without employingsuch fine time intervals other studies haveshown the same curvilinear trend. Thus, inThe Authoritarian Personality (p. 212) welearned that in 12 out of 15 groups "regular"attenders (like nonattenders) were less preju-diced than "seldom" or "often" attenders.Employing a 26-item Desegregation Scale inthree separate studies, Holtzman (1956)found the same trend as shown in Table 2.If more evidence for the curvilinear rela-tionship is needed, it will be found in com-munity studies made in New Jersey (Fried-richs, 1959), North Carolina (Tumin, 1958),New England (Pettigrew, 1959), and Ohio

TABLE 1CHURCH ATTENDANCE AND PREJUDICE AMONG

FACULTY MEMBERS OF A MIDWESTERNUNIVERSITY

Frequency ofattendance

(times per mo.)

0i2345-78-10

11 or more

N

26114310384

157942621

Prejudice score

14.725.026.023.822.019.916.311.7

Note.—From Struening (1957).

434 GORDON W. ALLPOET AND J. MICHAEL Ross

TABLE 2CHURCH ATTENDANCE AND PREJUDICE AMONG STUDENTS

IN THE BORDER STATES

NonattendcrsOnce a mo.Twice a mo.Once a \vk. or

oftcnet

1956 study

37666749

Mean score on D scale

1958 study

41.348. S50.644.5

I960 study

38.151.448.444.3

Note,—Adapted from Holtzman (1956), Kelley, Ferson, andHoltzman (1958), Young, Benson, and Holtzman (1960).

and California (Pinkney, 1961). One couldalmost say there is a unanimity of findingson this matter. The trend holds regardlessof religion, denomination, or target of preju-dice (although the case seems less clear foranti-Semitism than for prejudice against otherethnic groups).

What are the theoretical implications? Tofind that prejudice is related to frequencyof church attendance is scarcely explanatory,since it may reflect only formal behavior, notinvolvement or commitment to religiousvalues. And yet it seems obvious that theregular attenders who go to church once aweek or oftener (and several studies indicatethat oftener than once a week is especiallysignificant) are people who receive somethingof special ideological and experiential mean-ing, Irregular, casual fringe members, on theother hand, regard their religious contacts asless binding, less absorbing, less integral withtheir personal lives.

At this point, therefore, we must pass fromexternal behavioral evidence into the realmof experience and motivation. Unless we doso we cannot hope to understand the curvi-linear relationship that has been so clearlyestablished.

EXTRINSIC VERSUS INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Perhaps the briefest way to characterizethe two poles of subjective religion is to saythat the extrinsically motivated person useshis religion, whereas the intrinsically moti-vated lives his religion. As we shall see later,most people, if they profess religion at all,fall upon a continuum between these twopoles. Seldom, if ever, does one encounter a

"pure" case. And yet to clarify the dimensionit is helpful to characterize it in terms ofthe two ideal types.

Extrinsic Orientation

Persons with this orientation are disposedto use religion for their own ends. The termis borrowed from axiology, to designate aninterest that is held because it serves other,more ultimate interests. Extrinsic values arealways instrumental and utilitarian. Personswith this orientation may find religion usefulin a variety of ways—-to provide security andsolace, sociability and distraction, status andself-justification. The embraced creed islightly held or else selectively shaped to fitmore primary needs. In theological terms theextrinsic type turns to God, but withoutturning away from self.

Intrinsic Orientation

Persons with this orientation find theirmaster motive in religion. Other needs, strongas they may be, are regarded as of less ulti-mate significance, and they are, so far aspossible, brought into harmony with the reli-gious beliefs and prescriptions. Having em-braced a creed the individual endeavors tointernalize it and follow it fully. It is in thissense that he lives his religion,

A clergyman was making the same distinc-tion when he said,

Some people come to church to thank God, toacknowledge His gloty, and to ask His guidance.. . . Others come for what they can get. Theirinterest in the church is to run it or exploit it ratherthan to serve it.

Approximate parallels to these psychologi-cal types have been proposed by the sociolo-gists Fichter (19S4) and Lenski (1961). Theformer, in studying Catholic parishioners,classified them into four groups: the dormant,the marginal, the modal, and the nuclear.Omitting the dormant, Fichter estimated interms of numbers that 20% are marginal,70% modal, and less than 10% nuclear. It is,of course, the latter group that would mostclosely correspond to our conception of the"intrinsic." Lenski distinguished betweenchurch members whose involvement is "com-munal" (for the purpose of sociability and

RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION 435

status) and those who are "associational"(seeking the deeper values of their faith).

These authors see the significance of theirclassifications for the study of prejudice,Fichter has found less prejudice among devout(nuclear) Catholics than among others (seeAllport, 1954, p. 421) , Lenski (1961, p. 173)reported that among Detroit Catholics 59%of those with a predominantly "communal"involvement favored segregated schools,whereas among those with predominantly an"associational" involvement only 27% favoredsegregation. The same trend held for DetroitProtestants.

