This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]

On: 08 October 2014, At: 11:45

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

British Journal of Religious Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cbre20

The Loman Index of Biblical

Interpretation: distinguishing between
literal, symbolic and rejecting modes
among 11 to 14 year olds
a a
Susan E. Loman & Leslie J. Francis
a
University of Wales , Bangor, UK
Published online: 12 Dec 2006.

To cite this article: Susan E. Loman & Leslie J. Francis (2006) The Loman Index of Biblical
Interpretation: distinguishing between literal, symbolic and rejecting modes among 11 to 14 year
olds, British Journal of Religious Education, 28:2, 131-140, DOI: 10.1080/01416200500530789

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01416200500530789

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 British Journal of Religious Education
Vol. 28, No. 2, March 2006, pp. 131–140

The Loman Index of Biblical

Interpretation: distinguishing between
literal, symbolic and rejecting modes
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 11:45 08 October 2014

among 11 to 14 year olds

Susan E. Loman and Leslie J. Francis*
University of Wales, Bangor, UK
British
10.1080/01416200500530789
CBRE_A_153061.sgm
0141-6200
Original
Taylor
202006
28
l.j.francis@bangor.ac.uk
LeslieFrancis
00000March
and
&
Journal
Article
Francis
(print)/1740-9731
Francis
2006
of Religious
Ltd Education
(online)

This paper proposes a new instrument designed to distinguish among three ways in which young
adolescents respond to familiar passages from the New Testament, defined as literal acceptance,
symbolic acceptance and rejection modes. The reliability and validity of this instrument, styled the
Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation, was established on a sample of 3412 pupils between the
ages of 11 and 14 years. In accordance with theoretical expectations, the findings demonstrated that
Year 7 pupils tend to prefer literal acceptance more frequently than do Year 9 pupils, while Year 9
pupils are more likely than Year 7 pupils both to select the symbolic acceptance mode and to select
the rejection mode.

Keywords: Religious development; adolescence; biblical interpretation; psychometrics;

literalism; symbolic thinking

Introduction
There has been a long tradition of research in the UK concerned with the responses
of secondary school pupils to the Bible, stretching from the pioneering work of
scholars like Loukes (1961), Hyde (1965), Cox (1967), Alves (1968), and Greer
(1972), to the well-established Biblos Project within the University of Exeter (Copley,
1998; Copley et al., 2001; Copley & Walshe, 2002; Walshe, 2005). From their survey
among Key Stage 4 pupils (the period between the ages of 14 and 16 years), Copley
et al. (2001, p. 40) reported that ‘negative attitudes towards the Bible are widespread’.
Some of the more negative pupils made comments like the following: ‘I think the

*Corresponding author. Welsh National Centre for Religious Education, University of Wales,
Bangor, Meirion, Normal Site, Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2PZ, Wales, UK. Email:
l.j.francis@bangor.ac.uk

ISSN 0141-6200 (print)/ISSN 1740-7931 (online)/06/020131–10

© 2006 Christian Education
DOI: 10.1080/01416200500530789
 132 S. E. Loman and L. J. Francis

Bible is rubbish and untrue’; ‘Don’t see how the Bible has anything to do with my
life’; ‘Find it hard to believe that everything in the Bible is true. Could have been
made up’.
In particular, Christian educators and religious educators have shown concern over
many decades with the way in which young people move from giving literal
acceptance to material presented in the Bible to complete rejection of the Bible.
Research in this field has been hampered by difficulties in conceptualising the
research problem, by ambiguities in the language selected to express the research
problem, and by limitations within the methodologies utilised to operationalise the
research problem. The aim of the present study is to review two research traditions
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 11:45 08 October 2014

which have made significant contributions to understanding in this field, and then to
reconceptualise the problem in terms of concern with biblical interpretation.
The first of the two research traditions, pioneered by Ronald J. Goldman, was
conceptualised in terms of stages of religious thinking. The review identifies serious
limitations in this tradition in terms of addressing the research problem concerned
with the transition from literal acceptance of material presented in the Bible to
complete rejection. The second of the research traditions, pioneered by Richard A.
Hunt, was conceptualised in terms of styles of religious thinking. The review identi-
fies significant strengths in this tradition in terms of addressing the research problem
under consideration. In light of Hunt’s contribution the research problem is recon-
ceptualised as one concerned with an aspect of biblical interpretation. In choosing to
conceptualise the problem as one concerned with biblical interpretation, full recog-
nition is given to the fact that the construct ‘biblical interpretation’ is used elsewhere
in a variety of different senses. In the present discussion the construct of biblical
interpretation is rigorously limited to the operationalised distinction between literal
acceptance, symbolic acceptance and rejection modes.

