What Was in the Questionnaires?
Demographics in all questionnaires included, of course, country, age, gender, education, income, and religious affiliation. But the demographic sections were much more detailed for religion, spirituality and worldview. They included in addition: questions for deconversion from past religious communities, for difference of respondents’ religiosity from the religion of their parents, for self-identification as religious, spiritual, or atheist. Not all questionnaires included the questions for belief in God (sample item “I don’t believe in a personal God, but I do believe in a Higher Power of some kind.”), for changes in belief in God (sample item: “I don’t believe in God now, but I used to.”), and for religiosity as assessed by Huber’s (2012) Centrality of Religiosity Measure, which includes public practice, private practice, religious experience, ideology and the intellectual dimension.
The constructs and scales that we included in the questionnaires are listed in Table 12 and briefly presented in the text to follow. Thereby, the constructs are sorted according to their association to cognition, personality, well-being, religious attitudes and beliefs, and prejudice toward other people.
Quantitative measures in the Bielefeld-Chattanooga research projects
Now we briefly introduce and give some details about the scales we included in the questionnaires.
Need for Cognition
We administered the 18-item Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo et al., 1984). The measure assesses the openness and inclination to engage in thinking and reflection (e.g., “I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems”). A seven-point response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) was used to rate each item.
Intolerance of Ambiguity
Participants completed Budner’s (1962) Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale, which assesses the aversion to perceive ambiguous situations as desirable and see them rather as sources of threat (e.g., “What we are used to is always preferable to what is unfamiliar”). Items are rated using a seven-point response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). The Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale is among the frequently used measures for intolerance of ambiguity and related constructs (for a review, see Furnham & Marks, 2013).
Intellectual Humility
Newly included in the questionnaire of the most recent wave is the Intellectual Humility Scale (Krumrei-Mancuso & Rouse, 2016) that measures intellectual humility in four subscales: 1. Independence of intellect and ego (“When someone disagrees with ideas that are important to me, it feels as though I’m being attacked.”), 2. Openness to revising one’s viewpoint (“I have at times changed opinions that were important to me, when someone showed me I was wrong.”), 3. Respect for others’ viewpoints (“I respect that there are ways of making important decisions that are different from the way I make decisions.”), 4. Lack of intellectual overconfidence (“My ideas are usually better than other people’s ideas.”). Items are rated using a five-point response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). For a recent review, see Porter and colleagues (Porter, Baldwin, et al., 2022; Porter, Elnakouri, et al., 2022).
Big Five Personality Traits
Participants in every individual project completed the NEO Five Factor Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985). The 60-item measure assesses the Big Five personality traits (12 items each): neuroticism (e.g., “At times I have been so ashamed I just wanted to hide”), extraversion (e.g., “I really enjoy talking to people”), openness to experience (e.g., “I have a lot of intellectual curiosity”), agreeableness (e.g., “I would rather cooperate with others than compete with them”), and conscientiousness (e.g., “I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously”). Participants responded to the items using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). This Five Factor Model of personality is one of the most cross-culturally studied psychological constructs. Contributions to the literature in personality psychology demonstrate cross-cultural validity as, for example, the reviews by McCrae (2002) and colleagues (McCrae et al., 2004) show.
Psychological Well-Being
We administered the Psychological Well-Being and Growth Scale (Ryff, 2010) in all questionnaires. The measure assesses six dimensions of psychological well-being (7 items each; but in the most recent questionnaire, we used the 3-item version—with the consequence that in longitudinal analyses we use the 3-item version only): autonomy (e.g., “My decisions are not usually influenced by what everyone else is doing”), environmental mastery (e.g., “In general, I feel I am in charge of the situation in which I live”), positive relations with others (e.g., “I know that I can trust my friends, and they know they can trust me”), personal growth (e.g., “I have the sense that I have developed a lot as a person over time”), purpose in life (e.g., “Some people wander aimlessly through life, but I am not one of them”) and self-acceptance (e.g., “When I look at the story of my life, I am pleased with how things have turned out”). Participants responded to the items using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). Ryff’s scale is one of the most widely used psychological measurements of well-being. It was included in major US surveys such as the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS, Ryff, 2010).