The first published study relating theextrinsic-intrinsic dimension directly to ethnicprejudice was that of Wilson (1960). Limit-ing himself to a IS-item scale measuringan extrinsic (utilitarian-institutional) orienta-tion, Wilson found in 10 religious groups amedian correlation of .65 between his scaleand anti-Semitism, In general these correla-tions were higher than he obtained betweenanti-Semitism and the Religious-Convention-alism Scale (Levinson, 19S4). From this find-ing Wilson concluded that orthodoxy orfundamentalism is a less important factorthan extrinsicness of orientation.

Certain weaknesses may be pointed out inthis pioneer study. Wilson did not attemptto measure intrinsicness of orientation, butassumed without warrant that it was equiva-lent to a low score on the extrinsic measures.Further, since the items were worded in aunidirectional way there may be an error ofresponse set. Again, Wilson dealt only withJews as a target of prejudice, and so thegenerality of his finding is not known.

Finally, the factor of educational levelplays a part. Wilson used the CaliforniaAnti-Semitism scale, and we know that highscores on this scale go with low education(Christie, 1954; Pettigrew, 1959; Titus &Hollander, 1957; Williams, 1964). Further,in our own study the extrinsic subscale isnegatively correlated with degree of educa-tion (r = —.32). To an appreciable extent,therefore, Wilson's high correlations may be"ascribed" to educational level.

At this point, however, an important theo-retical observation must be made. Low educa-tion may indeed predispose a person toward

an exclusionist, self-centered, extrinsic, re-ligious orientation and may dispose him toa stereotyped, fearful image of Jews. Thisfact does not in the least affect the func-tional relationship between the religious andthe prejudiced outlooks. It is a common errorfor investigators to "control for" demographicfactors without considering the danger in-volved in doing so. In so doing they are oftenobscuring and not illuminating the functional(i.e., psychological) relationships that obtain(see Allport, 1950).

Following Wilson the task of direct meas-urement was taken up by Feagin (1964) whoused a more developed scale—one designedto measure not only extrinsic orientation butalso the intrinsic, His scales are essentiallythe same as those discussed in a later sec-tion of this paper. In his study of SouthernBaptists Feagin reached four conclusions:(a) Contrary to expectation, extrinsic andintrinsic items did not fall on a unidimen-sional scale but represented two independentdimensions; (b] only the extrinsic orienta-tion was related to intolerance toward Ne-groes; (c) orthodoxy as such was not relatedto the extrinsic or intrinsic orientation;(d) greater orthodoxy (fundamentalism ofbelief) did, however, relate positively toprejudice.

Taking all these studies together we arejustified in assuming that the inner experi-ence of religion (what it means to the indi-vidual) is an important causal factor indeveloping a tolerant or a prejudiced outlookon life.

Yet, additional evidence is always in place,and new insights can be gained by a closerinspection of the rather coarse relationshipsthat have been established up to now.

THE PKESENT STUDY

We wished to employ an improved andbroader measure of prejudice than had pre-viously been used. And since direct measuresof prejudice (naming the target groups) havebecome too sensitive for wide use, we wishedto try some abbreviated indirect measures.Further, we wished to make use of an im-proved Extrinsic-Intrinsic scale, one thatwould give reliable measures of both extrinsicand intrinsic tendencies in a person's reli-

436 GORDON W. ALLPORT AND J. MICHAEL Ross

gious life. For these reasons the followinginstruments were adopted.

Social Problems Questionnaire

This scale, devised by Harding and Schu-man (unpublished1; see also Schuman &Harding, 1963, 1964), is a subtly wordedinstrument containing 12 anti-Negro, 11 anti-Jewish, and 10 anti-other items (pertainingto Orientals, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans).The wording is varied so as to avoid anagreement response set.

Indirect Prejudice Measures

Six items were taken from Gilbert andLevmson's (19S6) Custodial Mental IllnessIdeology Scale (CMI). Example: "We shouldbe sympathetic with mental patients, but wecannot expect to understand their odd behav-ior, a) I definitely disagree, b) I tend todisagree, c) I tend to agree, d) I definitelyagree."

Four items are related to a "jungle" phi-losophy of life, suggesting a generalizedsuspiciousness and distrust. Example: "Theworld is a hazardous place in which men arebasically evil and dangerous, a) I definitelydisagree, b) I tend to disagree, c) I tend toagree, d) I definitely agree."

In all cases the most prejudiced responsereceives a score of 5 and the least prejudicedresponse, 1. No response was scored 3.

From Table 3 we see that while the in-direct measures have a positive correlationwith each other and with direct measuresthe relationship is scarcely high enough towarrant the substitution of the indirect forthe direct. The high correlations betweenprejudice for the three ethnic target groups

1J. Harding and H. Schuman, "Social ProblemsQuestionnaire," Cornell University.