Ronald J. Goldman
Although the influential work of Goldman (1964) was conceptualised in terms of
concern with religious thinking during childhood and adolescence, in practice a
major component of his research into religious thinking was concerned with ways in
which young people thought about and interpreted biblical passages. Goldman
sought to apply the Piagetian stages of cognitive development to this field of
research. He hypothesised that there were patterns of religious thinking linked with
chronological and mental age. He argued that religious thinking was best defined as
thinking directed towards religion. Goldman’s research method focused largely on
changes in religious thinking based on responses to three biblical stories: Moses and
the burning bush, crossing the Red Sea, and the temptations of Jesus. His findings
showed that with two or three stories 58.9% of pupils aged up to 12:11 interpreted
them literally. With pupils aged 13:0 to 14:11, 57.5% interpreted them literally, and
with pupils aged 15:0 plus, 15% selected a literal interpretation. There was no
indication, from Goldman’s analysis, as to whether those not interpreting the stories
literally interpreted them symbolically or rejected them.
 The Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation 133

Goldman used a qualitative research method of data collection which he styled the
clinical interview method. Qualitative methods encourage flexibility and depth, but
also make comparison of data difficult. Examples of others who have followed
Goldman’s way of exploring biblical understanding include Richmond (1972) and
Whitehouse (1972). Qualitative methods remain popular in this field because the
responses provide a fuller explanation and attempt to answer the question why. Other
researchers, however, have tried to test Goldman’s theory by means of quantitative
methodology where specific data can be more easily measured. Two separate studies,
by Peatling (1974) and Smith (1998), have reconsidered Goldman’s qualitative
research and have adapted it to quantitative measures. Both of these studies raised
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 11:45 08 October 2014

serious questions about the stability and generalisability of Goldman’s findings.

Other serious questions about Goldman’s methodology have been raised by Slee
(1986a, b), McGrady (1994a, b), and Francis (2000). For example, Slee (1986a) drew
critical attention to the fact that Goldman’s scientific conclusions were based on the
statistical analysis of responses to only five of the many questions employed in the clin-
ical interview. Slee also maintained that Goldman’s content analysis was flawed in that
the theological evaluation was biased in favour of Goldman’s own theological stance.
Slee went on to question Goldman’s method of statistical analysis, saying it led to
unreliable measures of accuracy, making it difficult to identify when pupils passed from
one stage of thinking to another. Slee (1986b) maintained that Goldman’s model of
religion was narrowly biblical with a liberal bias of interpretation. Francis (2000),
supporting Slee’s criticisms, considered that Goldman’s biblical material might have
been distorted since a standard text of the Bible was not used. He also demonstrated
that ‘stages of thinking’ were confused with ‘styles of thinking’. McGrady’s research
(1994a, b) considered the nature of religious language and in particular the use of
religious metaphor. Some of McGrady’s findings (1994b) differed from those
presented by Goldman. Goldman maintained that formal operational thinking was a
prerequisite for metaphorical thinking. McGrady held that metaphorical thinking was
possible, although it might be limited, before the formal operational stage.
On the basis of this review, it seems helpful to identify an alternative conceptual
framework to that proposed by Goldman within which to consider the development
of biblical interpretation during childhood and adolescence. The foundations for
such an alternative conceptual framework have been established by Richard A. Hunt.

