Religious Fundamentalism Scale
Also known as: RF Scale, Altemeyer-Hunsberger Fundamentalism Scale, Religious Fundamentalism (RF) Measure, Fundamentalism Attitude Scale
The Religious Fundamentalism (RF) Scale, introduced by Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger in 1992, measures fundamentalism as a psychological attitude rather than as membership in any particular tradition. They defined it as the belief that one's religion holds a single set of fundamental, inerrant truths about humanity and deity, that this truth is opposed by forces of evil that must be resisted, and that it must be followed today according to the practices of the past. Crucially the scale is content-general: it can be answered by adherents of any religion and taps the structure of the belief rather than its specific doctrines. Built as a balanced scale with equal numbers of pro- and con-trait items to control for response bias, the RF Scale was developed alongside studies linking fundamentalism to right-wing authoritarianism and prejudice.
Key highlights
- Measures fundamentalism as a content-general attitude usable across religious traditions, not tied to one creed.
- Balanced protrait and contrait items control acquiescence bias, a common flaw in attitude scales.
- Unidimensional and highly internally consistent, supporting a clean single-score interpretation.
- Strong, well-replicated relationships with right-wing authoritarianism and prejudice give it predictive validity.
Intuition
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
How it works
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
When to use it
Use the RF Scale when you want to measure the fundamentalist structure of religious belief — its claim to single inerrant truth, its embattled stance, its backward orientation — independent of any particular tradition, and to relate that attitude to outcomes such as authoritarianism, prejudice, or openness. It is appropriate in cross-religious and mixed samples precisely because its items are content-general, and it works well alongside measures of right-wing authoritarianism and quest. It is less suited when the question concerns specific doctrinal content rather than the form of belief, when 'fundamentalism' is meant in a strictly theological or denominational sense, or in contexts where the construct's Western framing may not capture how rigidity manifests locally without revalidation.
Strengths & limitations
- Measures fundamentalism as a content-general attitude usable across religious traditions, not tied to one creed.
- Balanced protrait and contrait items control acquiescence bias, a common flaw in attitude scales.
- Unidimensional and highly internally consistent, supporting a clean single-score interpretation.
- Strong, well-replicated relationships with right-wing authoritarianism and prejudice give it predictive validity.
- The construct and items reflect a largely Western, monotheistic conception that may travel imperfectly to other traditions.
- Fundamentalism as measured overlaps substantially with authoritarianism, raising discriminant-validity questions.
- A single dimension may oversimplify what some argue are separable facets of fundamentalist belief.
- Self-report of an attitude carrying negative connotations is vulnerable to social-desirability distortion.
Common pitfalls
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Applications
This section is available to Pro members. Upgrade to Pro
Frequently asked
How does the RF Scale define fundamentalism?
It defines fundamentalism as the belief that there is one set of religious teachings that contains the fundamental, inerrant truth about humanity and deity; that this truth is opposed by forces of evil that must be vigorously fought; and that it must be followed today according to the fundamental practices of the past. This is a definition of the structure of belief, not its content, which is why adherents of very different religions can score high.
Why does the scale use both pro- and anti-fundamentalism items?
To control acquiescence bias, the tendency to agree with assertively worded statements regardless of their meaning. By including roughly equal numbers of protrait items (agreement signals fundamentalism) and contrait items (agreement signals its rejection) and reverse-keying the latter, any uniform agreeableness contributes to both directions and cancels out. The balanced design makes the total score reflect the underlying attitude rather than a response style.
Is religious fundamentalism the same as authoritarianism?
They are strongly related but conceptually distinct. Altemeyer and Hunsberger found religious fundamentalism correlates substantially with right-wing authoritarianism and, like it, predicts prejudice, but fundamentalism specifically concerns the structure of religious belief — its claim to single inerrant truth and its embattled, traditionalist stance — whereas authoritarianism is a broader orientation toward submission, aggression, and convention. Their overlap is a finding, not an identity, and discriminant validity between them is something studies should test rather than assume.
Sources
- 1.Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113-133.
You have read it. What now?
Cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 23). Religious Fundamentalism Scale. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/religious-studies/religious-fundamentalism-scale