TABLE 3

INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN FIVE MEASURESOP PREJUDICE

Anii-XegroA n li- JewishAnti-OtherJungle

Aiiti-Jewish

.63

Aiiti-Other

.70

Jungle

.20.67 .24

.33

CMI

.25

.31

.36

.43

Note.—N = 309.

once again illustrate the well-established factthat ethnic prejudice tends to be a broadlygeneralized disposition in personality.

Religious Orientation Measure

The full scale, entitled "Religious Orienta-tion," is available from ADI.2 It separatesthe intrinsically worded items from the ex-trinsic, gives score values for each item, andreports on item reliabilities. In all cases ascore of 1 indicates the most intrinsic re-sponse, a score of 5, the most extrinsic. Whileit is possible to use all 20 items as onecontinuous scale, it will soon become apparentthat it is often wise to treat the two sub-scales separately. A sample item from theextrinsic subscale follows: "What religionoffers me most is comfort when sorrows andmisfortune strike, a) I definitely disagree, 1.b) I tend to disagree, 2. c) I tend to agree,4. d) I definitely agree, 5." A sample itemfrom the intrinsic subscale: "My religiousbeliefs are what really lie behind my wholeapproach to life, a) this is definitely not so, 5.b) probably not so, 4. c) probably so, 2.d) definitely so, 1.

SAMPLEWhile our sample of six groups of churchgoers

shows some diversity of denomination and region,it is in no sense representative. Graduate-studentmembers of a seminar collected the 309 cases fromthe following church groups: Group A, 94 RomanCatholic (Massachusetts); Group B, SS Lutheran(New York State) ; Group C, 44 Nazarene (SouthCarolina); Group D, 53 Presbyterian (Pennsyl-vania) ; Group E, 3S Methodist (Tennessee); GroupF, 28 Baptist (Massachusetts).

We labeled the groups alphabetically since suchsmall subsamples could not possibly lead to validgeneralizations concerning denominations as a whole.All subjects knew that they were invited to partici-pate as members of a religious group, and this factmay well have introduced a "proreligious" bias.

GROSS RESULTS

If we pool all our cases for the purposeof correlating religious orientation with preju-

2 The full Religious Orientation scale has beendeposited with the American Documentation Insti-tute. Order Document No. 9268 from ADI Auxil-iary Publications Project, Photoduplication Service,Library of Congress, Washington, D. C. 20540.Remit in advance $1.25 for microfilm or $1.25 forphotocopies and make checks payable to: Chief,Photoduplication Service, Library of Congress.

RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION 437

TABLE 4CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EXTRINSIC SUBSCALE

AND PREJUDICE

Anti-NegroAnti-JewishAnti-OtherJungleCMI

.26

.21

.32

.29

.44

Note.— N ~ 309.

dice, we discover that while the findings arein the expected direction they are much lessimpressive than those of previous studies,especially Wilson's.

Correlations with Extrinsic Subscale

Since Wilson employed an extrinsic scalesimilar to ours, we first present in Table 4our findings using this subscale and the vari-ous measures of prejudice. Whereas Wilsonfound a correlation of .65 between his ex-trinsic and anti-Semitic measures, our cor-relation falls to .21. In part the reason nodoubt lies in certain features of Wilson'smethod which we have criticized.

Correlations with Combined Extrinsic-Intrinsic Scale

From the outset it was our intention tobroaden Wilson's unidirectional (extrinsic)measure to see whether our hypothesis mighthold for the total scale (combined scores forthe 11 extrinsic and 9 intrinsic items). AsTable S shows, matters do not improve butseem to worsen. The logic of combining thetwo subscales is of course to augment thecontinuum in length and presumably enhancethe reliability of the total measure. It soonbecame apparent, however, that subjects whoendorse extrinsically worded items do notnecessarily reject those worded intrinsically,or vice versa. It turns out that there is only

TABLE SCORRELATIONS BETWEEN TOTAL EXTRINSIC-

INTRINSIC SCALE AND PREJUDICE

Anti-NegroAnti-JewishAnti-OtherJungleCMI

.26

.18

.18

.21

.17

Note.—N = 309.

a very low correlation in the expected direc-tion between the two subscales (r=.?A).Obviously at this point some reformulation isbadly needed.

REFORMULATION OF THE APPROACH

Examination of the data reveals that somesubjects are indeed "consistently intrinsic,"having a strong tendency to endorse in-trinsically worded items and to reject theextrinsically worded. Correspondingly othersare "consistently extrinsic." Yet, unfortu-nately for our neat typology, many subjectsare provokingly inconsistent. They persist inendorsing any or all items that to them seemfavorable to religion in any sense. Their re-sponses, therefore, are "indiscriminately pro-religious."

