Journal of Psychology and Christianity

Copyright 2009 Christian Association for Psychological Studies

2009, Vol. 28, No. 3, 195-199

ISSN 0733-4273

Evaluating the Relationship Between the

Five-Factor Model of Personality and
Religious Orientation
Chad E. Barrett
Scott C. Roesch
San Diego State University
Religious Orientation (RO) describes how people experience religion and consists of Intrinsic, Extrinsic,
and Quest orientations. It is unclear how RO is associated with dimensions of established personality
models. Previous studies relating RO to the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of Personality have yielded mixed
results with small effect sizes. The present study explored the relationship of RO to the FFM using confirmatory factor analyses on a large, multiethnic sample (n = 413). Interfactor correlations between the
dimensions of RO and the FFM were low to medium (rs from -.009 to .256) and generally support the
view that RO is at best modestly associated with dimensions of the FFM. Interestingly, statistically significant relations were primarily found between quest RO and three dimensions of the FFM.

an approach to religion. Extrinsics are primarily

concerned with the benefits offered by their religion rather than the actual beliefs of their religion.
Quest-oriented individuals view religion as an
open-ended search for ultimate truth that engages
the existential questions of life (Paloutzian, 1996).
Even though there is a substantial body of literature demonstrating the usefulness of such religious
variables as Intrinsic, Extrinsic, and Quest RO
(e.g., Larson & Larson, 2003; Pargament, 1997;
Roesch & Ano, 2003), religious variables have not
been well integrated into mainstream psychology
(McCrae, 1999) or have been integrated with other
similar types of religious measures for analytic
purposes (Saraglou, 2002). In a meta-analysis summarizing the relation between types of religious
measures and dimensions of the FFM, Saraglou
created a typology of religious measures. Within
these categories, Intrinsic RO was combined with
measures of general religiosity, prayer, and orthodoxy; Quest RO was combined with measures of
general spirituality, open religiosity (which included the comparison between Liberal Protestants
and the general population, mature religion, and
mysticism); whereas Extrinsic RO was not combined with any other measures. The first category,
which included Intrinsic RO, was referred to as
religiosity. Religiosity was positively associated
with Agreeableness (A; r = .20) and Conscientiousness (C; r = .17) but more weakly associated with
Extraversion (E; r = .10). There was also a statistically significant but small negative correlation with
Openness (O; r = -.06). The second category was
referred to as open and mature religiosity and
spirituality, but only one study within this category (Kosek, 1999) evaluated the relationship

With the re-emergence of the psychology of

religion, many serious attempts have been made
to measure various religious constructs. Some
have wondered whether these religious constructs
are not simply the religification of already established personality constructs and stressed the
need for religious scales to demonstrate nonredundancy with established personality constructs (Piedmont, 1999a, 1999b), or at least show
how religious scales relate to already established
measures of personality such as the Five-Factor
Model (FFM; McCrae, 1999). This is not to say that
religiosity is a personality trait that necessarily has
a genetic component (e.g., Yamagata et al., 2006),
but rather may be a broad-based motivational
domain or a more general individual difference
variable (Saraglou, 2002) that can incrementally
explain behavior above and beyond dimensions
of the FFM (Piedmont, 1999a).
One common approach to measuring religiosity distinguishes between Intrinsic, Extrinsic (Allport and Ross, 1967), and Quest (Batson &
Schoenrade, 1991a, 1991b) religious orientations
(RO). The intrinsically-oriented person internalizes their religion and eschews utilitarian or selfserving motives for religious beliefs and practices;
they seek to incorporate their religion into all
parts of their life. The extrinsically-oriented person does not make the same internalization of
religious faith and has a more casual and utilitariCorrespondence regarding this article should be
addressed to Scott C. Roesch, Ph.D., Department of
Psychology, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Dr., San Diego, CA 92182-4611; scroesch@sciences.sdsu.edu
195

196

THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL

AND

RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION

between Quest RO and dimensions of the FFM.

