Religious openness hypothesis: III. defense against secularism within fundamentalist and biblical foundationalist ideological surrounds.

Watson, P.J. ; Chen, Zhuo ; Morris, Ronald J. 等

Religious and other social rationalities operate within an ideological surround (Watson, 1993, 2011; Ghorbani, Watson, Saeedi, Chen, & Silver, 2012). This claim assumes that what is "rational" within social life is defined by conformity with norms around which a community is organized. Traditional religious communities organize their thought and practice around norms defined by some shared vision of God. Modern scientific communities conform to norms defined by some prominent reading of nature. These norms are incommensurable. In other words, "nature" and "God" operate as "gods" within a surround because nothing "extra-communal" can serve as a higher "god" capable of adjudicating between these two standards for those who maintain ultimate commitments to one or the other. Incommensurable rationalities can, but need not be incompatible in what they recommend. Some thought and practice will be compatible, but much will be irrelevant across surrounds. Maintenance of boundaries will, nevertheless, be critical for ensuring the viability of any ideological surround (Hood, Morris, & Watson, 1986). Incommensurable rationalities will, consequently, make sociological adjustments that defend their boundaries within pluralistic cultural life (e.g., Watson, 2014). To say that social rationalities function within an ideological surround, therefore, is to say that they operate within a normative, incommensurable, and sociological frame of reference (MacIntyre, 1978, 1988).

Based upon this Ideological Surround Model of social life, the Religious Openness Hypothesis argues that traditional religions have their own community-specific potentials for defining religious and psychological openness (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015). This suggestion argues against any tendency to imply that traditional religions might be described as wholly reactionary or narrow-minded (perhaps, e.g., Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Batson, Shoenrade, & Ventis, 1993). The alternative suggestion is that religious, and indeed all viable, social rationalities must maintain two forms of openness (Tekke, Watson, Ismail, & Chen, 2015). Intra-traditional openness will allow a community to use its own thought and practice to better understand its own norms. Developments in the exegetical analysis of texts, for example, might help a religious community achieve deeper insights into its own social rationality. Extra-traditional openness will instead nurture the sociological viability of a community by integrating compatible but also by rejecting incompatible insights from other culturally influential social rationalities. Rejection as an element of openness is essential because no ideological surround can survive with wholly porous boundaries. Modern scientific rationalities, for example, will necessarily be closed-minded as they reject religious assumptions about supernatural causality just as traditionally religious rationalities will wall out any presumptions that absolutely dictate ontological naturalism.

Empirical support for the Religious Openness Hypothesis comes from studies using a Religious Reflection Scale (Dover, Miner, & Dowson, 2007) that was developed for Muslims but that was also modified for use with followers of other religious traditions. Factor analysis identified two dimensions within this instrument (Watson, Chen, & Hood, 2011). In an American Christian sample, a Faith Oriented Reflection factor appeared in such statements as "Faith in Christ is what nourishes the intellect and makes the intellectual life prosperous and productive" and "I have seriously thought about my religious beliefs and I am very committed to the faith I now have." Illustrative of an Intellect Oriented Reflection factor were claims that "I believe as humans we should use our minds to explore all fields of thought from science to metaphysics" and that "studying nature and the universe would reveal treasures of knowledge and truth." Faith Oriented Reflection, therefore, more strongly reflected intra-traditional openness whereas Intellect Oriented Reflection more clearly brought extra-traditional openness into empirical focus. Positive correlations between these two factors would suggest an ability to integrate faith with intellect and would thus support the Religious Openness Hypothesis. Such relationships have in fact appeared with Muslims in Iran (Ghorbani, Watson, Chen, & Dover, 2013) and Malaysia (Tekke et al., 2015) and with Hindus in India (Kamble, Watson, Marigoudar, & Chen, 2014).

Religious Openness and Christians

For Christians in America, however, Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection display negative correlations that are usually (Watson et al., 2011; Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015), but not always (Watson, Chen, & Morris, 2014) statistically significant. Such a result suggests tendencies toward a ghettoization of the Christian ideological surround in which faith walls out the intellect. In light of cross-cultural comparisons, a further implication might seem to be that Muslims and Hindus are more open-minded than Christians. Two empirical demonstrations make it clear that this cross-cultural conclusion must be rejected.