The problem is essentially the same as thatencountered by the many investigators whohave attempted to reverse the wording ofitems comprising the F scale, in order toescape an unwanted response-set bias. Uni-formly the effort has proved to be frustrating,since so many subjects subscribe to both thepositive and negative wording of the samequestion (see Bass, 1955; Chapman & Bock,1958; Chapman & Campbell, 1959; Christie,1954; Jackson & Messick, 1957).

An example from our own subscales wouldbe: "My religious beliefs are what really liebehind my whole approach to life" (in-trinsic). "Though I believe in my religion,I feel there are many more important thingsin my life" (extrinsic).

The approach used by Peabody (1961)offers us a model for analyzing our data ina meaningful way. Peabody administeredboth positive and negative F-scale items tosubjects at two different testing sessions. Bycomparing each individual's responses to thesame question stated positively at one timeand in reverse at another he was able toseparate out those who were consistently proor anti toward the content of authoritarianitems. But he found many who expresseddouble agreement (or disagreement) withboth versions of the same question. Table 6applies Peabody's paradigm to our data.

In assigning our 309 cases to these cate-gories we employed the following criteria.

Intrinsic type includes individuals who

438 GORDON W, ALLPORT AND J. MICHAEL Ross

TABLE 6FODK PATTERNS OF RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION

Agrees withextrinsicchoice

Disagrees withextrinsicchoice

Agrees withintrinsic choice

.Indiscriminatelyproreligious

Consistentlyintrinsic intype

Disagrees withintrinsic choice

Consistentlyextrinsic intype

Indiscriminatelyantireligious ornonreligious"

TABLE 7PERCENTAGE or EACH RELIGIOUS TYPE IN

EACH SUBSAMPLE

fl Not found in present sample.

agree with intrinsically worded items on theintrinsic subscale, and who disagree with ex-trinsically stated items on the extrinsic sub-scale. By the scoring method employed theseindividuals fall below the median scores onboth subscales.

Extrinsic type includes individuals whoagree with extrinsically stated items on theextrinsic subscale, and who disagree withitems on the intrinsic subscale. By our scor-ing method these individuals all fall abovethe median scores on both subscales.

Indiscriminately proreligious includes thosewho on the intrinsic subscale score at least12 points less than on the extrinsic subscale.(This figure reflects the fact that a subjectgives approximately 50% more intrinsic re-sponses on the intrinsic subscale than weshould expect from his extrinsic responsesto the extrinsic subscale.)

Indiscriminately antireligious or nonreli-gious includes those who would show a strongtendency to disagree with items on both sub-scales. Since nonchurchgoers are excludedfrom our samples, such cases are not found.(Some pilot work with markedly liberalgroups indicates that this type does exist,however, even among members of "religious"organizations.)

Table 7 gives the percentage of the threetypes.

RESULTS OF THE REFORMULATION

The five measures of prejudice were ana-lyzed by a 6 (Groups) X 3 (Religious Types)analysis of variance. Table 8 presents theoverall effects for religious types for eachof the five measures of prejudice. Themultivariate analysis of variance indicates

Religiousgroup

ABCDEF

N

(94)(55)(44)(53)(35)(28)

Consistentlyintrinsic

363536323139

Consistentlyextrinsic

343639302939

Indiscriminatelyproreligious

302925384022

that there is both a significant differencebetween the three types of religious orienta-tion and between the six subsamples inthe level of prejudice.3 Examination of themeans shows two trends: (a) The extrinsictype is more prejudiced than the intrinsictype for both direct and indirect measures;(b) the indiscriminate type of religious orien-tation is more prejudiced than either of thetwo consistent types. Statistically all thesetrends are highly significant.

3 The multivariate F reported here is Wilk'slambda (Anderson, 195S). Statistical computationsare summarized by Bock (1963) and programmedfor the IBM 7090 by Hall and Cramer (1962). Theunivariate tests to be reported are adjusted forunequal Ns. to obtain orthogonal estimates accord-ing to mathematical procedures described in Halland Cramer.

TABLE 8

PREJUDICE AND RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION

Target ofprejudice

Anti-NegroAnti-

JewishAnti-OtherJungleCMI

Mean prejudice score

Intrinsictype

N = 108

28.722.6

20.47.9

10.2

Extrinsictype

;V = 100

33.024.6

23.38.7

11.8

Incon-sistent type

N = 95

36.028.9

26.19.6

13.4

Fratio

8.6**11.1**

10.9**8.4**

20.4**

Multivariate analysis of variance

Source of variation

Religious type (A)Sample groups (B)

A X B

F ratio

5.96***3.19***1.11*

df

10,57425,66850,1312

*t > .25.**# > .001.