This category was significantly and positively correlated with O (r = .22), E (r = .15), A (r = .15),
and C (r = .14), but significantly and negatively
correlated with Neuroticism N (r = -.09). The final
religious category included three studies that used
measures of Extrinsic RO. This category was significantly and positively associated with N (r = .11),
and significantly and negatively correlated with O
(r = -.09).
Overall, the magnitude of mean effect sizes
from Saraglous (2002) meta-analysis revealed
that the relationships between religious variables
and dimensions of the FFM were generally small.
However, these relationships as they pertain to
RO and the FFM are still unclear, as these measures were either aggregated with other similar
religiosity measures and/or were based on three
or fewer published studies. Only three published
studies (Kosek, 1999; Piedmont, 1999b; Taylor &
MacDonald, 1999) have evaluated the relationship between RO and the FFM, and only one
(Kosek) has included the Quest RO. Consistencies and inconsistencies in the correlations
among types of RO and the dimensions of the
FFM are evident when these three studies are
considered. For Intrinsic RO, statistically significant and small-to-medium correlations are found
for both A (rs ranged from .09 to .41), and C (rs
ranged from .11 to .27); small and statistically
nonsignificant relations were found between
Intrinsic RO and E (rs ranged from -.01 to .06), N
(rs ranged from -.12 to .00), and O (rs ranged
from -.09 to .06)although in the Piedmont
study the small correlation between Intrinsic RO
and O was statistically significant. For extrinsic
RO, three consistent associations were found
across the three studies: N (rs ranged from .11 to
.13), A (rs ranged from -.07 to .10, with no correlations being statistically significant), C (rs
ranged from -.09 to .12, with no correlations
being statistically significant); for the other
dimensions E was significantly and positively
associated with Extrinsic RO (r = .21) only for
the Kosek study, and O was significantly and
negatively associated with Extrinsic RO for only
the Taylor and MacDonald study (r = -.18).
When considering Quest RO, Kosek found that
only A (.26) and C (.28) were significantly associated with this type of RO.
The goals of the current study were primarily
threefold. First, the findings of the three studies
that have been conducted relating RO to FFM
were inconsistent; thus, the current study sought

to provide additional evidence in this regard

using a large multiethnic sample. Second, only
one previous study (Kosek, 1999), which
involved a small sample of adolescents, has
examined the relation between Quest RO and
the FFM. And third, all previous studies have
used versions of the NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae,
1992) or NEO-FFI (Zawadzki, Szczepaniak, &
Strelau, 1995) to assess the dimensions of the
FFM. To further test the generalizability of the
relations between RO and FFM we used the
International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999) to operationalize the FFM.
Methods
Sample
Participants were 413 undergraduate students
at a large western university. The sample was
72.5% female; 56.4% were Caucasian, 15.5%
were Latino/Mexican American; 9.7% described
themselves as mixed, 8.5% were Pacific
Islander/Filipino, 5.6% were Asian American,
1.9% were African American, .2% were Native
American, 1.9% were of other ethnicities, and
.2% were missing data. The average age was
18.45 years (SD = 1.5 years).
Measurements
The measurements used to assess Intrinsic,
Extrinsic, and Quest religious orientations were
based on a factor analysis done by Batson and
Schoenrade (1991a). Items for the Intrinsic and
Extrinsic scales included questions from Allport
and Rosss Intrinsic and Extrinsic scales (1967).
Items for the Quest scale were taken from Batson
and Shoenrade. Each dimension was indicated by
four items. A scale score for each dimension was
calculated for each participant, and acceptable
internal consistency values were found for scale
(instrinsic = .85, extrinsic = .56, quest = .65). The
Five-Factor Model of Personality was assessed
using the 50-item version of Goldbergs PublicDomain Inventory (Goldberg, 1999). This measure uses ten items for each of the five
dimensions of the FFM. The IPIP identifies an
Emotional Stability scale as opposed to measures
of N. The Emotional Stability scale was reversescored such that higher scores indicated higher
N. Participants were asked to rate how accurately
each of the items described them using a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 = Very Inaccurate to 5 =
Very Accurate. Acceptable internal consistency
values were found for each scale (N = .87, E =
.89, C = .80, A = .77, O = .81).

BARRETT

AND

ROESCH

197

Table 1
Interfactor Correlations for Religious Orientation and the Five-Factor Model
Variable:

-.249***

-.181***

.325***

-.210***

.368***

.358***

-.154***

.055

.075

.251***

.096**

.256***

.032

.043

.036

.110**

.010

Intrinsic

Extrinsic

Intrinsic

.020

.014

Extrinsic

.093*

-.008

Quest

.138**

-.031

-.042
.155***

.510***
-.051

.130**

Note. N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness; All were significant at *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001