First, the close-mindedness of American samples appears attributable not to Christianity, but rather to fundamentalism (Watson et al., 2011; Watson, Ghorbani, Vartanian, & Chen, 2015). The Religious Fundamentalism Scale (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004) correlates positively with Faith and negatively with Intellect Oriented Reflection, and statistical procedures controlling for this measure produce a positive linkage between these two forms of religious reflection. In other words, fundamentalism blocks the American Christian integration of intellect with faith. Moreover, a Biblical Foundationalism Scale (Watson et al., 2003) expresses Christian commitment to "fundamentals" in a language that is more cognitively open and less condemning than that used in the original Religious Fundamentalism Scale (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992), Biblical Foundationalism displays a robust positive correlation with Religious Fundamentalism, but partial correlations controlling for Religious Fundamentalism, nevertheless, demonstrate that Biblical Foundationalism correlates positively with Intellect as well as with Faith Oriented Reflection (Watson, Ghorbani, Vartanian, & Chen, 2015). In short, findings for Biblical Foundationalism make it clear that an American Christian faithfulness to "fundamentals" can be compatible with Intellect Oriented Reflection.

Second, if Christianity were closed-minded, then Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection would correlate negatively regardless of cultural context. This is not so. Christians in Iran exhibit a positive zero-order relationship between Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection (Watson, Ghorbani, Vartanian, & Chen, 2015). This cultural difference suggests that the sociological adjustments that help define ideological surrounds may exert a critical influence on Christian open-mindedness. Iran is a theocratic Islamic society that places religion at the center of its social rationality. Such a society would presumably encourage a harmonious integration of intellect with faith for not only Muslims, but also for Christians who live there. Indeed, evidence demonstrates that empirical markers of fundamentalism predict greater rather than lower psychological openness in Iranian Muslims (Ghorbani, Watson, Shamohammadi, & Cunningham, 2009). The United States, however, is an increasingly secular society with important foundations in an Enlightenment commitment to reason that promotes separation of state and religion. For Americans committed to Christian "fundamentals," "reason" as a defining feature of secular ideological surrounds may appear to operate as a wedge designed to extirpate faith from social life. In other words, "reason" may be ideologically suspect, and inverse relationships between Intellect and Faith Oriented Reflection may reflect an American defense against secularism.

Present Study

The present project sought to empirically test the suggestion that a defense against secularism helps explain American Christian close-mindedness. Accomplishment of that objective first required development of a Defense against Secularism Scale. The availability of this instrument then made it possible to test the prediction of the Religious Openness Hypothesis that Defense against Secularism should correlate positively with Faith and negatively with Intellect Oriented Reflection. The further assumption is that defensiveness helps explain the inverse linkage of Faith with Intellect Oriented Reflection; so, Defense against Secularism should also at least partially mediate that relationship.

Analysis of this issue benefited from administration of additional measures that were useful in previous clarifications of religious openness. Religious Fundamentalism (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2004) and Biblical Foundationalism (Watson et al., 2003) assessed different nuances in the expression of Christian fundamentalism. Religious Schema Scales evaluated three constructs relevant to religious openness (Streib, Hood, & Klein, 2010). Truth of Texts and Teachings assessed a fundamentalist style of faith. Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality operationalized an acceptance of others based upon rational judgment. The word "xenosophia" refers to the "foreigner" (xeno) and to "wisdom" (sophia); so, the Xenosophia Scale recorded an appreciation of the wisdom that may be available in other, "foreign" religious traditions. Openness to Experience (Goldberg, 1999) recorded a more general psychological openness. Religious Orientation Scales (Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989) made it possible to clarify the religious implications of all other variables. The Intrinsic Religious Orientation Scale recorded sincere goals to make religion the master motive in life. Extrinsic Personal Orientation involved a use of religion to achieve personal well-being, whereas the Extrinsic Social Orientation reflected the use of religion to obtain desired social outcomes. Previous studies have demonstrated that findings for these measures support the Religious Openness Hypothesis; so, this investigation focused on four broad sets of hypotheses associated specifically with Defense against Secularism.

First, Defense against Secularism should clarify religious fundamentalism in the United States. Religious Fundamentalism, Biblical Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teachings all offered different articulations of a personal commitment to the "fundamentals" of faith. Truth of Texts and Teachings correlate negatively with religious openness in German and American samples (Streib et al., 2010), but these linkages become positive in Indian Hindus (Kamble et al., 2014) and Malaysian Muslims (Tekke et al., 2015). Such outcomes once again suggest that religious fundamentalism may have very different implications outside the West. The argument of the present study was that this difference is explicable in terms of a Western sociological context that encourages religious defensiveness in response to secular ideological surrounds. In short, Religious Fundamentalism, Biblical Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teachings should all correlate positively with Defense against Secularism.

