Review of Religious Research

, Volume 59, Issue 1, pp 47–64 | Cite as

Examining Social Desirability in Measures of Religion and Spirituality Using the Bogus Pipeline

Research Note

Abstract

A primary concern in the psychology of religion is the distinct possibility that responses to empirical assessments of individuals’ degree and type of religiosity and spirituality are exaggerated owing to social desirability bias. In spite of increased secularization in American culture and a growing distrust of organized religion, religious involvement, personal religiosity, and spirituality are still viewed as highly desirable characteristics. This study estimates the extent of social desirability biases that affect self-reports of religion and spirituality by utilizing a bogus pipeline procedure. In this procedure, participants are convinced that experimenters can detect disingenuous responses to individual items on questionnaires through the use of physiological measures, although no physiological data are actually collected. If the self-reports of participants in the bogus pipeline condition indicate greater religiosity or spirituality than those in the control condition, self-report bias is indicated. The bogus pipeline procedure has been used in other areas of study to increase veracity of self-reports when social desirability effects are present (such as reporting sexual behaviors or prejudice). The results indicate that social desirability biases influence multiple constructs including religious orientations, religious coping, and daily spiritual experiences. Implications for future research relying on self-reports of religion and spirituality are discussed.

Keywords

Religion Spirituality Socially desirable response bias Bogus pipeline 

References

  1. Allport, G.W. 1950. The individual and his religion. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G.W., and J.M. Ross. 1967. Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5: 432–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Altemeyer, B., and B. Hunsberger. 1992. Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 2: 113–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Batson, C.D., S.J. Naifeh, and S. Pate. 1978. SDR, religious orientation, and racial prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 17: 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Batson, C.D., and P.A. Schoenrade. 1991. Measuring religion as Quest: I. Validity concerns. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30: 416–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Batson, C.D., P.A. Schoenrade, and W.L. Ventis. 1993. Dimensions of individual religion. Religion and the individual, 155–190. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Batson, C.D., and W.L. Ventis. 1982. The religious experience: A social-psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brenner, P.S. 2011. Identity importance and the overreporting of religious service attendance: Multiple imputation of religious attendance using the American Time Use Study and the General Social Survey. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50: 103–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2010.01554.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunell, A.B., and T.D. Fisher. 2014. Using the bogus pipeline to investigate grandiose narcissism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 55: 37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cox, D., R.P. Jones, and J. Navarro-Rivera. 2014. I know what you did last Sunday: Measuring SDR bias in self-report religious behavior, belief, and identity. Washington, D.C: Public Religion Research Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Donahue, M.J. 1985. Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48: 400–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Duck, R.J., and B. Hunsberger. 1999. Religious orientation and prejudice: The role of religious proscription, right-wing authoritarianism, and SDR. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 9: 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellison, C.W. 1983. Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Psychology and Theology 11: 330–340.Google Scholar
  14. Fisher, T.D. 2013. Gender roles and pressure to be truthful: The bogus pipeline modifies gender differences in sexual but not non-sexual behavior. Sex Roles 68: 401–414. doi: 10.1007/s11199-013-0266-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fullerton, J.T., and B. Hunsberger. 1982. A unidimensional measure of Christian orthodoxy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 21: 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Genia, V. 1996. I, E, quest, and fundamentalism as predictors of psychological and spiritual well-being. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 35: 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gorsuch, R.L., and S.E. McPherson. 1989. Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-Revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28: 348–354. doi: 10.2307/1386745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hadaway, C.K., P.L. Marler, and M. Chaves. 1993. What the polls don’t show: A closer look at U.S. church attendance. American Sociological Review 58: 741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hodge, D.R. 2015. Spiritual assessment in social work and mental health practice. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hood, R.J., P.C. Hill, and B. Spilka. 2009. The psychology of religion: An empirical approach, 4th ed. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hunsberger, B. 1989. A short version of the Christian orthodoxy scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28: 360–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunsberger, B., and J. Ennis. 1982. Experimenter effects in studies of religious attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 21: 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kirkpatrick, L.A. 1992. An attachment-theory approach psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 2: 3–28. doi: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr0201_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirkpatrick, L.A. 1993. Fundamentalism, Christian orthodox, and intrinsic orientation as predictors of discriminatory attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32: 256–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirkpatrick, L.A., R.W. Hood Jr., and G.W. Hartz. 