Results
A confirmatory factor analysis with scales from
both measures simultaneously estimated was
evaluated. The following indices were used to
evaluate model fit: (a) the Satorra-Bentler Scaled
2 (S-B 2; Satorra & Bentler, 1988), a statistical
test of model fit when data are deemed multivariately nonnormal; (b) the Root Mean-Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1990),
with values less than .08 indicating reasonable
model fit; and (c) the Standardized Root MeanSquare Residual (SRMR), with values less than
.05 indicating reasonable model fit.
The model fit well descriptively, 2 (1741) =
3761.248, p < .05, SRMR = .07, RMSEA = .053. All
factor pattern coefficients (values ranged from .804
to .287) were generally moderate to large and significant. All interfactor correlations are presented
in Table 1. With respect to intra-instrument correlations, there was a large and positive correlation
between the Intrinsic and Extrinsic factors (r =
.510), a small and positive correlation between the
Extrinsic and Quest factors (r = .130), and a small
and negative correlation between the Intrinsic
and Quest factors (r = -.056). The dimensions of
the FFM correlations were generally small-to-medium (see Table 1 for specific values and statistical
significance information). When evaluating the
inter-instrument associations, the correlations
between the RO factors and the FFM factors, the
correlations were generally small (values ranged
from .008 to .256, see Table 1 for more detail).
However, a small-to-medium and positive associa-

tion was found between Intrinsic RO and A. More

modest, but statistically significant correlations,
were found between (1) Intrinsic RO and O, (2)
Extrinsic RO and N, and (3) Quest RO with N, O,
and A, respectively.
Discussion
The present study showed no to moderate
associations between measures of RO and the
FFM. Similar to the findings of previous studies
(Kosek, 1999; Piedmont, 1999b; Taylor & MacDonald, 1999) and a meta-analysis (Saraglou,
2002) the strongest association was between
Intrinsic RO and A. The robustness of this finding
is reflective of A indicating individuals who have
strong interpersonal tendencies toward altruistic
behaviors and Intrinsic RO indicating individuals
who are humanitarians with strong personal commitments (Hood, Spilka, Hunsberger, & Gorsuch,
1996) and strong spiritual support (Csarny, Piedmont, Sneck, & Cheston, 2000). The remainder of
the statistically significant findings of this study
are not entirely consistent with the previous three
empirical studies. Moreover, the reader should
note that the remainder of the statistically significant effects are small in magnitude.
Intrinsic RO was also significantly related to O,
although the correlation was more modest. This
correlation is inconsistent with the findings of
Kosek (1999) and Taylor and MacDonald (1999),
who found no statistically significant association,
and Piedmont (1999b), who found a small (but
statistically significant) negative association. The

198

THE FIVE FACTOR MODEL

AND

RELIGIOUS ORIENTATION

intrinsically-oriented person internalizes their religion and seeks to incorporate their religion into
all parts of their life, whereas individuals high on
O are generally more imaginative and inclusive,
and thus a small positive correlation is not completely unexpected (McCrae, 1999). Consistent
with the composition of the current sample, the
sample used in the Taylor and MacDonald study
was religiously heterogeneous (including participants that were not religious), and while the
association between Intrinsic RO and O was not
statistically significant, it was positive. Moreover,
the measures of Intrinsic RO and O used in these
two studies were comparable. However, it is possible that the measures of Intrinsic RO had more
of a spiritual component than a religious component, as spiritual transcendence has also been
shown to be positively associated with O (Piedmont, 1999a). Conversely, those in the university
sample in the Piedmont study were overwhelmingly self-identified Christians and the middle
school students in the Kosek study were drawn
from a religion class. Similar small negative correlations were found in these two studies suggesting that in a more religiously restrictive sample O
may have a negative connotation, in that it might
suggest less of a commitment to ones values
(Piedmont, 1999b). This is consistent with
Saroglou (2002) who found that religious fundamentalism was negatively related to O.
A small but statistically significant positive correlation was found between Extrinsic RO and N.
Similar relations were found in Saroglous metaanalysis (2002), as well as two of the primary
studiesin the Kosek (1999) study the author
notes that the measurement of N in this Polish
adolescent sample was problematic. The extrinsically-oriented person does not make the same
internalization of religious faith and has a more
casual and utilitarian approach to religion.
Extrinsics are primarily concerned with the benefits offered by their religion rather than the actual beliefs of their religion, and view religion as
means and not religion as ends (Pargament,
1997). Individuals high in N typically experience
more negative emotionality. This positive association between N and Extrinsic RO might indicate
that these individuals might also experience
some guilt for not being more religiously committed. In support of this, extrinsically-oriented
individuals are less likely to read religious literature (Piedmont, 2001) and engage in collaborative problem solving with God (Rodgerson &
Piedmont, 1998).