Second, these fundamentalism measures all correlate negatively with Intellect Oriented Reflection in American samples (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015), but this relationship for Truth of Texts and Teachings has been examined outside the West and is positive for Indian Hindus (Kamble, 2014) and Malaysian Muslims (Tekke et al., 2015). Again, the Religious Openness Hypothesis explains this Western difference in terms of a defensive Christian reaction to the more secular cultural context. The hypothesis, therefore, was that Defense against Secularism should at least partially mediate negative relationships of Religious Fundamentalism, Biblical Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teachings with Intellect Oriented Reflection.

Third, Defense against Secularism should work against religious and psychological openness. In other words, Defense against Secularism should correlate negatively with Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia, and Openness to Experience.

Fourth, partial correlations controlling for Biblical Foundationalism yield data that focus on a Religious Fundamentalist Ideological Surround and vice versa. Evidence already describes the Religious Fundamentalist Surround as relatively more closed and the Biblical Foundationalist Surround as relatively more open in American Christians (Watson, Chen & Morris, 2014; Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015). The present study sought to describe how Defense against Secularism might be interpreted within these two surrounds. Partial correlations controlling for Biblical Foundationalism should uncover a positive Religious Fundamentalism linkage with Defense against Secularism that is framed within the context of additional relationships indicative of a relatively more closed ideological surround. The situation for Biblical Foundationalism seemed more complex. As a more open ideological surround, Biblical Foundationalism might exhibit no significant partial correlation with Defense against Secularism. On the other hand, secular opposition to religion might appear to some Christians as an empirical reality that helps define the contemporary "culture wars" of the West. A positive partial correlation of Biblical Foundationalism with Defense against Secularism might thus reveal a perspective that discerns an at least rationally plausible empirical reality. Such a relationship would, nevertheless, be accompanied by other evidence documenting that this perspective on secularism is framed within the relative openness of the Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surround.

Hypotheses

In summary, this study used a Defense against Secularism Scale to further evaluate the Religious Openness Hypothesis. Administration of Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection Scales made it possible to reexamine the negative correlation between these two constructs that points toward a relatively closed American Christian religious perspective. Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism analyzed two American ideological surrounds that maintain a commitment to "fundamentals," but that nevertheless differ in their openness. Religious Schema Scales operationalized religious styles that in the West range from the more closed fundamentalist perspective of Truth of Texts and Teaching to the more open religious styles defined by Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality and by Xenosophia. Openness to Experience assessed psychological openness. Religious Orientation Scales helped define the religious implications of all zero-order and partial correlations. Administration of these instruments made it possible to test seven most important hypotheses about Defense against Secularism:

First, Defense against Secularism should correlate positively with Faith Oriented and negatively with Intellect Oriented Religious Reflection.

Second, Defense against Secularism should at least partially mediate an inverse association of Faith Oriented with Intellect Oriented Reflection.

Third, Defense against Secularism should correlate positively with measures of fundamentalism, including the Religious Fundamentalism, Biblical Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teachings Scales.

Fourth, Defense against Secularism should at least partially mediate the inverse association of these fundamentalism measures with Intellect Oriented Reflection.

Fifth, Defense against Secularism should display negative associations with the forms of openness expressed by Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and Openness to Experience.

Sixth, a Religious Fundamentalist Ideological Surround should predict higher Defense against Secularism along with additional evidence of a relatively closed religious perspective.

Seventh and finally, in partial correlations controlling for Religious Fundamentalism, Biblical Foundationalism should display a nonsignificant or positive correlation with Defense against Secularism. Other partial correlations should, nevertheless, point toward a relatively more open Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surround.

Method

Participants

Students enrolled in Introductory Psychology classes at a state university in the southeastern United States served as the research participants. These 143 men and 282 women were on average 18.7 years old (SD = 1.4). This sample was 79.7% White, 12.1% African-American, and 8.2% various other racial self-identifications. In terms of self-reported religious affiliation, this student group was 67.6% Protestant, 10.2% Catholic, 10.4% atheist or agnostic, and 11.8% maintaining various other religious commitments.

