Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religiosity Scale (I/E Scale)
Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religiosity Scale · Also known as: I/E Scale, Allport-Ross Scale
The I/E Scale, originally developed by Allport and Ross in 1967, is a foundational measure in the psychology of religion that distinguishes between two motivational orientations toward religion: intrinsic (religion as end in itself, source of meaning) versus extrinsic (religion as means to social, personal, or practical ends). This conceptual distinction has profoundly influenced decades of research on religious prejudice, moral behavior, and health outcomes. The original 20-item version has been refined to a 14-item form (I/E-Revised) that improves psychometric properties while maintaining theoretical clarity.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
Use in clinical settings to understand the patient's religious motivation and predict how faith might serve as a coping resource. Appropriate in research examining relationships between religiosity and health outcomes, prejudice, moral reasoning, or prosocial behavior. Valuable when assessing spiritual identity and therapeutic alliance in patients for whom religion is salient. Less suitable for quick screening or when only behavioral religious frequency (attendance) is needed; for that, the DUREL is more efficient.
Strengths & limitations
- Conceptual clarity: the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction is theoretically grounded and has produced decades of empirical insight into religious motivation and behavior.
- Predictive validity: intrinsic religiosity has consistently predicted better coping, prosocial behavior, and lower prejudice across diverse populations; extrinsic religiosity has predicted defensive, self-serving orientations.
- Clinical utility: understanding a patient's motivation orientation helps clinicians anticipate how religious beliefs will function in treatment (e.g., as resilience factor vs. defense mechanism).
- Revised version improves psychometrics: the I/E-Revised (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989) removed ambiguous items and achieved cleaner factor structure than the original.
- Social desirability bias: intrinsic religiosity is socially valued, leading participants to endorse intrinsic items even when extrinsic motivations dominate.
- Cultural variation: the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction may not map cleanly onto non-Western religious traditions where communal and instrumental aspects are normative and not viewed as inauthentic.
- Self-report validity in low-insight populations: some individuals may not consciously recognize the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, limiting accuracy of self-report.
- Dimensional complexity: bilinear and quest profiles complicate interpretation; clinicians must examine subscales separately rather than collapsing into a single score.
Frequently asked
Can someone score high on both intrinsic and extrinsic scales simultaneously?
Yes. This 'bilinear' profile—high on both dimensions—reflects individuals who are authentically motivated by faith while also deriving practical and social benefits from religion. This is not inherently problematic; it simply indicates a person for whom religion serves multiple functions. Clinical interpretation depends on whether the extrinsic benefits (e.g., community, moral authority) align with or undermine the intrinsic meaning (e.g., whether social pressure conflicts with personal conviction).
Is the I/E-Revised better than the original 20-item scale?
Yes, generally. The I/E-Revised (14 items) has improved factor structure and removed items that loaded ambiguously or showed social desirability. Use the I/E-Revised unless longitudinal comparability with older studies necessitates the original version. Both versions correlate strongly (r > .85).
How should I interpret a patient with low scores on both intrinsic and extrinsic scales?
Low scores on both dimensions typically indicate low religious salience or non-religious identity. This does not indicate psychological problems or poor coping; it simply means religion is not a central organizing principle. Assess other sources of meaning and coping (values, relationships, secular philosophy, nature). Do not assume the need to increase religiosity.
Does high intrinsic religiosity always predict better mental health?
No. While intrinsic religiosity correlates with positive outcomes in many studies, the relationship depends on the specific faith community and theological content. If a faith teaches shame, isolation, or rejection of medical treatment, intrinsic commitment to that belief may worsen mental health. Always assess the specific religious content and community, not just motivation level.
Sources
- Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. DOI: 10.1037/h0021212 ↗
- Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-Revised and single-item scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 348–354. DOI: 10.2307/1386745 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Intrinsic-Extrinsic Religiosity Scale. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/psychology-of-religion/intrinsic-extrinsic-religiosity
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Brief RCOPEPsychology Of Religion↔ compare
- DURELPsychology Of Religion↔ compare
- Quest ScalePsychology Of Religion↔ compare
- SBIPsychology Of Religion↔ compare