*** t > .0005.

RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION 439

We note especially that the scores of theindiscriminate type are markedly higher onall measures than the scores of the intrinsictype. Corresponding F ratios for paired com-parisons range from 8.4 for the jungle scaleto 20.4 for the CMI scale. The differencesbetween the indiscriminate and extrinsic typesare smaller. For the anti-Jewish and CMIscales these differences are, however, beyondthe .005 level; for the anti-other and junglescales, at the .OS level. For the anti-Negrothe difference falls below significance,

The relationship between the indiscrimi-nately proreligious orientation and prejudicereceives support (see Table 9) when wecompare subjects who are moderately in-discriminate with those who are extremelyindiscriminate. (In the first group the scoreson the intrinsic subscale average 16 pointslower than on the extrinsic subscale, whereasthe extreme cases average 23 points less onthe intrinsic than on the extrinsic subscale.)

The discovery that the degree of indis-criminateness tends to relate directly to thedegree of prejudice is an important finding.It can only mean that some functional rela-tionship obtains between religious muddle-headedness (for that is what indiscriminatescores imply) and antagonism toward ethnicgroups. We shall return to this interpretationin the concluding section of this paper.

RESULTS FOR SUBSAMPLES

It would not be correct to assume thatthe variance is distributed equally over allthe subsamples, for it turns out that the de-nominational groups differ appreciably inprejudice scores and in religious type, asTables 10 and 11 indicate.

TABLE 9DEGREES OP INDISCRIHINATENESS AND AVERAGE

PREJUDICE SCORES

TABLE 10

ANTI-NEGRO PREJUDICE: MEAN SCORES ONSOCIAL PROBLEMS SCALK

Target ofprejudice

Anti-NegroAnti-JewishAnti-OtherJungleCMI

Moderatelyindiscriminate

N - 56

35.428.024.99.5

10.2

Extremelyindiscriminate

N =39

37.930.128.210.214.6

F ratio

.97

.903.25*1.113.99*

Religiousgroup

ABCDEF

Type M

Intrinsictype

27.4 (34)27.2 (19)22.4 (16)35.5 (17)40.5 (11)22.6 (11)28.7 (108)

Intrinsictype

34.8 (32)32.3 (20)36.2 (17)28.7 (16) '.35.5 (10) A27.9 (11)"33.0 (106)

Indiscrim-inatetype

32.2 (28)31.9 (16)35.0 (11)42.5 (20)43.0 (14)28.7 (6)36.0 (95)

Group M

31.4 (94)30.4 (55)30.9 (44)36.1 (53)40.1 (35)26.0 (28)32.5 (309)

Analysis of variance

Source of variation

Religious type (A)Religious group (B)

A X BError (w)

df

25

10291

MS

1077.8952.2251.1125.6

F ratio

8.6**7.6**2.0*

*t**p .001.

It is true that when we combine sub-samples all the trends are in the expecteddirection, but troublesome exceptions occurfor single groups as indicated by the nearlysignificant interaction effects. The mosttroublesome contradictions appear in rela-tion to the anti-Negro measures based on theHarding-Sclniman scale. Table 10 disclosescertain sore points, even though the averagetrend over all the subsamples is in thepredicted direction.

For Groups A, B, and C we note that theindiscriminate type is slightly less prejudicedthan the extrinsic type, and for Groups Dand E the extrinsic type seems actually lessprejudiced than the intrinsic. (Groups I) andE are consistently more troublesome thanother subsamples, perhaps because of somesalient racial issue in the local community.It will be noted that both these groupsare considerably more anti-Negro than theother subsamples.)

By way of contrast we present in Table 11the results for the short (five-item) CMIscale. With the exception of the indiscrimi-nate type in Group F, the progression ofscores is precisely as expected. Each sub-sample shows that the intrinsic type is lessprejudiced toward the mentally ill than theextrinsic type, and the extrinsic type is less

440 GORDON W. ALLPORT AND J. MICHAEL Ross

TABLE 11

INDIRECT (CMI) MEASURE OF PREJUDICE

Religiousgroup

ABcDEF

Type M

Intrinsictype

11.2 (34)10.1 (19)9.S (16)

10.6 (17)8.6 (11)9.2 (11)

10.2 (108)

Extrinsictype

12.4 (32)10.8 (20)12.2 (17)11.4 (16)12.9 (10)10.7 (11)11.8 (106)

Indiscrim-inatetype

13.6 (28)13.4 (16)12.6 (11)14.8 (20)13.6 (14)9.2 (6)

13.4 (95)

Group M

12.3 (94)11.3 (SS)11.3 (44)12.4 (53)11.8 (35)9.8 (28)

11.9 (309)

Analysis of variance

Source of variation

Religious type (A)Religious group (B)

A X BError (w)

df

25

10291

MS

255.0

F ratio

20.4**36.5 2.9*15.3 1.212.5

* p > .05.** <> > .001.

prejudiced than the indiscriminately pro-religious.4

Returning in a different way to the origi-nal question of whether consistent extrinsicand intrinsic orientations make for prejudiceand for tolerance, respectively, we shall nowexamine this matter in each subsample sepa-rately. Inspection of the mean scores and