Interestingly, the remaining three statistically

significant correlations all involved Quest RO.
The findings from the present study indicate that
individuals high in Quest RO are significantly
more open to new ideas and experiences (which
is central to the definition of Quest religiosity as
tending towards an open-ended search for
truth), more agreeable (consistent with the findings of Kosek [1999]), but also scoring slightly
higher on N. That A was positively associated
with Quest RO is consistent with past findings
using the Spirtual Transcendence Scale (Piedmont, 1999a). In this latter study A was positively associated with both spiritual universality and
connectedness (i.e., the perception that there is a
unity and shared responsibility for all forms of
human life); this description is compatible with
A emphasizing strong and altruistic interpersonal
tendencies. That N was positively associated
with Quest RO might appear curious. However,
one could argue that this open-ended search for
truth and the seeking of new experiences could
be anxiety-provoking (a component of high N
individuals) to some small degree.
Although RO is related with dimensions of the
FFM, the small associations suggest that RO is relatively independent of the FFM. However, the
low correlations could be attributed to the different levels of abstraction at which the RO and
FFM constructs exist; the FFM domains are much
more general and abstract than the RO scales,
which reflect more specific orientations. Evaluating the RO scales in relationship to the more specific facet scales of the FFM might yield stronger
correlations (Piedmont, 1999b). However, this
also suggests that RO is a unique individual difference variable that can add to the incremental
validity in the prediction of outcomes above and
beyond the dimensions of the FFM.
References
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 5, 432-443.
Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991a). Measuring religion as Quest: 1) Validity concerns. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 416-429.
Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991b). Measuring religion as Quest: 2) Reliability concerns. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30, 430-447.
Costa, P.T., Jr., & McCrae, R.R. (1992). The NEO PI-R
Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

BARRETT
Csarny, R. J., Piedmont, R. L., Sneck, W. J., & Cheston, S. E. (2000). An evaluation of the Incremental
validity of the Spiritual Experience IndexRevised.
Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 11,
117-131.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, publicdomain, personality inventory measuring the lowerlevel facets of several five-factor models. In I.
Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.),
Personality Psychology in Europe: Vol 7 (pp. 7-28).
Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
Hood, R. W., Jr., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, L. (1996). The psychology of Religion: An empirical approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kosek, R. B. (1999). Adaptation of the Big Five as a
hermeneutic instrument for religious constructs. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 229-237.
Larson, D. B., & Larson, S. S. (2003). Spiritualitys
potential relevance to physical and emotional health: A
brief review of quantitative research. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 31, 37-51.
McCrae, R. R. (1999). Mainstream personality psychology and the study of religion. Journal of Personality, 67, 1209-1218.
Paloutzian, R. E. (1996). Invitation to the psychology
of religion (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion
and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York:
Guilford Press.
Piedmont, L. R. (1999a). Does spirituality represent
the sixth factor of personality? Spiritual transcendence
and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 67,
985-1013.
Piedmont, L. R. (1999b). Strategies for using the fivefactor model of personality in religious research. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 27, 338-350.
Piedmont, L.R. (2001). Spiritual transcendence and
the scientific study of spirituality. Journal of Rehabilitation, 67, 4-14.
Roesch, S. C., & Ano, G. (2003) Testing an attribution and coping model of stress: Religion as an orienting system. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 22,
197-209.

AND

ROESCH

199

Rodgerson, T.E., & Piedmont, L.R. (1998). Assessing

the incremental validity of the Religious Problem Solving Scale in the prediction of clergy burnout. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 517-527.
Saroglou, V. (2002). Religion and the five factors of
personality: a meta-analytic review. Personality and
Individual Differences, 32, 15-25.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics in covariance structure
analysis. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, 308-313.
Steiger, J. S. (1990). Structural model evaluation and
modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173-180.
Taylor, A., & MacDonald, D. A. (1999). Religion
and the Five Factor Model of personality: An
exploratory investigation using a Canadian university
sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27,
1243-1259.
Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J. M., Ono, Y., Kijima, N, Yoshimura, K., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A.,
Riemann, R., Spinath, F.M., Livesley, W.J., & Jang, K.L.
(2006). Is the genetic structure of human personality
universal? A cross-cultural twin study from North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 987-998.
Zawadzki, B., Szczepaniak, P., & Strelau, J. (1995).
Psychometric assessment of the big five personality
factors. Polish adaptation of Costa and McCraes
NEO-FFI questionnaire. Studia Psychologiczue, 33,
189-225.

Authors
Chad E. Barrett is a graduate student at San Diego
State University. He is interested in studying religion
and spirituality from the perspective of psychology.
Scott C. Roesch is an associate professor at San Diego
State University where he teaches graduate courses in
statistics. His research interests focus on personality psychology, trait-state models of stress and coping, and
structural equation modeling.