Updating Allport’s and Batson’s Framework of Religious Orientations: A Refreshing Look from the
Perspective of Self-Determination Theory and Wulff’s Model of Approaches towards Religion
Bart NEYRINCK
Willy LENS
University of Leuven, Belgium
Maarten VANSTEENKISTE
Bart SOENENS
Ghent University, Belgium
Correspondence concerning this article can be addressed to Bart Neyrinck, Department of Psychology,
Tiensestraat 102, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. E-mail address: Bart.Neyrinck@psy.kuleuven.be
Religious Orientations 2
Abstract
The aim of the present contribution was to theoretically and empirically evaluate and, if
needed, reconsider Allport’s intrinsic- extrinsic and Batson’s quest religious orientations
through the lens of self-determination theory and Wulff’s social-cognitive model. In line
with our theoretical analysis, this study showed that Allport’s intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy
fails to correspond empirically to the differentiation between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation within self-determination theory (SDT). Whereas Allport’s intrinsic religious
orientation was strongly positively related to one type of extrinsic motivation, that is,
internalized (i.e., autonomous) extrinsic motivation, Allport’s two extrinsic (i.e., personal
and social) religious orientations were not systematically related to any of the discerned
motives within SDT. Furthermore, Batson’s quest orientation was unrelated to any of the
SDT concepts but was positively related to symbolic unbelief. The present findings
suggest that Allport’s framework might need both refinement and relabeling of its
motivational orientations such that research adopting Allport’s framework fits with recent
theoretical evolutions in the field of motivation psychology.
KEY WORDS: Religious orientation, Allport, Batson, self-determination theory, internalization, religious
behavior, Post-Critical Belief Scale, literal symbolic.
RUNNING HEAD: Religious Orientations
Religious Orientations 3
Updating Allport’s and Batson’s Framework of Religious Orientations: A Refreshing Look from the
Perspective of Self-Determination Theory and Wulff’s Model of Approaches towards Religion
Since the pioneering work of Allport (1950; Allport & Ross, 1967), dozens of articles have relied on
the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation (e.g., Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis,
1993; Donahue, 1985). This differentiation grew out of Allport’s (1950) seminal conceptualization of mature
and immature forms of religious sentiment and intends to measure intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation for
religion (Gorsuch, 1997). Later on, Batson (1976; Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993) introduced the
quest orientation to provide a fuller picture of the original concept of mature religiosity. More than four
decades after the initial introduction of Allport’s orientations, we believe it is time to re-evaluate its
theoretical relevance in light of broader motivational frameworks in which a distinction is made between
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in general (Deci, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990).
The overall aim of the present contribution is to evaluate and, if needed, to reconsider Allport’s
distinction through the lens of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2006;
Vansteenkiste, Ryan, & Deci, 2008). SDT is a well grounded and empirically validated general theory of
motivation and personality, which has been under development since Allport’s seminal work (e.g., Deci,
1971). In mapping the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation to the motivational
concepts forwarded in SDT, this study aimed to heed the call to provide more conceptual depth in research
on the motivational dynamics involved in religiosity. Kirkpatrick and Hood (1990, p. 448), for instance, stated
that “a serious approach to researching the topic of motivation for religious involvement … should begin with
a rich psychological theory of human motivation”. In this regard, one of the important issues Kirkpatrick and
Hood (1990) raised was the conceptual meaning of Allport’s scales: do they deal with motivation,
personality or cognitive style? To examine associations between Allport’s and Batson’s concepts and
dimensions of religious cognitive style, Wulff’s (1997) and Hutsebaut and colleagues’ (e.g., Duriez &
Hutsebaut, in press; Fontaine, Duriez, Luyten, & Hutsebaut, 2003) model of social-cognitive approaches
towards religious contents. After introducing Allport’s and Batson’s perspectives and briefly discussing their
critics, we present the basic tenets of SDT and Wulff’s model. The subsequent attempt to contrast and
integrate these frameworks will then allow us to derive a number of specific hypotheses with respect to the
relation between the introduced concepts.
Religious Orientations 4
Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Quest Religious Orientation
Allport’s (e.g., Allport, 1966; Allport & Ross, 1967) distinction between intrinsic (IR) and extrinsic
religious orientation (ER) originated from Allport’s (1950) conceptualization of mature and immature
religious sentiments. Although some alternative conceptualizations such as personality or cognitive style
have been proposed, his writings show a clear evolution towards a motivational conceptualization of these
religious orientations (Gorsuch, 1997; Hunt & King, 1971; Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990). An intrinsically
oriented person considers religion as an ultimate end in itself; it is a master motive in life. Religious beliefs
and values (e.g., humility, compassion, etc.) are internalized “without reservation”, and other needs and
goals are accommodated, reorganized and brought in harmony with these religious contents. Importantly,
an intrinsic religious orientation “floods the whole life with motivation and meaning” (Allport, 1966, p. 455).