4 If we apply a more severe test, asking whetherall differences between groups are significant, wefind the following results. In four of the six groups(in both Tables 10 and 11) the extrinsic type issignificantly more prejudiced than the intrinsic. Like-wise in four out of six groups (Table 10) and fiveout of six (Table 11), the indiscriminate type issignificantly more prejudiced than the intrinsic.However, in only two of the six groups (in bothTables 10 and 11) is the indiscriminate typesignificantly more prejudiced than the extrinsic.

variance for the total scale indicates that weare dealing with a relatively narrow rangeof variation. To minimize the effect of anarrow range of scores and skewed distribu-tions, we used Kendal's (19SS) tan as ameasure of degree of relationship betweenprejudice and consistent religious orientation.The results are given in Table 12. While thecorrelations are not high (14 are significantin the expected direction), only one (in thetroublesome Group E) is significant in thereverse direction.

EDUCATIONAL DIFFERENCES

Computing the actual years of schoolingfor all groups we find that the indiscriminatetype has significantly less formal educationthan the intrinsic cases (p > .005, F = 18.29),and somewhat less than the extrinsic type(p>.10, F = 2.89). Comparing extrinsicwith intrinsic types we find that the for-mer has finished fewer years of schooling(p > .10, F-3A5). (Oddly enough thegroups with highest average education areD and E, which also displayed the highestanti-Negro and anti-Semitic prejudice—per-haps because of particular local conditions.)

In our survey of earlier studies we sawthat educational level is often a factor inthe various relationships discovered betweenreligion and prejudice. We have also arguedthat demographic factors of this sort shouldnot be allowed to obscure the functional(psychological) analysis that the data callfor. Granted that low education makes forindiscriminate thinking, the mental confusionthat results from low education may have itsown peculiar effects on religious and ethnicattitudes.

TABLE 12

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN COMBINED EXTRINSIC-INTRINSIC RELIGIOUS SCORES (FOR CONSISTENTSUBJECTS) AND PREJUDICE (KENDAL'S TAU)

Religious group

ABCDEF

Anti-Negro

.31***

.19*

.32***-.12-.24*

.39***

Anti-Jewish

26***.13.17*.05

-.11.13

Anti-Other

.24***

.15

.35***-.09-.13

.25*

Jungle

.14*-.05

.14*

.03.26*

-.01

CMI

19***.03.28***.11.46***.24*

*p > .10.**p > .05.

***# > .01.

RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION 441

SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATIONS

At the outset we stated three propositionsthat seem to be firmly established: (a)Churchgoers on the broad average harbormore ethnic prejudice than nonchurchgoers;(b) in spite of this broad tendency a curvi-linear relationship in fact exists; (c) theintrinsically motivated churchgoers are sig-nificantly less prejudiced than the extrinsi-cally motivated. Our present research sup-plies additional strong support for the secondand third of these propositions.

To these propositions we add a fourth:churchgoers who are indiscriminately pro-religious are more prejudiced than the con-sistently extrinsic, and very much more preju-diced than the consistently intrinsic types.

The psychological tie between the intrinsicorientation and tolerance, and between theextrinsic orientation and prejudice, has beendiscussed in a series of papers by Allport(19S9, 1963, 1966). In brief the argumentholds that a person with an extrinsic reli-gious orientation is using his religious viewsto provide security, comfort, status, or socialsupport for himself—religion is not a valuein its own right, it serves other needs, andit is a purely utilitarian formation. Nowprejudice too is a "useful" formation: it tooprovides security, comfort, status, and socialsupport. A life that is dependent on the sup-ports of extrinsic religion is likely to bedependent on the supports of prejudice,hence our positive correlations between theextrinsic orientation and intolerance. Con-trariwise, the intrinsic religious orientation isnot an instrumental device. It is not a meremode of conformity, nor a crutch, nor atranquilizer, nor a bid for status. All needsare subordinated to an overarching religiouscommitment. In internalizing the total creedof his religion the individual necessarily in-ternalizes its values of humility, compassion,and love of neighbor. In such a life (wherereligion is an intrinsic and dominant value)there is no place for rejection, contempt, orcondescension toward one's fellow man. Suchis our explanation for the relationship be-tween extrinsic religion and prejudice, andbetween intrinsic religion and tolerance.

Our present task is to discover, if we can,

some similar functional tie between prejudice(as measured both directly and indirectly)and the indiscriminately proreligious orienta-tion. The common factor seems to be a cer-tain cognitive style. Technically it might becalled "undifferentiated thinking," or exces-sive "category width," as defined by Pettigrew(1958). Rokeach (1960) notes the inabilityof the "dogmatic" mind to perceive differ-ences; thus, whereas some people distinguishin their thinking and feeling between Com-munists and Nazis, the undifferentiateddogmatist has a global reaction (cognitiveand emotional) toward "Communazis."