Measures

All instruments appeared in a single questionnaire booklet. Reactions to all items occurred along a 0 to 4 Likert scale. Representative statements for all but the Openness to Experience Scale appeared in the first paper of this series of investigations (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015). Instruments appeared within the booklet in the order in which they are described below.

Openness to Experience. Openness to Experience ([alpha] = .75, M response per item = 2.85, SD = 0.54) was a 10-item measure from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1999). Illustrating openness was the self-report, "I spend time reflecting on things."

Religious Schema. Five items made up each of the three Religious Schema Scales (Streib et al., 2010), which included of Texts and Teachings ([alpha] = .89, M = 2.46, SD = 1.10); Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality ([alpha] = .65, M = 3.22, SD = 0.62); and Xenosophia ([alpha] = .59, M = 2.28, SD = 0.74).

Religious Orientation. The Gorsuch and McPherson (1989) Religious Orientation Scales included the 8-item Intrinsic ([alpha] = .85, M = 2.33, SD = 0.93), 3-item Extrinsic Personal ([alpha] = .81, M = 2.35, SD = 1.08), and 3-item Extrinsic Social ([alpha] = .80, M = 1.07, SD = 0.92) measures. Overall mean differences appeared in these Religious Orientation means, Greenhouse-Geisser F [1.97, 828.41] = 326.30, p < .001. As in the two companion studies in this series (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015; Watson, Ghorbani, Vartanian, & Chen, 2015), the Extrinsic Social Orientation was once again lowest, but no significant contrast appeared between the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Personal Orientations.

Christian Religious Reflection. Included in the Christian Religious Reflection Scale (Watson et al., 2011) were 7 statements expressing Faith Oriented Reflection ([alpha] = .85, M = 2.46, SD = 0.97) and 5 statements operationalizing Intellect Oriented Reflection ([alpha] = .73, M = 2.55, SD = 0.79).

Biblical Foundationalism. Assessing Biblical Foundationalism ([alpha] = .97, M = 2.57, SD = 1.14) were 15 items. Again, this instrument expressed a commitment to Christian "fundamentals" in a language that was less defensive than that used in the Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992) Religious Fundamentalism Scale (Watson et al., 2003).

Religious Fundamentalism. As a revised shorter version of the original Religious Fundamentalism Scale, the Altemeyer and Hunsberger (2004) instrument included 12 items ([alpha] = .92, M = 2.12, SD = 1.00).

Defense Against Secularism. The final section of the questionnaire included 17 potential expressions of a Defense against Secularism. These items appear below in the first table of the results section.

Procedure

All research procedures received institutional approval. Participation in this project was wholly voluntary with all responding being completely anonymous. Administration of the questionnaire occurred in a large classroom setting. Students entered all responses to questionnaire items on standardized answer sheets that optical scanning equipment later entered into a computer data file.

Scoring of all instruments focused on the average response per item. After computation of zero-order relationships, partial correlations reexamined all linkages after controlling for Biblical Foundationalism in order to isolate a Religious Fundamentalist Ideological Surround and after controlling Religious Fundamentalism in order to delineate a Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surround. Finally, the mediation procedures of Hayes (2012) evaluated whether Defense against Secularism could explain any negative relationships with Intellect Oriented Reflection that might appear for Faith Oriented Reflection and for the three indices of fundamentalism, including Truth of Texts and Teachings, Religious Fundamentalism, and Biblical Foundationalism.

Results

Factor Analysis of Defense Against Secularism

Statistical procedures first analyzed the factor structure of the Defense against Secularism items. As defined by an eigenvalue greater than 1.0, a principal components analysis uncovered one major (eigenvalue = 9.68, % variance explained = 57.0%) and one minor (eigenvalue = 1.03, % variance explained = 6.0%) component. A scree test, cross-loadings of some items on both dimensions, and an examination of correlations with other variables suggested that responding could be parsimoniously described by forcing all 17 items into the single component presented in Table 1. This single-factor instrument exhibited high internal reliability ([alpha] = .95, M = 1.89, SD = 0.89).

Zero-Order Correlations Among Measures

Relationships among all but the Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism scales appear in Table 2. These data most importantly pointed toward Defense against Secularism as a more closed religious perspective. Specifically, positive associations with Faith Oriented Reflection, Truth of Texts and Teachings, and all three religious orientations documented the conformity of Defense against Secularism with religious commitments; but negative linkages with Intellect Oriented Reflection; Faith, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and Openness to Experience confirmed that this scale defined a more closed mode of intellectual and social functioning.