In contrast, an extrinsically oriented individual approaches religion in a utilitarian or instrumental
fashion: it helps one to attain “self-centered” ends, such as safety, solace, or sociability. Furthermore, with
an extrinsic orientation, religion is lightly held, oversimplified, not reflected upon, and “not well integrated in
the deeper life of the subject” (Allport, 1950, p. 59). Importantly, Kirkpatrick (1989) differentiated ER into
extrinsic-personal (Ep) and extrinsic-social (Es), as two different categories of non-religious goals which are
strived for through religiosity. Whereas an extrinsic-personal religious orientation (Ep) points to the use of
religion to gain comfort, security or protection, an extrinsic-social religious orientation (Es) marks the use of
religion to gain social contact.
Although IR and ER were intended to represent the original concept of mature religion, Batson (1976,
Batson et al., 1993) argued that IR and ER missed several components of that original concept. More
specifically, Batson missed the mature elements of a well differentiated, critical and open-ended cognitive
reflection in dealing with religious issues, hence, “an organization that has emerged from repeated creative
changes in response to existential conflicts” (Batson, et al., 1993, p. 160). Maturity in religious issues is
characterized by flexible cognitive structures that are responsive to new information. In an attempt to
operationalize these characteristics, Batson (1976; Batson et al., 1993) proposed Quest as a third religious
orientation. A quest orientation is expressed in (1) posing complex existential questions without reducing
their complexity, (2) regarding doubt as important and positive, and (3) emphasizing tentativeness and
incompleteness in formulating answers for religious questions. Questions have been raised about the
validity of the quest-scale: given that it generally does not correlate to measures of religiosity, Donahue
(1985) suggested that quest measures agnositicism rather than religious belief. In his opinion, it can only be
Religious Orientations 5
called religious if religion is defined as “having existential concerns” without necessarily adhering to religious
values or believing in a transcendental God. In contrast to this criticism, Batson et al. (1993) argue that
quest does measure a religious orientation, given that religiously active people (e.g., seminarians), relative
to less religiously involved people (e.g., undergraduates with a moderate interest in religion) score higher on
the quest-scale
In addition to Donahue’s criticism that IR does not fully capture mature religiosity, one other important
criticism pertains to the conceptual clarity of the religious orientation construct: is it a motivational concept, a
personality feature or a cognitive construct (Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990)? In the present contribution, we will
evaluate the IR-ER distinction against a well-validated motivational framework, that is, SDT, and against the
social-cognitive approach towards religious contents, as articulated in Wulff’s model.
Self-Determination Theory
In SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000), intrinsically motivated behavior is seen as the hallmark of autonomous
functioning, that is, functioning with a sense of psychological freedom, volition and perceived choice.
Intrinsic motivation refers to the enactment of an activity in absence of any external incentives. Intrinsically
motivated behavior is autotelic because it is performed for no other reason than the feelings of satisfaction,
fun, and pleasure that are associated with the enactment of the behavior itself. Intrinsic motivation is
differentiated from extrinsic motivation which pertains to carrying out an activity to attain an outcome that is
separate from the activity itself (Lens, 1997; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Interestingly, SDT does not treat extrinsic motivation in a homogeneous way, instead distinguishing
four types of extrinsic motivation as a function of the degree to which the reason for performing the activity
has been internalized (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Internalization is defined as an active process through which
beliefs, values, attitudes or behavioral regulations are gradually transformed into self-endorsed attributes,
values or regulations such that they become part of one’s sense of self (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997). As
the reason for performing a certain behavior becomes more internalized, the extrinsically motivated
behavior will be experienced as relatively more autonomous.
The following four types of extrinsically motivated religious behaviors can be differentiated. First, a
behavior is externally regulated when it is induced by others; the behavior is forced upon the person by the
promise of an incentive or the threat of a punishment. As the behavior is controlled by social forces alien to
the self, the reason for enacting the behavior is not internalized at all; hence, the behavior will be emitted
Religious Orientations 6
with a sense of pressure. An adolescent who attends church only to meet parental obligations is said to be
externally regulated. Second, in case the external reasons for performing the activity are partially
internalized, the behavioral regulation is said to be introjected. Because the behavior is not wholeheartedly
endorsed but only partially taken in, a conflict will likely arise between those introjects and other personal
inclinations. Such an internal conflict will engender negative feelings such as anxiety, guilt and shame,
which one will try to suppress by performing the behavior. Going to church to avoid feelings of guilt for not
doing so is an example of introjected regulation. The behavioral regulation will be more internalized when
one comes to identify with the reason for enacting the behavior. In the case of identified regulation, the
behavior is perceived as personally relevant and, hence, will be enacted with a sense of autonomy and
genuine personal commitment. Finally, through critical self-reflection an identified reason or value can
become fully integrated, that is, flexibly brought in congruence with other personally relevant self-structures
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Hodgins & Knee, 2002). Integrated regulation is conceptualized as the most
autonomous form of extrinsic motivation as the enactment of the activity is fully endorsed and will emanate
from one’s sense of self. Social work instigated by a strong identification with Christian core-values such as
“loving thy neighbor” represents an example of identified regulation. This value can be brought in line with
other values and regulations such as the value one attaches to helping behavior, thus representing an
integrated regulation.