Richard A. Hunt
Hunt’s research, undertaken during the 1960s and reported by Hunt (1972), differed
from Goldman’s work in a number of important ways. While Goldman was
concerned with identifying stages of religious thinking during childhood and adoles-
cence, Hunt was concerned with identifying styles of religious commitment among
adults. While Goldman based his research methodology on qualitative approaches,
Hunt based his methodology on quantitative approaches. While Goldman shaped his
research questions primarily within a psychological framework, Hunt shaped his
research questions primarily within a theological framework. Previously the insights
 134 S. E. Loman and L. J. Francis

advanced by Hunt’s research have not been applied to an investigation of religious

thinking during childhood and adolescence.
Hunt’s major contribution to the research literature in this field concerned his
development of a measuring instrument, the LAM Scales, designed to distinguish
among three styles of thinking about the religious content of the Bible. He termed
these styles: literal, anti-literal, and mythological. Hunt developed this instrument in
response to what he had identified as a major flaw in existing questionnaire-based
scales of religious thinking. Such scales, he argued, tended to comprise a series of
statements inviting assent to or rejection of literal beliefs. Those who recorded high
scores on such scales could properly be described as holding a literalist or fundamen-
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 11:45 08 October 2014

talist style of religious thinking. The conceptual problem concerned the appropriate
description of those who recorded low scores on such scales. For some respondents
a low score might properly represent the complete rejection of religious belief, while
for other respondents a low score might represent the rejection of literal belief but the
affirmation of an alternative way of formulating religious belief. The LAM Scales,
therefore, allowed a third position alongside the literal style and the anti-literal style,
described as the mythological style.
Thus, the LAM Scales represented three possible responses to thinking about the
religious content of the Bible. The first response was that of literal acceptance, where
Hunt suggested the individual had unquestioningly accepted religious statements at
face value. The second response was that of rejection (anti-literal), where Hunt
suggested that religious statements had been left unexamined and then rejected. The
third response was that of recognition of the message of religious statements in
symbolic form (mythological), where individuals may be seeking ‘deeper symbolic
meanings which lie beyond their literal wording’ (1972, p. 43). Hunt’s original LAM
Scales were not, however, without their problems. Greeley (1972) praised Hunt for
his contribution to pencil-and-paper measures of religious interpretations, but
pointed out that Hunt was in the main only able to offer one choice of mythological
(M) response. Greeley stressed that respondents might have a variety of symbolic
interpretations which would not agree with the alternative offered by Hunt. In other
words, Greeley held that the mythological interpretation offered too narrow a choice.
In spite of the considerable potential in Hunt’s conceptualisation of different styles
of religious thinking, the LAM Scales have received comparatively little attention in
the subsequent research literature. Useful examples of studies building on Hunt’s
foundations are provided by Poythress (1975), van der Lans (1991), and Burris
(1999). Poythress (1975) modified Hunt’s ipsative scales to a Likert scale format
because he felt that this scaling method allowed a more open and flexible response,
as ipsative scores are not independent of one another. He also developed eight
religious types from Hunt’s original three. Poythress supported Hunt’s view that non-
literal pro-religious individuals might be misclassified if the mythological scale was not
made available. Van der Lans (1991) recognised that there were different interpreta-
tions placed on religious statements. He was interested in seeing how people solved
the disparity between religious and secular worldviews. In acknowledging the impor-
tance of the interpretation of religious language in such a quest, he held that ‘metaphor
 The Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation 135

is the leading stylistic character of religious language’ (1991, p. 108). Van der Lans
used a revised format of the LAM Scales in order to ascertain if the responses offered
to this instrument related to different styles of religious cognitive functioning. He
found that the literal and metaphorical responses related to differences in general and
religious cognitive functioning, where literal interpretation related to a low degree of
cognitive flexibility with traditional single responses preferred. Metaphorical interpre-
tation favoured views which allowed for a variety of responses and encouraged a more
elaborate religious cognitive structure. Burris (1999) suggested that a possible reason
for the lower reliability scores on the mythological items was that these items held a
variety of possible interpretations. He went on to say that ‘an individual whose
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 11:45 08 October 2014

predominant interpretive style is mythological may agree with the spirit but not the
letter of M scale responses, and may therefore respond somewhat inconsistently’
(1999, p. 33). Thus it is not clear as to what exactly the M scale measures. The
mythological responses tend to be subjective and inevitably restrictive within a
questionnaire format of research.

Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation1

The Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation builds on the strengths of Hunt’s work
in order to develop an instrument appropriate for research among young people from
the age of 11 years upwards, recognising that Hunt’s original work had been carried
out among undergraduates and that his construction of mythological interpretation
had been subject to significant criticism. The purpose of the new instrument is to
distinguish among three ways in which young people can respond to passages from
the New Testament, defined as literal acceptance, symbolic acceptance, and rejection
modes. According to this nomenclature: the literal acceptance mode affirms that
things actually happened as described in the Bible (for example, in the resurrection
Jesus came back to life and appeared to his disciples in a physical form); the rejection
mode maintains that there is no truth in the biblical account (for example, Jesus had
been fully human and after he died he could not communicate with anyone); the
symbolic acceptance mode affirms that the biblical account conveys a religious truth
although not a literal truth (for example, Jesus’ followers felt that Jesus had commu-
nicated with them in a spiritual way after his death).
In this present study this initial use of the Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation
is concerned to test two hypotheses regarding preferred styles of biblical interpreta-
tion among Year 7 and Year 9 pupils. The first hypothesis is based on the general
finding that females are more religious than males (see Francis, 1997). Accordingly
it is anticipated that girls will record higher scores than boys on the literal acceptance
scale and on the symbolic acceptance scale. The second hypothesis is based on the
general finding that interest in religion declines with age during the teenage years (see
Lewis & Francis, 1996). Accordingly it is anticipated that Year 9 pupils will record
higher scores than Year 7 pupils on the rejection scale and that Year 9 pupils will
record lower scores than Year 7 pupils on the literal acceptance scale. What is not
known from previous research is the extent to which the decline in the literal
 136 S. E. Loman and L. J. Francis

acceptance mode between Year 7 and Year 9 may lead to growth in the symbolic
acceptance mode as well as to growth in the rejection mode.

Method
Procedure
The head of religious education in 18 secondary schools agreed to administer the
survey to pupils attending the Year 7 and Year 9 classes. The pupils were assured of
confidentiality and anonymity and invited to participate in the project. The vast
majority decided to do so.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 11:45 08 October 2014

Instrument
The Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation comprises two parts. The nine items in
part one each present a short passage from the Bible followed by three sentences
designed to reflect the three responses as literal acceptance, symbolic acceptance, and
rejection modes. The nine items in part two each present a short passage from the
Bible followed by three standard responses: this actually happened as described in the
Bible (literal); these events did not happen (rejection); the events were described in
this way to give them extra religious meaning (symbolic). The respondents were
asked to ‘tick the comment which best shows your views about the quote’. On the
basis of the responses three scores were generated for each respondent by summing
the number of literal options chosen, the number of rejection options chosen, and the
number of symbolic options chosen.

Sample
The instrument was completed by a total of 3412 pupils, comprising 51.5% boys and
48.5% girls, 54.4% Year 7 pupils and 45.6% Year 9 pupils.

Results
The first step in data analysis concerned examination of the internal homogeneity
reliability of the three scales proposed by the Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation
in terms of the alpha coefficient (Cronbach, 1951). The following alpha coefficients
were reported: literal acceptance, 0.93; symbolic acceptance, 0.87; rejection, 0.93.
These statistics demonstrate that all three scales function with satisfactory levels of
internal homogeneity reliability and that the individual items contribute in appropri-
ate ways to produce a well-defined scale. The slightly lower alpha coefficient achieved
by the symbolic interpretation scale is consistent with the view that this is the most
problematic of the three constructs to operationalise.
The second step in data analysis concerned examination of the construct validity of
the three scales proposed by the Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation in terms of
 The Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation 137

Table 1. Overall scores

Male Female

Scale mean sd mean sd t p<

Literal 6.1 5.7 7.0 6.0 4.3 .001

Rejection 6.2 5.7 4.0 4.7 11.2 .001
Symbolic 5.7 4.6 6.9 5.0 7.1 .001
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 11:45 08 October 2014