Generativity
Participants also responded to the 20-item Loyola Generativity Scale (McAdams & de St Aubin, 1992), which measures the extent to which an individual has concern for the next generation (e.g., “I have made and created things that have had an impact on other people”). The items are rated on a four-point scale ranging from 1 (Never applies to me) to 4 (Applies to me very often or nearly always). For a recent review, see Pratt and colleagues (2020).
Mystical Experiences
We administered the Mysticism Scale (Hood, 1975) in all questionnaires. The measure contains three subscales that capture the core facets of a mystical experience: introvertive, which is composed of ego loss, timelessness/spacelessness, and ineffability, denoting an inward unitary consciousness beyond time and space (e.g., “I have had an experience that was both timeless and spaceless”); extrovertive, which is framed by unity and inner subjectivity, implying an outward merging with the wholeness of all existence (e.g., “I have had an experience in which all things seemed to be aware”); and interpretative, which incorporates positive affect, sacredness, and noetic quality that qualify both types of mysticism (e.g., “I have had an experience in which a new view of reality was revealed to me”). Items are rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (Very inaccurate) to 5 (Very accurate). The original version has 32 items; in the most recent questionnaire we have included the 8-item short version (Streib et al., 2021).
Religious Schemata
All participants also completed the 15-item Religious Schema Scale (Streib et al., 2010). The measure includes three subscales (5 items each): truth of texts and teachings, a schema that features an ethnocentric, exclusivist, and authoritative understanding of one’s own sacred texts (e.g., “What the texts and stories of my religion tell me is absolutely true and must not be changed”); xenosophia/inter-religious dialog, a schema reflecting an appreciation of difference, of the other, and of dialog (e.g., “We need to look beyond the denominational and religious differences to find the ultimate reality”); and fairness, tolerance & rational choice, a schema that features rational exchange of arguments (e.g., “We should resolve differences in how people appear to each other through fair and just discussion”). Items were rated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (Definitely not true) to 5 (Definitely true).
Religious Worldview
For the assessment of fundamentalism, pluralism, and the reflexivity on one’s own religion, we used 15 items from the Religion Monitor (Huber, 2009). Nine items assess fundamentalism (e.g. “I am convinced that in questions of religion/worldview, my own religion/worldview is right while other religions/worldviews tend to be wrong”), three items assess pluralism (e.g. “For me every religion/worldview has a core of truth.”), and three items assess reflexivity on one’s own religion (e.g. “How often do you rethink certain aspects of your religious views or your worldview?”). Participants responded to the items using a five-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree), or 1 (never) to 5 (very often).
God Representation
We administered a 20-item version of the God Representation Scale (Johnson et al., 2018), which assesses four different God representations using five adjectives each: the authoritarian God (“strict, punishing, wrathful, stern, commanding”); the benevolent God (“forgiving, merciful, compassionate, gracious, tolerant”); the mystical God (“nature, the universe, energy, consciousness, cosmic”); and the ineffable God (“unknown, unimaginable, unknowable, incomprehensible, inconceivable”). A seven-point response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree) was used to rate each item.
The Group-Focused Enmity (GFE) Syndrome
Colleagues in the Bielefeld Institute for the Study of Violence and Conflict suggest combining prejudice against immigrants and other potentially disrespected groups in the syndrome of Group-focused Enmity (Heitmeyer, 2002; Zick et al., 2008; Küpper & Zick, 2014). The GFE syndrome includes six components: prejudice against immigrants, Jews, black people, Muslims, women, and homosexuals. In the GFE, xenophobia is assessed with items such as “There are too many immigrants in Germany” and “We need to protect our culture from foreign influences.” Besides the items for xenophobia, we included racist prejudice (“Preferably, people of different races should not get married.”), homophobia (“It is a good thing to allow marriages between two men or two women.”), sexism (“Women should take their role as wives and mothers more seriously.”), Items are rated using a four-point response scale ranging from 1 (Absolutely disagree) to 4 (Absolutely agree).
Attitudes toward Refugees
Respondents were asked about their attitudes toward refugees. For war refugees, the item said, “War refugees should be accepted into Germany.” For ‘economic’ refugees, the item said, “Refugees who only come to Germany because of the better living conditions should directly be deported to their home countries.” Both items were measured on a four-point response scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 4 (completely agree). These items were for the first time included in the questionnaires about prejudice in Germany in 2015/2016 (Streib & Klein, 2018). For a recent analysis of attitudes toward refugees in Germany (2015/2016 and 2022), see Streib and Chen (2024a).