In sum, controlled motivation reflects a pressured engagement in the activity, with the pressure either
originating from external forces (i.e., external regulation) or residing in the person (i.e., introjected
regulation). Both internalized forms of extrinsic motivation (i.e., identified and integrated regulations) and
intrinsic motivation are in SDT referred to as autonomous motivation as one willingly engages in the activity
in both cases. However, it is important to note that intrinsic motivation and internalized extrinsic motivation
differ in some respects. A person’s inherent interest in the task at hand forms the starting point for intrinsic
motivation to develop. Because people feel naturally attracted to perform an activity which is intrinsically
enjoyable or interesting, they will experience a sense of spontaneity and psychological freedom when
following their interests. While intrinsically motivated behavior lacks instrumentality in its characteristics,
identified and integrated regulation are both instrumental in obtaining some outcome and, as such, are both
forms of extrinsic motivation.
The conceptual distinction between controlled and autonomous motivation and between qualitatively
different types of extrinsic motivation has been examined in several life domains, including the domain of
religion (see Neyrinck, Lens, & Vansteenkiste, 2005 for an overview). Research has shown that a more
Religious Orientations 7
internalized behavioral regulation of religious behaviors is positively related to well-being, a more frequent
engagement in religious behaviors (Ryan, Rigby, & King, 1993), and a more flexible approach towards
religious contents (Assor, Cohen-Malayev, Kaplan, & Friedman, 2005; Neyrinck, Vansteenkiste, Lens,
Duriez, & Hutsebaut, 2006).
Social-cognitive Approaches towards Religion
In addition to considering the motivation underlying religious behaviors, the question can be raised
how religious contents are cognitively approached. According to Wulff (1997), all possible approaches to
religion can be located in a two-dimensional space, organized around two orthogonal bipolar dimensions.
The vertical axis “exclusion versus inclusion of transcendence” refers to the degree to which a
transcendental reality is thought to exist, and as such, pertains to whether people believe or not. The
horizontal axis “literal versus symbolic” indicates the way in which religious contents are interpreted and
processed, that is, in a flexible, symbolic or in a more rigid, literal way. The Post-Critical Belief Scale (PCBS,
e.g., Fontaine, et al., 2003) was developed to measure these two dimensions with respect to Christian belief
contents. In the PCBS, exclusion versus inclusion of transcendence refers to the degree to which one does
(not) adhere to Christian thought, that is, the degree to which one believes in or rejects a transcendental
realm as conceived in this religion. The literal versus symbolic dimension refers to a rigid versus more
flexible interpretation of these religious contents.
Crossing both orthogonal dimensions (i.e., exclusion versus inclusion and literal versus symbolic)
results in four different approaches towards religion. Symbolic inclusion entails an open-minded processing
of religious contents through critical reflection and a flexible integration of these elements with other internal
cognitive structures (Ricoeur, 1970). In the case of symbolic exclusion, religious contents are not personally
adhered, although they are not straightforwardly rejected. Instead, religious beliefs are viewed as one
meaning system among many other possible meaning systems, although people scoring high symbolic
exclusion tend to rely on other meaning systems than religiosity to find purpose in life.
In contrast to these symbolic approaches, literal approaches entail a more rigid, one-sided view of
Christian religious contents. Literal inclusion of belief contents means that only ideas, norms and values that
are in accordance to Holy Scriptures are acknowledged and that perspectives of disbelief are defensively
rejected. Literal exclusion entails a similar defensive functioning. However, rather than rigidly sticking to the
Religious Orientations 8
Catholic belief system, this system is now defensively rejected; it is blocked as a possible meaningproviding framework.
Drawing Connections between Allport, SDT and Wulff
Against the background of SDT and Wulff’s framework, we argue that Allport’s IR and ER are
essentially motivational in nature, while Batson’s quest rather represents a social-cognitive approach
towards religion. Regarding Allport’s IR, several, if not all, descriptions of this construct indicate that it yields
considerable overlap with an autonomous regulation of religiosity, as conceived within SDT. To illustrate,
Gorsuch (1997, p. 13), reframes IR in terms of intrinsic motivation: “the motivation for experiencing and
living one’s religious faith for the sake of the faith itself. The person’s religion is “an end unto itself, a goal
pursued in the absence of external reinforcement”. This quote indicates that IR represents intrinsic
motivation, as defined in SDT. However, this description of IR pertains to only one part of what Allport
originally described. Allport (1950) defines a mature religious person as having a well-developed and
differentiated view on religion. Moreover, needs and motives are brought into harmony with religious beliefs
and prescriptions, which are organised and integrated in the deeper life of the person (Allport & Ross,
1967). As such, processes of internalization and accommodation also seem to be characteristic of IR,
indicating that Allport’s IR shares considerable overlap with SDT’s internalized and, hence, autonomous
forms of extrinsically motivated behavior. In sum, based on these descriptions of Allport’s IR, it can be
predicted that IR will be closely related to both intrinsic motivation and the autonomous forms of extrinsic
motivation for religious activities, as conceived within SDT.