the two key hypotheses outlined in the introduction. Table 1 tests the first hypothesis
regarding the differences in the preferred modes of biblical interpretation displayed
by boys and by girls.
These data demonstrate that boys recorded significantly higher scores than girls on
the rejection mode scale, and that girls recorded significantly higher scores than boys
on the literal acceptance mode scale. These two findings are consistent with the
broader hypothesis that girls generally display greater support for religion than boys
(Francis, 1997). These data also demonstrate that girls recorded significantly higher
scores than boys, not only on the literal acceptance mode scale, but also on the
symbolic acceptance mode scale. In other words, among pupils who reject the literal
acceptance mode of biblical interpretation, girls are more likely than boys to adopt
the symbolic acceptance mode of biblical interpretation.
Table 2 tests the second hypothesis regarding the differences in the preferred
modes of biblical interpretation displayed by Year 7 and by Year 9 pupils. These
data demonstrate that Year 9 pupils recorded significantly higher scores than Year 7
pupils on the rejection mode scale, and that Year 7 pupils recorded significantly
higher scores than Year 9 pupils on the literal acceptance mode scale. These two
findings are consistent with the broader hypothesis that religious belief and interest
generally declines with age (Lewis & Francis, 1996). These data also demonstrate
that Year 9 pupils recorded higher scores than Year 7 pupils on the symbolic accep-
tance mode scale. While scores on the literal acceptance mode scale decline with age,
scores on the symbolic acceptance mode scale increase with age. In other words,
among pupils who move away from acceptance of the literal mode in Year 7 towards
no longer wishing to accept the literal mode in Year 9, some seem to move to the
rejection mode while others seem to move to the symbolic acceptance mode.

Table 2. Overall scores

Year 7 Year 9

Scale mean sd mean sd t p<

Literal 7.4 5.8 5.6 5.8 8.8 .001

Rejection 4.7 5.0 5.7 5.7 5.3 .001
Symbolic 5.9 4.6 6.7 5.1 4.6 .001
 138 S. E. Loman and L. J. Francis

Conclusion
The present study has examined the usefulness of Hunt’s model of styles of thinking
about biblical passages as an alternative to Goldman’s model of stages of thinking
about biblical passages for illuminating the nature of biblical interpretation during
childhood and adolescence. Hunt’s model has been developed to propose a new
index of biblical interpretation for use among secondary school pupils. Three main
conclusions can be drawn from this preliminary study.
The first conclusion is that the Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation can be
commended as a psychometrically sound instrument capable of assessing three differ-
ent modes of religious thinking among secondary school pupils in Year 7 and Year 9.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 11:45 08 October 2014

The test items function with high levels of internal reliability, possess face validity and
have been supported by two tests of construct validity. Further research is needed to
examine the scale properties of this instrument over a wider age range and to establish
the correlates of the three scales proposed by this instrument.
The second conclusion is that the Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation is able
to add significantly to knowledge about the differences in the preferred modes of
biblical interpretation favoured by boys and girls. A considerable body of earlier
research has confirmed that girls are less likely than boys to reject a literal interpreta-
tion of biblical material. The present study has demonstrated that when pupils reject
the literal acceptance mode of biblical interpretation, boys are more likely than girls
to adopt the rejection mode, while girls are more likely than boys to adopt the
symbolic acceptance mode. Further research is needed to identify the factors likely
to predispose girls to favouring the symbolic acceptance mode rather than favouring
the rejection style.
The third conclusion is that the Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation is able to
add significantly to knowledge about the differences in the preferred modes of biblical
interpretation favoured by Year 7 and by Year 9 pupils. A considerable body of earlier
research has confirmed that older pupils are more likely than younger pupils to reject
a literal mode of biblical interpretation. The present study has suggested that when
pupils reject a literal mode of biblical interpretation between Year 7 and Year 9, it is
not inevitable that they should move from the literal acceptance mode to the rejection
mode. The evidence suggests that about half of those who move from the literal
acceptance mode move into the rejection mode, while the other half move into the
symbolic acceptance mode. Further research is needed to identify the factors likely to
predispose Year 9 pupils to move toward the symbolic acceptance mode of biblical
interpretation rather than toward the rejection mode of biblical interpretation.
The model of styles of biblical interpretation suggested by Hunt (1972) and devel-
oped and operationalised in the Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation has important
implications for religious educators. The model has made it clear that for a significant
number of young people the symbolic acceptance mode of biblical interpretation
makes it possible for those who feel compelled to reject the literal acceptance mode
of biblical interpretation to reformulate the way in which they accept biblical material
rather than to reject the biblical material. For such an opportunity to be available to
 The Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation 139

young people it is necessary for the model of symbolic acceptance to be presented to

them. They need to know that the literal style of biblical interpretation is not the only
model of acceptance available. Further research is needed to explore ways in which
secondary school pupils can be introduced to the symbolic acceptance mode of bibli-
cal interpretation. The Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation provides a useful
research tool to assess the impact of educational programmes concerned with the
introduction of the symbolic acceptance mode to secondary schools pupils.