1991. Fundamentalist religion conceptualized in terms of Rokeach’s theory of open and closed mind: New perspectives on some old ideas. In Research in the social scientific study of religion, vol. 3, ed. M.L. Lynn, and D.O. Moberg, 157–179. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  26. Koenig, H.G. 2008. Concerns about measuring “spirituality” in research. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 196: 349–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krauss, S.W., and R.W. Hood. 2013. A new approach to religious orientation: The commitment-reflectivity circumplex. Amsterdam: Brill Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Leak, G.K., and S. Fish. 1989. Religious orientation, impression management, and self-deception: Toward a clarification of the link between religiosity and SDR. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28: 355–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McFarland, S.G. 1989. Religious orientations and the targets of discrimination. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28(3): 324–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paloutzian, R.F., and C.W. Ellison. 1982. Loneliness, spiritual well-being, and quality of life. In Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy, ed. L.A. Peplau, and D. Perlman. New York: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
  31. Pargament, K.I. 1997. The psychology of religion and coping. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pargament, K.I. 1999. The psychology of religion and spirituality? Yes and no. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 9: 3–16. doi: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr0901_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pargament, K.I., H.G. Koenig, and L.M. Perez. 2000. The many methods of religious coping: Development and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology 56: 519–543. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(200004)56:4<519:AID-JCLP6>3.0.CO;2-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pew Research Center. 2015. America’s Changing Religious Landscape. Retrieved from Pew Research Center America’s Changing Religious Landscape report website: http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/05/RLS-08-26-full-report.pdf.
  35. Roese, N.J., and D.W. Jamieson. 1993. Twenty years of bogus pipeline research: A critical review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 114: 363–375. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.2.363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rowatt, W.C., and L.A. Kirkpatrick. 2002. Two dimensions of attachment to God and their relation to affect, religiosity, and personality constructs. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41: 637–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rowatt, W.C., and D.P. Schmitt. 2003. Associations between religious orientation and varieties of sexual experience. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42: 455–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rowatt, W.C., L.M. Franklin, and M. Cotton. 2005. Patterns and personality correlates of implicit and explicit attitudes toward Christians and Muslims. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44: 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Saad, L. 2012. U.S. confidence in organized religion at low point; Catholics’ confidence remains significantly lower than Protestants’. Gallup Poll News Service.Google Scholar
  40. Sedikides, C., and J.E. Gebauer. 2010. Religiosity as self-enhancement: A meta-analysis of the relation between socially desirable responding and religiosity. Personality and Social Psychology Review 14: 17–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spilka, B. & McIntosh, D.N. 1996. Religion and spirituality: The known and the unknown. In Paper presented at the American Psychological Association annual conference, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  42. Trimble, D.E. 1997. The religious orientation scale: Review and meta-analysis of SDR effects. Educational and Psychological Measurement 57: 970–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsang, J., and W.C. Rowatt. 2007. The relationship between religious orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and implicit sexual prejudice. International Journal of the Psychology of Religion 17: 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Underwood, L.G., and J.A. Teresi. 2002. The daily spiritual experience scale: Development, theoretical description, reliability, exploratory factor analysis, and preliminary construct validity using health-related data. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 24: 22–33. doi: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2401_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Watson, P.J., R.W. Hood, and R.J. Morris. 1985. Dimensions of religiosity and empathy. Journal of Psychology and Christianity 4: 73–85.Google Scholar
  46. Watson, P.J., R.J. Morris, J.E. Foster, and R.W. Hood Jr. 1986. Religiosity and SDR. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 25: 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilkinson, W.W. 2004. Religiosity, authoritarianism, and homophobia: A multidimensional approach. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 14: 55–67. doi: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr1401_5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wulff, D.M. 1996. The psychology of religion: An overview. In Religion and the clinical practice of psychology, ed. E.P. Shafranske, 43–70. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yancey, G.A. 2011. Compromising scholarship: Religious and political bias in American higher education. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Zinnbauer, B.J., K.I. Pargament, and A.B. Scott. 1999. The emerging meanings of religiousness and spirituality: Problems and prospects. Journal of Personality 67: 889–919. doi: 10.1111/1467-6494.00077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Religious Research Association, Inc. 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Social PsychologyUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations