Toward the Measurement of

Commitment Strength*
R o n a l d C. W i m b e r l e y
North Carolina State University

This paper suggests that strength of commitment be measured apart from the underlying
commitment positions. This suggestion is empirically directed to the study of religious commit-
ments where much conceptual and empirical effort has been spent. Guttman attitudinal compo-

Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org by guest on September 16, 2010

nents plus items of ah intrinsic-extrinsic nature ate offered as possible guidelines f or measuring
this strength. Data on commitment and its strength in the dimension of religious experience are
considered for content and intensity respectively. Inferences are drawn for increasing the
predictive ability of religious commitments and for studying extra-religious commitments.

T h e concept o f c o m m i t m e n t strength can be distinguished f r o m the mere

adherence to a particular position. T h e term c o m m i t m e n t will refer to a positions
or alternative which one might hold while commitment stren~th refers to the
degree such a position is held.
Guttman (1954) outlines and describes four principal components of scalable
attitudes--content, intensity, closure, and involution---which might be used as
points of d e p a r t u r e for measuring commitments and their strengths. Content
refers to various positions within a particular universe. Therefore, content scales
would seem to indicate c o m m i t m e n t dimensions. T h e components of intensity,
closure, and involution suggest indicators o f c o m m i t m e n t strength to the underly-
ing positions. Intensity refers to the importance attached to a position. Closure
suggests a disregard for alternative positions. Involution is used to imply t h a t o n e
has stopped c o n s i d e ¡ other alternatives or has b e g u n to act on a certain
alternative. Until now, G u t t m a n (1954) has been the only researcher to establish
empirically all four attitude components, although other investigators (Henry,
1957; Riland, 1959; and Dotson, 1 9 6 2 ) h a v e been able to find content and
intensity. Consequently, measures o f c o m m i t m e n t and c o m m i t m e n t strength that
are analogous to content and intensity will be of concern here.

Religious Commitment and Its Strength

Although a scale of positions in a religious dimension can indicate an alternative
to which one is committed, one's c o m m i t m e n t to a particular alternative does not
necessarily reveal the strength with which that position is held. For instance, a
scale of c o m m i t m e n t to a religious belief may find a person either liberal or
conservative, but it cannot be assumed there is a weak c o m m i t m e n t to religion
because he or she is liberal, o r a strong c o m m i t m e n t because he or she is conserva-
tive, or vice versa. To determine whether the commitment is strong or weak, a

*Comments and suggestions by Louis E. Dotson are appreciated. Data were made available by the
Education Division and the Research and Statistics Department of the Southern Baptist Convention.

211
212 SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS

separate m e a s u r e m e n t is n e e d e d . A l t h o u g h this distinction m a y seem fairly obvi-

ous, confusion a p p e a r s in literature on religious dimensions. Glock a n d Stark
(1965:25-26) acknowledge a distinction b e t w e e n beliefs and their salience. T h e y
also point to the n e e d for s t u d y i n g d e g r e e o f religious c o m m i t m e n t s (Stark and
Glock, 1968:2). H o w e v e r , the distinction is v a g u e in parts of their own analyses
a n d in some of Lenski's conceptualizations. 1
Based on these considerations, attention is now directed to the p r o b l e m of
m e a s u r i n g a d i m e n s i o n o f religious c o m m i t m e n t positions a p a r t f r o m a d i m e n -
sion o f c o m m i t m e n t s t r e n g t h a n d to the analysis o f their interrelationships along
the lines of G u t t m a n ' s c o m p o n e n t s o f c o n t e n t and intensity. T h e r e f o r e , this
a t t e m p t is toward an empirical as well a s a conceptual explication.

Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org by guest on September 16, 2010

Methods
Data on religious positions and s t r e n g t h o f c o m m i t m e n t to such positions were
obtained by mail questionnaires f r o m 812 S o u t h e r n Baptist adults in Texas.
S a m p l i n g was t h r o u g h a r a n d o m , multi-stage p r o c e d u r e . Lenski's (1961) items on
devotionalism p r o v i d e d an a p p r o a c h to some c o m m i t m e n t positions. A m e a s u r e
o f s t r e n g t h o f c o m m i t m e n t to such positions was p r o v i d e d within Feagin's (1964)
subscale items on intrinsic a n d extrinsic religion.
Items on devotionalism, as d e s i g n e d for questionnaires, i n q u i r e d " H o w often
do you pray?" and " W h e n you have decisions to m a k e in y o u r e v e r y d a y life do you
ask y o u r s e l f what God would want you to do?" D e s p i t e being restricted in n u m b e r ,
these items were subjected to various criteria for scalability a n d f o u n d adequate, z
Items were selected f r o m Feagin's (1964) scales which most a p p r o p r i a t e l y
reflected the s t r e n g t h o f the c o m m i t m e n t c o n t e n t positions in the items on
devotionalism. T h e a s s u m p t i o n is that a m e a s u r e o f s t r e n g t h should c o r r e s p o n d
to a dimension o f a p a r t i c u l a r content. C o n s e q u e n t l y , the intrinsic-extrinsic items
chosen were: (a) " T h e p u r p o s e o f p r a y e r is to secure a h a p p y a n d peaceful life."
(b) "Quite often I have b e e n keenly aware o f the presence o f God or o f the Divine
Being." (c) " T h e p r a y e r s I say when I am alone carry as m u c h m e a n i n g a n d
personal e m o t i o n as those said by me d u r i n g a service." (d) "Ir is i m p o r t a n t to me
to s p e n d periods o f time in private religious t h o u g h t a n d meditation." Five-point

In the belief dimension, Glock and Stark (1968: 57) propose to categorize individuals by the degree of
commitment to religious beliefs. However, in their measure of the ritual dimension fora nationwide
sample, Stark and Glock ( 1968:104-105) combine questions on the general importarlce of religion with
an item on commitment to a religious behavior. They also combine frequency of private prayer with
importance ofprayer to measure private religious ¡ (Stark and Glock, 1968:121). Likewise, Lenski
(1961:57) conceptually associates orthodox belief with being strongly committed to religious beliefs.
He also defines devotionalism as the importance of personal communication with God, yet
operationalizes the concept as types of religious behavior positions (Lenski, 1961:25,57).
2This is certainly not offered as a rigorous example ofa Guttman scale since there were only two items.
However, assurance of scalability was slightly improved by trichotomizing the frequency of the item on
prayer. The item on asking help in everyday matters was only dichotomized because of a preponder-
ance of responses in two categories. Their coefficient of reproducibility (Edwards, 1956:184-188) is
.91. Not only does this coefficient meet the conventional requirement of a .90 level, but it compares
favorably to the minimum marginal reproducibility (Edwards, 1956:191-193) of .64 for these items
and response catego¡ Likewise, the Borgatta (1955) error ratio for this scale, .56, is quite low as
desired. Therefore, the items on devofionalism are not found to be unscalable and their scaling is
thought to representan improvement of Lenski's procedure of summated scoring.
 MEASUREMENT OF COMMITMENT STRENGTH 213

a g r e e m e n t a l t e r n a t i v e s followed e a c h item. As f o r t h e items o n d e v o t i o n a l i s m ,

v a r i o u s m e a s u r e s o f i n t e r n a l consistency d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e s e f o u r items also
f o r r o a s a t i s f a c t o r y G u t t m a n scale?
T h e scaled items o n d e v o t i o n a l i s m m a y be t r e a t e d a s a m e a s u r e o f c o m m i t m e n t
positions f o r religious e x p e r i e n c e . 4 T h e y d e p i c t a c o n t i n u u m o f c o m m i t m e n t s to
: e r t a i n p e r s o n a l , religious b e h a v i o r s a m o n g f u n d a m e n t a l i s t - o r t h o d o x C h r i s t i a n s
as f o u n d in this s a m p l e . T h e s e p a r a t e l y scaled intrinsic-extrinsic items a r e ob-
s e r v e d to s h o w t h e s t r e n g t h o f c o m m i t m e n t s to such u n d e r l y i n g e x p e r i e n c e s .
T h e r e f o r e , t h e e x p e r i e n c e positions c o r r e s p o n d to the c o m p o n e n t on c o n t e n t a n d
the i m p o r t a n c e o f h a v i n g a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f religious e x p e r i e n c e c o r r e s p o n d s to
the c o m p o n e n t o n intensity.

Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org by guest on September 16, 2010

Relation of Content and lntensity
M e d i a n s o f i n t e n s i t y o r s t r e n g t h a r e p l o t t e d on t h e m i d p o i n t s o f the c o n t e n t
positions in F i g u r e 1. T h i s p r o c e d u r e has b e e n s u g g e s t e d a n d u s e d by G u t t m a n
( 1 9 5 4 : 2 3 1 ) a n d o t h e r s ( S u c h m a n , 1950; H e n r y , 1957; a n d D o t s o n , 1962). F i g u r e
1 is b a s e d on T a b l e 1. T h e c o m m i t m e n t a n d c o m m i t m e n t s t r e n g t h r e l a t i o n s h i p
a p p r o x i m a t e a s t r a i g h t line h a v i n g a slight b e n d at the t h i r d c o n t e n t m i d p o i n t .
T h e line s u g g e s t s t h a t as f r e q u e n c y o f t h e b e h a v i o r a l e x p e r i e n c e increases, so does
c o m m i t m e n t s t r e n g t h to the e x p e ¡ But, as s h o w n in the table, t h e r e is
v a r i a t i o n o f s t r e n g t h at p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e n t categories.
T h e intensity c o m p o n e n t o f a t t i t u d e s p r o p o s e d by G u t t m a n (1954) is a s s u m e d
to f o r m a U o r J s h a p e d c u r v e w h e n p l o t t e d a g a i n s t a c o m p o n e n t o f a t t i t u d e
c o n t e n t . T h e line f o u n d in F i g u r e 1 d o e s n o t s h o w such a c u r v e . Since f o r this
analysis e x p e r i e n t i a l religious c o m m i t m e n t c o n t e n t is m e a s u r e d in t e r m s o f be-

3The .96 coefficient of reproducibility (Edwards, 1956:184-188) is well above the .72 minimum
marginal reproducibility (Edwards, 1956:191-193). The Borgatta (1955) error ratio of .52 is also
considered quite satisfactory. It is noted that in terms of Guttman components, this construction of a
scalable intensity measure is apparenfly unique. Suchman (1950) was unable to establish ah intensity
scale and there is no known evidence of success since his try.
4King (1967:176) and King and Hunt (1979) note that the religious experience dimension which they
produccd from factor and cluster analyses was similar to Glock's (Glock and Stark, 1965) experiential
dimension and Lenski's (1961) ctevotionalism orientation. Since then, Stark and Glock (1968: 15,
108-124) have used devotionalism asa different conceptual dimension of religious commitment from
expe¡ Whereas they regard devotionalism as an element of the ritualistic dimension which
designates private, informal dimension of religious ritual behavior including prayer and Bible read-
ing, the experience dimension pertains to one's communication with adivine being. This conceptual
distinction seems to draw a very fine line. In fact, the product moment correlations between measures
of these two dimensions were the fourth highest for Protestants, +.467, and the second highest for
Catholics, +.424, in 36 such correlations among religious dimension measurements for each group
(Stark and Glock, 1968:177-178). Nudelman ( 1971) reports a factor analysis of these scale intercorrela-
tions and finds expe¡ and devotionalism in the same general dimension for the Protestant and
Catholic samples. Although a factoring of scales is notan adequate test of the dimensionality of their
items, Nudelman's factoring of items from Christian Scientist data produce the same results.
To the extent that the devotionalism items on prayer and consultation with God involve communica-
tive experience with adivine being, these items seem equally appropriate as indicators of private
religious ritual or experience commitments. At any tate, the conceptual distinction is moot for
purposes at hand. The items used here on frequency of communication with God and items on
importance of this communication are the operational substances, regardless of whether such com-
munication is called devotionalism or experience.
214 SOCIOLOGICALANAI.YSIS

FIGURE 1
Content and Intensity

Medians
Intensity Percentiles

High
62 7
J

//
J
51
Intensity Percentiles

40

Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org by guest on September 16, 2010

Low 33

Midpoint
Content Percentiles
23' 43 78
Low Content Percentiles High

TABLE 1

Relation of Commitment Strength to Commitment Positions

Intensity Rank Religious Content Totals Cumulative

Low High Percentile
0 1 2 3

High 4 2 15 39 69 117 100

3 14 13 51 121 199 84
2 22 16 35 47 120 57
1 55 34 70 82 241 41
Low 0 27 12 l0 II 60 8

Totals 120 90 205 322 737**

Cumulative Percent 16 29 56 100
Midpoints Content % 8 23 43 78
Median Intensity % 33 40 51 62
* 0 = Praying less than once a day and consulting on decisions seldom of never; 1 = Praying once a day
and consulting seldom or never; 2 = Praying once a day and consulting often; 3 = Praying more than
once a day and consulting often.
** This total excludes respondents who failed to indicate response to at least one Ÿ in either scale.
Consequently, N = 737 and not 812.

havior rather than attitudes, the linear relationship might be due to the behavioral
content. Had there been enough persons in the sample displaying infrequent
communication behaviors, which would have warranted several scale types in
place of the single lowest position shown for these data, the line of relationship
might have extendedlower and further to the left. In other words, a greater range
of content positions probably would have revealed weaker commitments a n d a
lower intercept.
 MEASUREMENT OF COMMITMENT STRENGTH 215

Conclusions
For a better understanding of religious commitment and its strength, it would
be beneficial to know if this relationship is similar for different scales of religious
commitment or religious commitment strengths, for different samples, and over a
period of time.
Studies by Bahr, Bartel, and Chadwick ( 1971) and by Gibbs, Mueller, and Wood
(1973) have already found religious salience and orthodoxy to be useful predic-
tors. However, in each case an inspection of their salience measures finds many
items relative to things other than orthodoxy. Ir is proposed here that when
specific strength measures are linked to corresponding commitment dimensions,
predictions from religious factors should improve markedly.

Downloaded from socrel.oxfordjournals.org by guest on September 16, 2010

REFERENCES
Allport, G. and J. Ross. 1967. "Personal religious orientation and prejudice."Journal ofPersonality and
Social Psychology 5: 432-443.
Bahr, H.M., L. F. Bartel, and B. A. Chadwick. 1971. "Salience of religion asa condition for correlates
of religion." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 10:69-75.
Borgatta, E. F. 1955. "An error ratio for scalogram analysis." Public Opinion Quarterly 16:96-100.
Dotson, L. 1962. "An empirical study of attitude-component theory." Public Opinion Quarterly
26:227-235.
Edwards, Allen L. 1957. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.
Feagin, J. R. 1964. "Prejudice and religious types: a focused study on southern fundamentalists."
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 4:3-13.
Gibbs, D. R., S. A. Mueller, andJ. A. Wood. 1973. "Doctrinal orthodoxy, salience, and the consequen-
tial dimension." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 12:33-52.
Glock, Charles Y. and Rodney Stark. 1965. Religion and Society in Tension. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Guttman, L. 1954. "The principal components ofscalable attitudes." Pp. 216-257 in Paul F. Lazarsfeld
(ed.) Mathematical Thinking in the Social Sciences. New York: Dryden Press.
Henry, A. F. 1957. "Ah empirical study of attitude components." Social Forces 36:26-31.
Hoge, D. R. 1972. "A validated intrinsic religious motivation scale."Journalfor the Scientific Study of
Religion l 1:369-376.
Hunt, R. A., and M. B. King. 1971. "The intrinsic-extrinsic concept: a review and evaluation."Journal
for the Scientific Study of Rehgion 10:339-356.
King M. 1967. "Measuring the religious variable: Nine proposed dimensions."Journalfor the Scientific
Study of Religion 7:173-190.
King, M. B., and R. A. Hunt. 1972. "Measuring the religious variable: replication."Journalfor the
Scientific Study of Religion 11:240-251.
Lenski, Gerhard. 196I. T h e Religious Factor. Garden City: Doubleday.
Nudelman, A. E. 1971. "Dimensions of religiosity: a factor-analytic view of Protestants, Catholics and
Christian Scientists." Review of Religious Research 13:42-56.
Putney, S., and R. Middleton. 1961. "Dimensions and correlates of religious ideologies," Social Forces
39:285-290.
Riland, L. H. 1959. "Relationship of the Guttman components of attitude intensity and personal
involvemen t." Journal of Applied Psychology 43:279-284.
Stark, Rodney, and Charles Y. Glock. 1968. American Piety. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Suchman, E. A. 1950. "The intensity component in attitude and opinion research." Pp. 213-276 in
Samuel A Stouffer et al, (eds.), Measurement and Prediction. New York: John Wiley.