Allport’s description of ER clearly indicates that ER represents a form of extrinsic motivation as
defined within SDT. Religious behavior is not performed as its own end, but to achieve outcomes separable
from the activity itself (i.e., security and affiliation). Although it is clear that Allport’s ER reflects extrinsic
motivation, it is less clear whether it represents a relatively more autonomous or a relatively more controlled
type of extrinsic motivation. On the one hand, it has been argued that an extrinsic religious orientation is
lightly held and “not well integrated in the deeper life of the subject” (Allport, 1950, p. 59), suggesting that
ER represents a non-internalized and, hence, non-autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. On the other
hand, Allport does not mention pressure as a critical component or descriptor of ER. Allport even stated that
people with this orientation “feel no obligation to attend church regularly” (Allport, 1966, p. 455, italics
Religious Orientations 9
added). Hence, ER seems to be related to neither autonomous nor controlled regulations of religious
behavior.
Finally, given that Batson’s concept of quest orientation is primarily social-cognitive rather than
motivational in nature, quest can be clearly linked to Wulff’s model of social-cognitive approaches towards
religion. More specifically, as Batson’s quest-orientation represents an open exploration of the many
different meanings that can be found in religious contents, it seems to involve a flexible and symbolic socialcognitive approach as defined in Wulff’s model.
Present Research
The overarching aim of this study is to examine how Allport’s IR and ER orientations and Batson’s
quest dimension map onto two well-established frameworks for conceptualizing and measuring motives for
religiosity (SDT) and cognitive processing of religious beliefs (Wulff’s model). Two sets of conflicting
hypotheses regarding the relationships between Allport’s orientations and SDT’s regulations can be
forwarded. First, a superficial analysis of Allport’s intrinsic-extrinsic religious orientation distinction suggests
that this pair of concepts can be directly equated with the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation distinction within
SDT. Hence, Allport’s IR should correlate positively with SDT’s intrinsic motivation, while both Ep and Es
should correlate with both SDT’s autonomous and controlled extrinsic motivation.
However, a more thorough conceptual analysis of Allport and SDT indicates that a different pattern of
correlations might emerge. First, given Gorsuch’s definition of IR in terms of intrinsic motivation, IR should
correlate positively with SDT’s intrinsic motivation. Moreover, given that elements such as internalization
and organization characterize Allport’s IR, we predict that IR will correlate positively with SDT’s identified
and integrated regulation. We do not predict a clear pattern of relations of Extrinsic-personal and Extrinsicsocial with autonomous and controlled regulations. Finally, given that Batson’s quest orientation is not
motivational in nature, we do not expect the quest-scale to relate to SDT’s regulation items.
In contrast, because the quest orientation primarily entails cognitive flexibility in dealing with religious
issues, we expect the quest orientation to correlate positively with a symbolic approach of religious
contents. Furthermore, we will explore whether quest does or does not measure religiosity, that is, whether
it will correlate positively or negatively with inclusion of transcendence. Furthermore, some specific
hypotheses regarding the relations between the religious orientations and social-cognitive approaches
towards religion can be forwarded. On the one hand, given that Allport’s IR includes a strong commitment to
Religious Orientations 10
religious beliefs (e.g., Donahue, 1985), we expect a positive correlation between IR and inclusion of
transcendence. We expect the correlation between both Ep and Es scales and inclusion to be positive also,
because Ep and Es both represent religious orientations. However, this relation will be less strong than the
former correlation between IR and inclusion. Furthermore, we do not have clear expectations regarding the
correlations between Allport’s constructs and literal versus symbolic components.
The proposed hypotheses will be tested cross-sectionally in a broad sample of religiously active
participants.
Method
Participants
A total of 144 participants of a two-day theological conference in Leuven, Belgium completed our
questionnaire. Sixty-seven participants (47%) were male. The average age of the participants was 53 years
(SD = 15), ranging from 21 to 83 years. Twenty-three percent of the participants prayed very often, 39%
often, 26% from time to time, 11% seldom and 1% never. Thirty-three percent attended church very often,
41% often, 19% from time to time, and 7% seldom.
Measures
All measures were presented in Dutch, the participant’s mother tongue. All scales were 5-point Likert
scales ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree), except the PCBS, which was rated on
a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree).
Age-Universal I-E Scale-12. Allport’s religious orientations were measured with the twelve item Age
Universal I-E Scale (Maltby, 1999). Both the eigenvalue > 1 criterium and the scree-plot of a principal
component analysis (PCA) pointed to a three-component solution (eigenvalues 3.34, 2.30, and 1.32),
explaining 58% of the variance. Interestingly, after an oblique Promax rotation, only three out of the six IRitems loaded on one component. The other three IR-items loaded on one component together with the three
Ep-items. The three Es-items clearly constituted the third component. However, we decided to compute our
scales consistent with the literature. Accordingly, three scales were computed: IR (six items, e.g., “My whole
approach to life is based on my religion”, M = 4.30, SD = 0.54; Cronbach’s alpha = .70), Ep (three items,
e.g., “What religion offers me most is comfort in times of trouble and sorrow”, M = 2.84, SD = 0.83,
Cronbach’s alpha = . .67) and Es (three items, e.g., “I go to church mostly to spend time with friends”, M =
2.05, SD = 0.88, Cronbach’s alpha = .85). The IR- and Ep-scale were positively correlated: r(144)=.25, p <
Religious Orientations 11
.01; also the Ep- and Es-scale correlated positively: r(144)=.28, p < .01. IR and Es did not correlate
significantly.
Batson’s quest orientation. Participants completed the twelve item quest-scale of Batson,
Schoenrade, and Ventis (1993). The scale was translated and back translated by three psychologists who
are well familiar with the literature on religiosity and motivation. The scale contains three subcomponents,
each measured with four items: openness to change (e.g., “As I grow and change, I expect my religion also
to grow and change”), perception of religious doubt as positive (“For me, doubting is an important part of what
it means to be religious”), and readiness to face existential questions without reducing their complexity (e.g.,
“God wasn’t very important to me until I began to ask questions about the meaning of my own life”). However,
the scree-plot pointed to a one-component solution (eigenvalue = 3.35), explaining 28% of the variance.
Accordingly, the twelve-item quest-scale was computed (M = 3.32, SD = 0.52, Cronbach’s alpha = .72).
Batson’s quest did not correlate with any of Allport’s religious orientations.
Religious Motivation Scale. Participants were asked to report their most important religious activity,
that is, the activity that is most helpful in expressing their religious belief attitude (see Neyrinck, et al., 2006,
for more details). Examples of listed activities included “reading and discussing religious literature”, “going
to church”; “teaching religion”, and “living life with full attention”. After generating this activity, intrinsic (e.g.,
“Because I simply enjoy it”), internalized (a combination of integrated and identified regulation, e.g.,
“Because I fully endorse it”) and controlled (i.e., a combination of introjected and external regulation, e.g.,
“Because I would feel guilty if I don’t”) regulation were measured with three items each. Both the scree plot
and the eigenvalue > 1 criterion of the PCA on these nine items indicated a three-component solution
(eigenvalues 2.50, 1.88, and 1.48), explaining 65% of the variance. The promax rotated component pattern
was clearly interpretable as intrinsic, internalized, and controlled regulation. Accordingly, three scales were
computed: intrinsic motivation (M = 3.80, SD = 0.90, Cronbach’s alpha = .75), internalized regulation (M =
4.36, SD = 0.54, Cronbach’s alpha = .73) and controlled regulation (M = 1.73, SD = 0.77, Cronbach’s alpha
= .64). Intrinsic motivation and internalized regulation correlated positively [r(144) = .23, p < .01], while
controlled regulation did not correlate to any other regulation.
Post-Critical Belief scale (PCBS). Participants completed the shortened (18-item) Post-Critical Belief
Scale (Dutch version, Duriez, Soenens, & Hutsebaut, 2005) measuring four approaches towards religion:
Literal inclusion (five items; e.g., “I think that Bible stories should be taken literally, as they are written”);
symbolic inclusion (four items; e.g., “Despite the high number of injustices Christianity has caused people,
the original message of Christ is still valuable to me); literal exclusion (five items; e.g., “Faith is an
Religious Orientations 12
expression of a weak personality”); and symbolic exclusion (four items; e.g., “I am well aware my ideology is
only one possibility among so many others”). To control for individual differences in acquiescence, the
individual average score over all items was subtracted from the raw item scores (for a detailed description
of this procedure, see Fontaine, et al., 2003). A PCA was then carried out on the corrected scores. A scree
test pointed to a two-component solution (eigenvalues 3.82 and 2.38), explaining 36 percent of the
variance. After orthogonal Procrustes rotation towards the estimated average structure computed across 16
samples (Fontaine et al., 2003), these two components could be interpreted in terms of (exclusion versus)
inclusion of transcendence and a (literal versus) symbolic approach of religious contents. Tucker’s Phi
indices were .96 for Inclusion and .94 for Symbolic, suggesting good congruence between the sample
specific and the average configuration (Bentler & Bonett, 1980; Van de Vijver & Leung, 1997). The higher
the score on inclusion, the more the Christian message is adhered to. The higher the score on symbolic, the
more religious contents are processed in a flexible, symbolic fashion. Scores on both components were
standardized, hence M = 0 and SD = 1.
Results
Preliminary Analysis
Age and Gender. Preliminary analyses were conducted to examine relations of the study variables
with gender and age. A significant multivariate effect of gender was found, Wilk’s Lambda = 0.83, F(9,134)
= 3.00, p < .01, partial η² = .17. Females (M = 3.00, SD = 0.80) obtained higher scores on Allport’s Ep in
comparison to males, M = 2.65, SD = 0.82, F(1,142) = 6.82, p < .05, η² = .05. The same gender differences
were found for Batson’s quest, females: M = 3.42, SD = 0.50; males: M = 3.20, SD = 0.52, F(1,142) = 9.05,
p < .01, η² = .05; and SDT’s intrinsic motivation, females: M = 3.95, SD = 0.85, males: M = 3.62, SD = 0.93,
F(1,142) = 4.84, p < .05, η² =.03. Furthermore, age correlated significantly with Allport’s IR, r(144) = .32, p <
.001; with Batson’s quest , r(144) = -.20, p < .05, with SDT’s intrinsic motivation, r(144) = -.29, p < .001; and
symbolic approach, , r(144) = -.25, p < .01. Given these age and gender relations, we will control for these
background variables in the regression analyses.
Primary Analysis
Correlations. Correlations between the study variables are presented in Table 1. Allport’s IR
correlated significantly positively with internalized regulation and inclusion. Ep showed a positive relation
with intrinsic motivation, internalized regulation, and inclusion. It correlated negatively with symbolic
Religious Orientations 13
approach. Es correlated positively with both intrinsic motivation and controlled regulation. Batson’s quest
scale was uncorrelated with any motivational regulation. However, it correlated negatively with inclusion and
positively with symbolic.
Regression Analyses. To examine the empirical relation between the three SDT regulations
(intrinsic, internalized, and controlled) and the two PCBS dimensions (inclusion and symbolic) and Allport
and Batson’s constructs, a series of hierarchical regression analyses was performed. In a first step, Allport
and Batson’s religious orientations were simultaneously regressed on the background variables age and
gender and the three SDT-based regulations. In a second step, the two PCBS dimensions were added as
predictors (see Table 2). IR was positively predicted by internalized regulation and both PCBS dimensions
inclusion and symbolic. Further, none of the associations with Allport’s Ep stayed significant controlling for
gender and age. The only significant (positive) predictors of Es were intrinsic and controlled regulation.
Consistent with the pattern of correlations obtained, Batson’s quest was negatively predicted by inclusion
and positively by symbolic.
General Discussion
The aim of this article was to relate the concepts of intrinsic, extrinsic and quest orientations that have
been extensively examined within the psychology of religion to (a) the behavioral regulations discerned
within self-determination theory and (b) Wulff’s model of cognitive approaches towards religion. By
empirically linking these different frameworks, we aimed to address the more general question whether
Allport’s and Batson’s concepts represent a motivational regulation, a cognitive style or a mix of both.
Intrinsic Religious Orientation
One of the interesting findings of the present research concerns the quite strong positive relation
between Allport’s concept of IR and internalized regulation as conceptualized within SDT. Within SDT,
internalized regulation represents an autonomous form of extrinsic motivation, because the reason and
value for enacting the behavior is personally endorsed, such that one engages in the activity willingly or
volitionally. The positive association between both constructs is in line with Allport’s own descriptions of IR
as the internalization of religious beliefs and values, through which religion becomes the central motive in
one’s life. Although both scales were quite strongly correlated (i.e., .45), both are characterized by a
substantial amount of unique variance, suggesting that both concepts are similar, yet distinct. Whereas IR
and SDT’s internalized regulation are similar in the sense that psychological material is internalized into
Religious Orientations 14
one’s self-structures, they are likely to differ from one another with respect to the content that gets
internalized. Whereas in IR religious contents are personally subscribed to and fully endorsed, in the case
of internalized regulation, the regulation or value for performing a religious behavior is fully accepted and
internalized. Further attesting to the interpretation of IR as valuing religious contents, a unique positive
relation between IR and inclusion of transcendence was found. As the latter measures the degree of
adherence to Christian religious contents, Allport’s IR also measures the strength of religious belief, next to
motivation for religiosity or religious behaviors. In this vein, we align ourselves with Kirkpatrick and Hood’s
(1990) and Donahue’s (1985) argument of IR representing a commitment to religiosity. Remark that the
correlation of .45 could also be influenced by our specific way of measuring. Measuring the SDT-based
regulations, we asked participants openly for their most important religious activity. If we look at Allport’s IR
items, then we recognize themes such as “to live my life according to my religious beliefs”, “to base my
approach to life on my religion”, “searching for answers about the meaning of life” and “to spend time in
private thought and prayer”. If we would have probed for the SDT-based motivations of these “activities”, the
correlation between IR and identified regulation could have been stronger.
Different from the strong positive correlation between Allport’s concept of IR and internalized
regulation, it is quite puzzling that Allport’s IR was unrelated to SDT’s concept of intrinsic motivation. Within
SDT, intrinsic motivation refers to the enactment of the religious behavior for the mere satisfaction or
enjoyment it provides and is considered, in addition to internalized motivation, as a highly autonomous form
of motivation. Several elements can be put forward to better grasp the null relation between IR and intrinsic
motivation.
First, at the conceptual level, it should be noted that although Gorsuch (1997) redefines IR in terms of
intrinsic motivation, Allport himself did not use elements such as fun, pleasure or interest to describe IR.
Given the lack of such descriptions in Allport’s writings, it seems logical that IR is less strongly related to
intrinsic motivation compared to internalized motivation. Second, with respect to the operationalization of IR,
only one single item in Allport’s IR scale (i.e., ‘I enjoy reading about my religion’) pertains to the enjoyment
of a religious activity, whereas all other items refer to the personal endorsement of one’s religious beliefs.
Given the imbalance in the IR items tapping into pleasure and enjoyment vs. personal valuation of religion,
it is logical that IR is more strongly related to internalized than to intrinsic motivation, as conceived within
SDT. Third, the lack of similarity between both constructs could also be due to the different measures used.
To measure SDT’s intrinsic motivation, we presented reasons such as fun, enjoyment or interest of their
personally important religious activity. The scale measuring Allport’s IR contains only one item pertaining to
Religious Orientations 15
the enjoyment of a religious activity: “I enjoy reading about my religion”. Hence, if we would have measured
different reasons for a predefined activity such as “reading about religious themes”, we could have obtained
a stronger correlation between intrinsic motivation and IR.
In short, because of all of these reasons, it seems premature to draw any conclusions from the (lack
of) relation between IR and intrinsic motivation. This issue deserves further investigation. What can be
concluded, however, is that the term intrinsic in Allport’s IR refers to the fully acceptance and endorsement
of one’s religious contents, which would be labelled a as internalized, an autonomous form of extrinsic
motivation within SDT.
A further question is whether Allport’s IR orientation also represents a particular cognitive style of
dealing with religious contents. The current research points out that IR was positively related to a symbolic
approach towards religious contents, suggesting that IR also entails a more flexible approach of religious
issues. Overall, the current findings thus point out that of Allport’s IR might represent a mix of (a) a religious
belief orientation (as it correlates with inclusion), (b) an internalized regulation for religion or religious
behaviors, and (c) a flexible, symbolic interpretation of belief contents. However, our correlational findings
do not exclude the possibility that Allport’s IR construct primarily taps into a motivational orientation that
goes along with a stronger adherence to religious contents and a more flexible approach towards religious
contents rather than representing a cognitive style per se (see Neyrinck, et al., 2006 for a similar argument).
Finally, it is interesting to note that the positive relation between Allport’s IR and symbolic approach
contradicts Batson et al.’s (1993) suggestion that an intrinsic believer is compulsive, conservative and
uncritical. Of course, a replication in a sample of more literal believers would be even more strong evidence.
A high score of IR in a sample of more literal believers would entail the internalization of more conservative
religious contents. Possibly, in such a sample, that would result in a positive correlation between IR and
literal approach of religious contents.
Extrinsic Religious Orientation
The significant correlations between Ep and Es and the motivational regulations within SDT were
substantially lower than the relation between IR and internalized regulation. These findings point to an
empirical divergence between Allport’s ER and SDT’s regulations, which we had theoretically predicted.
Religion is lightly held in an extrinsic religious orientation, pointing that a regulation for religious behaviors
will not be internalized. However, an extrinsic religious person does not experience any obligation to
perform religious activities, suggesting no correlation with an external or internal psychological pressure
entailing a controlled regulation. A similar point was made by Neyrinck, et al. (2005), who argued that both
Religious Orientations 16
Allport’s Ep and Es cannot clearly be placed in the SDT framework of regulations of behavior. Both extrinsic
religious orientations refer to certain goal contents pursued through religion. One tries to find a certain form
of security or comfort in religion, or religion serves the goal of social affiliation. In SDT, next to the
regulations of behaviors, behaviors serve the attainment of different goals. As such, intrinsic goals (e.g.,
self-development, affiliation or community contribution) are theoretically contrasted with extrinsic goals (e.g.,
financial success, fame and physical attractiveness; Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996; Vansteenkiste, Lens, &
Deci, 2006). Importantly, the regulations of and the goal contents (pursued through behavior) are
conceptualized to be orthogonal (Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004). Going to church to attain social
affiliation can be regulated autonomously or controlled, just like one can feel free or obligated to contribute
to the community by donating money. Attesting to this relative orthogonality, Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, and
Kasser (2004) have shown a relatively low correlation between relative autonomous functioning and intrinsic
versus extrinsic goal pursuit. Moreover, both relative autonomy and goal pursuit showed an independent
effect on well-being.
Following Neyrinck, et al. (2005), Allport’s IR can be conceptualized as autonomous behavioral
regulations, while both Ep and Es can be framed as goal-pursuits through behavior. In our opinion, this
answers the “thorny issue” of bipolarity or orthogonality of IR and ER. From an SDT-perspective, both are
clearly orthogonal, which is fully in line with several empirical studies (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 1989). Furthermore,
regarding the question whether Allport’s religious orientations would measure cognitive styles, we only
found a small and unreliable negative correlation between Ep and symbolic approach. Hence, both ER
scales are not clearly related to cognitive styles in approaching religious contents.
Batson’s Quest Orientation
Regarding Batson’s quest orientation, our findings clearly point into the interpretation of this as a
measure of cognitive style and not motivation. Surprisingly, Batson’s quest scale showed to consist of two
components: an openness to change and doubt component, next to posing complex existential questions.
Interestingly, both components showed to be quite different, attesting their zero-correlation and different
correlations to external variables. As expected, the quest scales did not relate to motivational regulations,
attesting them to be not motivational in nature. As expected, the openness/doubt scale correlated
significantly positive with a symbolic approach of religious contents. Interestingly, given our measure of
belief-unbelief (inclusion versus exclusion of transcendence), this openness/doubt scale showed to be
correlated with symbolic unbelief. This is in line with Donahue’s (1985) concerns about quest measuring
unbelief, and can be seen as evidence against Batson’s claim of quest indeed measuring a religious
Religious Orientations 17
orientation. Again, one sees the advantage of including the PCBS measure to disentangle belief and
unbelief. Of course, this first finding relating quest and unbelief awaits empirical replication.
Conclusion
It was our intention to underline Kirkpatrick and Hood’s (1990, p. 448) point that “a serious approach
to researching the topic of motivation for religious involvement … should begin with a rich psychological
theory of human motivation”. Psychologists of religion need to look further than their own backyard,
reducing the distance with mainstream theoretical and empirical psychology. Kirkpatrick and Hood (1990)
go even further suggesting to drop religious orientation items, replacing them with new items based on
theoretical frameworks. In our modest opinion, the qualitatively more differentiated SDT-based regulations
of religious behaviors can be a candidate, just like Wulff’s model that qualitatively differentiates styles of
(un)belief. As we have shown, these frameworks can be meaningfully compared with Allport’s model.