We have no right, of course, to expect allour subjects to make discriminations exactlycorresponding to our own logic. Nor shouldwe expect them to read and respond to everyitem on the Extrinsic-Intrinsic scale accord-ing to its full meaning as intended by theinvestigators. Perhaps we should be gratifiedthat two-thirds of our cases can be safelyclassified as "consistent" (i.e., having aboutthe same strength of disposition toward anextrinsic or intrinsic orientation across mostof the items). These consistent cases, aswe have seen, support the hypothesis withwhich we started. It is the remaining(indiscriminate) one-third of the cases whichobscure the trend (or diminish its statisticalsignificance).

In responding to the religious items theseindividuals seeni to take a superficial or "hitand run" approach. Their mental set seemsto be "all religion is good." "My religiousbeliefs are what really lie behind my wholelife"—Yes! "Although I believe in my re-ligion, I feel there are many more impor-tant things in my life"—Yes! "Religion isespecially important to me because it an-swers many questions about the meaning oflife"—Yes! "The church is most importantas a place to formulate good social relation-ships"—Yes!

There seems to be one wide category—•"religion is OK." From the way in whichthe scale is constructed this undifferentiatedendorsement can be the product of an agree-ment response set. Our inconsistently pro-religious may be "3'easayers" (Couch &Keniston, 1960). But if so, we are stilldealing with an undifferentiated cognitive

442 GORDON W. ALLPORT AND J. MICHAKL Ross

disposition. We recall likewise that the in-consistent cases have a lower level of formaleducation than the consistent cases. Thisfactor also is relevant to the formation andholding of overwide categories.

But why should such a disposition, what-ever its source, be so strongly related toprejudice, in such a way that the moreundifferentiated, the more prejudiced—asTable 9 shows?

The answer is that prejudice itself is amatter of stereotyped overgeneralization, afailure to distinguish members of a minoritygroup as individuals (Allport, 19S4, Chaps.2, 10). It goes without saying that if cate-gories are overwide the accompanying feelingtone will be undifferentiated. Thus, religionas a whole is good; a minority group as awhole is bad.

It seems probable that people with un-differentiated styles of thinking (and feeling)are not entirely secure in a world that forthe most part demands fine and accurate dis-tinctions. The resulting diffuse anxiety maywell dispose them to grapple onto religionand to distrust strange ethnic groups. Thepositive correlation between the jungle itemsand other prejudice scales (Table 3) isevidence for this interpretation.

Our line of reasoning, readers will recog-nize, is compatible with various previouscontributions to the theory of prejudice. Onethinks here of Rokeach's concept of dogma-tism; of Schuman and Harding's (1964)discovery of a "confused" type in their studyof the relation between rational consistencyand prejudice; of the same authors' workon sympathetic identification (1963); ofstudies on the dynamics of scapcgoating, therole in insecurity, of authoritarian submis-sion, of intolerance for ambiguity, and ofrelated concepts.

All in all we conclude that prejudice, liketolerance, is often embedded deeply in per-sonality structure and is reflected in a con-sistent cognitive style. Both states of mindare emeshed with the individual's religiousorientation. One definable style marks theindividual who is bigoted in ethnic mattersand extrinsic in his religious orientation.Equally apparent is the style of those whoare bigoted and at the same time indiscrimi-

nately proreligious. A relatively small numberof people show an equally consistent cogni-tive style in their simultaneous commitmentto religion as a dominant, intrinsic value andto ethnic tolerance.

One final word: our research arguesstrongly that social scientists who employthe variable "religion" or "religiosity" in thefuture will do well to keep in mind thecrucial distinction between religious attitudesthat are intrinsic, extrinsic, and indiscrimi-nately pro. To know that a person is in somesense "religious" is not as important as toknow the role religion plays in the economyof his life. (The categories of nonreligiousand indiscriminately antireliglous will also forsome purposes be of central significance,although the present research, confined as itis to churchgoers, does not employ them.)

REFERENCES

ADOKNO, T. W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWIK, E., LEVINSON,D. J., & SANFORD, R. N. The authoritarian per-sonality. New York: Harper, 1950.

ALLPORT, G. W. Review of S. A. Stouffer, E. A.Suchman, L. C. De Vinney, S. A. Star, & R. W.Williams, Jr., The American soldier. Vol. 1. Ad-justment during Army life. Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, 1950, 45, 168-173.

ALLPORT, G. W. The nature of prejudice. Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

ALLPORT, G. W. Religion and prejudice. The CraneReview, 1959, 2, 1-10.

ALLPORT, G. W. Behavioral science, religion, andmental health. Journal of Religion and Health,1963, 2, 187-197.

ALLPORT, G. W. Religious context of prejudice.Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1966,5, 447-457.

ALLPORT, G. W., & KKAMER, B. M. Some roots ofprejudice. Journal of Psychology, 1946, 22, 9-39.

ANDERSON, T. W. An introduction to multivariatestatistical analysis. New York: Wiley, 1958.

BASS, B. M. Authoritarianism or acquiescence. Jour-nal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 19S5, 56,616-623.

BOCK, R. D. Programming univariate and multi-variate analysis of variance. Technometrics, 1963,5, 95-117.

CHAPMAN, L. J., & BOCK, R. D. Components ofvariance due to acquiescence and content in theF-scale measure of authoritarianism. Psychologi-cal Bulletin, 1958, 55, 328-333.

CHAPMAN, L. J., & CAMPBELL, D. T. The effect ofacquiescence response-set upon relationships amongthe F-scale, ethnocentrism, and intelligence.Sociometry, 1959, 22, 153-161.

CHRISTIE, R. C. Authoritarianism re-examined. InR. C. Christie & M. Jahoda (Eds.), Studies in the

RELIGIOUS OKIENTATION 443

scope and method of the authoritarian personality.New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 19S4. Pp.123-196

Coucn, A., & KENISTON, K. Yeasayers and nay-sayers: Agreeing response set as a personality vari-able. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,I960, 60, 151-174.

DKMERATH, N. J., III. Social class in AmericanProtestantism. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.

FEAGIN, J. R. Prejudice and religious types: Afocused study of southern fundamentalists. Jour-nal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1964, 4,3-13.

FIGHTER, J. H. Social relations in the urban parish.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.

FRIEDRICHS, R. W. Christians and residential exclu-sion: An empirical study of a northern dilemma.Journal of Social Issues, 1959, IS, 14-23.

GILBERT, D. C., & LEVINSON, D. J. Ideology, per-sonality, and institutional policy in the mentalhospital. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-chology, 1956, 53, 263-271.

GOUGH, H. G. Studies in social intolerance: IV,Journal of Social Psychology, 1951, 33, 263-269.

HALL, C. E., & CRAMER, E. General purpose programto compute multivariate analysis of variance onan IBM 7000. Washington, D. C.: George Wash-ington University Biometric Laboratory, 1962.

HOLTZMAN, W. H. Attitudes of college men towardnon-segregation in Texas schools. Public OpinionQuarterly, 1956, 20, 559-569.

JACKSON, D. H., & MESSICK, S. J. A note on ethno-centrism and acquiescence response sets. Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957, 54,132-134.

KELLY, J. G., PERSON, J. E., & HOLTZMAN, W. H.The measurement of attitudes toward the Negroin the South. Journal of Social Psychology, 1958,48, 305-317.

KENDAL, M. G. Rank correlation methods. (2nd ed.)London: Griffin, 1955.

KIRKPATRICK, C. Religion and humanitarianism: Astudy of institutional implications. PsychologicalMonographs, 1949, 63(9, Whole No. 304).

LENSKI, G. The religious factor. Garden City, N. Y.:Doublcday, 1961.

LEVINSON, D. J. The inter-group workshop: Itspsychological aims and effects. Journal of Psychol-ogy, 1954, 38, 103-126.

PEADODY, D. Attitude content and agreement set inscales of authoritarianism, dogmatism, anti-

Semitism, and economic conservatism. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 1-11.

PETTIGREW, T. F. The measurement and correlatesof category width as a cognitive variable. Journalof Personality, 1958, 26, 532-544.

PETTIGREW, T. F. Regional differences in anti-Negroprejudice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-chology, 1959, 49, 28-36.

PINKNEY, A. The anatomy of prejudice: Majoritygroup attitudes toward minorities in selectedAmerican cities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Cornell University, 1961.

ROKEACH, M. The open and closed mind: Investiga-tions into the nature of belief systems and per-sonality systems. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

ROSENBLITH, J. F. A replication of "Some roots ofprejudice." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-chology, 1949, 44, 470-489.

SCIIUMAN, H., & HARDING, J. Sympathetic identifica-tion with the underdog. Public Opinion Quarterly,1963, 27, 230-241.

SCIIUMAN, H., & HAKDING, J. Prejudice and thenorm of rationality. Sociometry, 1964, 27, 353-371.

STEMBER, H. C. Education and attitude change. NewYork: Institute of Human Relations Press, 1961.

STOUPPER, S. A. Communism, civil liberties, andconformity. Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1955.

STRUENING, E. L. Antidemocratic attitudes in aMidwest university. In H. H. Rcmmcrs (Ed.),Anti-democratic attitudes in American schools.Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1963.Ch. 9.

TITUS, H. E., & HOLLANDER, E. P. The CaliforniaF scale in psychological research: 1950-1955. Psy-chological Bulletin, 1957, 54, 47-64.

TUMIN, M. Desegregation: Resistance and readiness.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958.

WILLIAMS, R. M. Strangers next door: Ethnic rela-tions in American communities. Englewood Cliffs,N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.

WILSON, W. C. Extrinsic religious values and preju-dice. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,1960, 60, 286-288.

YOUNG, R. K., BENSON, W. M., & HOLTZMAN, W. H.Changes in attitudes toward the Negro in asouthern university. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 1960, 60, 131-133.

(Received July 6, 1966)