Note
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 11:45 08 October 2014

1. Copies of the Loman Index of Biblical Interpretation can be obtained from the Revd Professor
Leslie J. Francis.

Notes on contributors
Susan E. Loman is Research Associate at the Welsh National Centre for Religious
Education, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK.
Leslie J. Francis is Director of the Welsh National Centre for Religious Education and
Professor of Practical Theology, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK.

References
Alves, C. (1968) Religion and the Secondary School (London, SCM).
Burris, C. T. (1999) The LAM Scales (Hunt, 1972), in: P. Hill & R. Hood Jr. (Eds) Measures of
Religiosity (Birmingham, AL, Religious Education Press), 30–36.
Copley, T. (1998) Echo of Angels: the First Report of the Biblos Project (Exeter, School of Education,
University of Exeter).
Copley, T., Lane, S., Savini, H. & Walshe, K. (2001) Where Angels Fear to Tread: the Second Report
of the Biblos Project (Exeter, School of Education, University of Exeter).
Copley, T. & Walshe, K. (2002) The Figure of Jesus in Religious Education: the Report of the Teaching
about Jesus in Religious Education Project (Exeter, School of Education and Lifelong Learning,
University of Exeter).
Cox, E. (1967) Sixth Form Religion (London, SCM).
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 16,
297–334.
Francis, L. J. (1997) The psychology of gender differences in religion: a review of empirical
research, Religion, 27, 81–96.
Francis, L. J. (2000) Research in religious education and church school studies: part one, in:
W. K. Kay & L. J. Francis (Eds) Religion in Education: 3 (Leominster, Gracewing), 347–92.
Goldman, R. J. (1964) Religious Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence (London, Routledge &
Kegan Paul).
Greeley, A. M. (1972) Comment on Hunt’s ‘mythological-symbolic religious commitment: the
LAM Scales’, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 287–89.
Greer, J. E. (1972) A Questioning Generation (Belfast, Church of Ireland Board of Education).
Hunt, R. A. (1972) Mythological-symbolic religious commitment: the LAM Scales, Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 11, 42–52.
 140 S. E. Loman and L. J. Francis

Hyde, K. E. (1965) Religious Learning in Adolescence. University of Birmingham Institute of

Education, Monograph No. 7 (London, Oliver & Boyd).
Lewis, J. M. & Francis, L. J. (1996) Personality and attitude toward religious education among
adolescents, in: L. J. Francis, W. K. Kay & W. S. Campbell (Eds) Research in Religious
Education (Leominster, Gracewing), 229–38.
Loukes, H. (1961) Teenage Religion (London, SCM).
McGrady, A. G. (1994a) Metaphorical and operational aspects of religious thinking: research with
Irish Catholic pupils (part 1), British Journal of Religious Education, 16, 148–63.
McGrady, A. G. (1994b) Metaphorical and operational aspects of religious thinking: research with
Irish Catholic pupils (part 2), British Journal of Religious Education, 17, 56–62.
Peatling, J. H. (1974) Cognitive development in pupils in grades four through twelve: the
incidence of concrete and abstract religious thinking, Character Potential, 7, 52–61.
Downloaded by [University of California Santa Cruz] at 11:45 08 October 2014

Poythress, N. G. (1975) Literal, antiliteral, and mythological religious orientations, Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 14, 271–84.
Richmond, R. C. (1972) Maturity of religious judgements and differences of religious attitude
between the ages of 13 and 16 years, Educational Review, 24, 225–36.
Slee, N. (1986a) A note on Goldman’s methods of data analysis with special reference to
scalogram analysis, British Journal of Religious Education, 8, 168–75.
Slee, N. (1986b) Goldman yet again: an overview and critique of his contribution to research,
British Journal of Religious Education, 8, 84–93.
Smith, D. L. (1998) That burning bush again: the psychometric assessment of stages in religious
thinking, Journal of Beliefs and Values, 19, 71–82.
van der Lans, J. M. (1991) Interpretation of religious language and cognitive style: a pilot study
with the LAM Scale, The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 1, 107–23.
Walshe, K. (2005) What do young people today really think about Jesus? British Journal of Religious
Education, 27, 65–78.
Whitehouse, E. (1972) Children’s reactions to the Zacchaeus story, Learning for Living, 11, 19–24.