Further research needs to show their possible independent effects on external variables, or the possibility to
reduce some of the effects to one or more of the measures, giving a more parsimonious solution.
Religious orientations 18
References
Allport, G. W. (1950). The individual and his religion. NY: Macmillan.
Allport, G. W. (1966). The religious context of prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 447457.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
Assor, A., Cohen-Malayev, M., Kaplan, A., & Friedman, D. (2005). Choosing to stay religious in a modern
world: Socialization and exploration processes leading to an integrated internalization of religion
among israeli jewish youth. In M.L. Maehr & S. Karabenick (Eds.). Advances in motivation and
achievement, Vol. 14. Motivation and Religion (pp. 105-150). Greenwich, Conn.: Jai Press Inc.
Batson, C. D. (1976). Religion as prosocial: Agent or double agent? Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 15, 29-45.
Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychological
perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analyses of covariance
structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 18, 105-115.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum Publishing Co.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Donahue, M. J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400-419.
Duriez, B., & Hutsebaut, D. (in press). A slow and easy introduction to the Post-Critical Belief Scale. Internal
structure and external relationships. In D. M. Wulff (Ed.), Handbook of the Psychology of Religion.
Oxford University Press.
Duriez, B., Soenens, B. & Hutsebaut, D. (2005). Introducing the shortened Post-Critical Belief Scale.
Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 851-857.
Religious orientations 19
Fontaine, J.R.J., Duriez, B., Luyten, P. & Hutsebaut, D. (2003). The internal structure of the Post-Critical
Belief scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 501-518.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1997). Toward motivational theories of intrinsic religious commitment. In B. Spilka & D.N.
McIntosh (Eds.). The psychology of religion: Theoretical approaches. (pp. 11-22). Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination
theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children's internalization of
values: A handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135-161). New York: Wiley.
Hunt, R. A., & King, M. B. (1971). The intrinsic-extrinsic concept: A review and evaluation. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 339-356.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a
central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410-422.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic
and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280-287.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1989). A psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin measures of intrinsicextrinsic religious orientation. In M. Lynn & D. Moberg (Eds.), Research in the social scientific study of
religion (Vol. 1, pp. 1-30). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
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, 442-462.
Lens, W. (1997). Studiemotivatie. [Study Motivation]. De Psycholoog, 32, 53-59.
Maltby, J. (1999). The internal structure of a derived, revised, and amended measure of the religious
orientation scale: the ‘age-universal’ I-E scale-12. Social Behavior and Personality, 27(4), 407-412.
Neyrinck , B., Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Goals and regulations of religiosity: A motivational
analysis. In M.L. Maehr & S. Karabenick (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 14
Motivation and Religion (pp. 77-106). Greenwich , Conn.: Jai Press Inc.
Neyrinck, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Hutsebaut, D., & Duriez, B. (2006). Cognitive, affective and
behavioral correlates of internalization of regulations for religious activities. Motivation and Emotion,
30, 321-332.
Ricoeur, P. (1970). Freud and Philosophy: An essay on interpretation. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University
Press. (Translated by D. Savage, Original French edition 1965).
Religious orientations 20
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan
(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester
Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology
need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74, 1557-1586.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S., & King, K. (1993). Two types of religious internalization and their relations to
religious orientations and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 586-596.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and
motives on well-being: It's both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475-486.
Van de Vijver, F. & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. London: Sage.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal-contents in selfdetermination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist,
41, 19-31.
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self-determination theory and the explanatory role of
psychological needs in human well-being. In L. Bruni, F. Comim, & M. Pugno (Eds.), Capabilities and
happiness (pp. 187-223). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wulff, D. M. (1997). Psychology of religion: Classic & contemporary. New York: Wiley.
Religious orientations 21
Table 1
Correlations between main study variables
Allport IR
Allport Ep
Allport Es
Batson Quest
-.02
.17*
.31***
.12
Internalized
.45***
.17*
.09
.09
Controlled
.07
.11
.23**
.04
Inclusion
.32***
.18*
-.15
-.28**
-.17*
-.10
.28**
Intrinsic
Symbolic
.11
Note: * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001.
Religious orientations 22
Table 2
Regression analyses predicting religious orientations
Allport IR
Allport Ep
Allport Es
Batson Quest
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
Step 1
Step 2
-.08
-.09
.22*
.22**
.06
.07
.17*
.17*
.28***
.32***
.17
.11
.06
.05
-.16
-.07
-.02
.04
.16
.15
.34***
.30**
.03
.03
Internalized
.44***
.37***
.11
.09
-.01
.04
.08
.14
Controlled
.04
.05
.10
.10
.26**
.25**
.04
.05
Gender
Age
Intrinsic
Inclusion
.22**
.15
-.15
-.28**
Symbolic
.21**
-.14
-.08
.22**
R²
.31***
.38***
.12**
Note: * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001.
.16**
.17***
.19***
.08*
.21***