As with previous American samples, the two Christian Religious Reflection Scales covaried inversely. Faith Oriented Reflection also correlated positively with Truth of Texts and Teachings; Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; and all three religious orientations. Intellect Oriented Reflection instead exhibited positive connections with Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and Openness to Experience and also negative linkages with Truth of Texts and Teaching and with the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Social Religious Orientations. Hence, Faith Oriented Reflection defined a relatively more closed religious perspective, whereas Intellect Oriented Reflection defined a relatively more open non-religious style of functioning.

The most noteworthy additional relationships in Table 2 depict Truth of Texts and Teachings as relatively more religious and closed in contrast to the more open and less religious stances of Xenosophia and of Faith, Tolerance, and Rationality. In particular, Truth of Texts and Teachings correlated negatively with Xenosophia and positively with Fairness, Tolerance and Rationality and with all three religious orientations. Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality and Xenosophia correlated positively with each other and with Openness to Experience. In addition, Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality predicted a lower Extrinsic Social Orientation, whereas Xenosophia exhibited linkages with the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Personal Orientations that were negative and positive, respectively.

A positive relationship appeared between the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Social Orientations and between the two Extrinsic factors. The Extrinsic Social Orientation also proved to be incompatible with Openness to Experience.

Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism

As in previous projects, Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism displayed a robust direct relationship (r = .84, p < .001). Table 3 depicts the zero-order and partial correlations observed for these two scales. Centrally important was the differentiation produced between these constructs when partial correlations looked at Religious Fundamentalism after controlling for Biblical Foundationalism and vice versa. In these partial correlations, both instruments predicted higher levels of Defense against Secularism, but clear contrasts appeared in their association with other variables.

In general terms, Religious Fundamentalism emerged as an intrinsic commitment to fundamentals that was relatively more closed and less broadly religious. Documenting the religious commitment to fundamentals were positive correlations with Truth of Texts and Teachings and with the Intrinsic Religious Orientation. The closed perspective was obvious in negative linkages with Intellect Oriented Reflection; Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and Openness to Experience. Also noteworthy was a nonsignificant partial correlation with Faith Oriented Reflection that suggested a failure to utilize even faith-based forms of reasoning. Linkages with the Extrinsic Personal and Social Orientations were negative and nonsignificant, respectively.

Biblical Foundationalism, in contrast, described a religious commitment to fundamentals that was more open and more broadly religious. Once again, a religious commitment to fundamentals appeared in positive linkages with the Intrinsic Religious Orientation and with Truth of Texts and Teachings. Documenting a general openness were positive partial correlations with Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection; Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and Openness to Experience. Relationships with the Extrinsic Personal and Social Orientations were both positive.

Religious Fundamentalist and Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surrounds

Partial correlations also characterized relationships among other variables when framed within Religious Fundamentalist and Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surrounds. Data for a Religious Fundamentalist Ideological Surround appeared in partial correlations controlling for Biblical Foundationalism, and presentation of these results occurs above the diagonal in Table 4. Partial correlations controlling for Religious Fundamentalism defined outcomes within the Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surround, which Table 4 presents below the diagonal.

Defense against Secularism operated as a generally more closed process, because within each ideological surround, this scale correlated negatively with Intellect Oriented Reflection; Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; and Openness to Experience. Two results, nevertheless, suggested that Defense against Secularism was relatively more closed within the Religious Fundamentalist Surround. Specifically, Defense against Secularism correlated negatively with Xenosophia only within the Religious Fundamentalist Surround and correlated positively with Faith Oriented Reflection only within the Biblical Foundationalist Surround. Within both surrounds, Defense against Secularism failed to predict Truth of Texts and Teachings, suggesting no meaningful contact with "fundamentals" within either surround. An Extrinsic Social Orientation was the only religious motivation to describe Defense against Secularism in both surrounds.

In both ideological surrounds, Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection correlated positively, suggesting that overlapping variance between the Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism scales explained the negative zero-order relationship between these two constructs. A positive Faith Oriented Reflection linkage with Openness to Experience across both surrounds pointed toward additional implications associated with this overlapping variance.

Other commonalities across ideological surrounds appeared in direct relationships of Faith Oriented Reflection with Truth of Texts and Teachings and with the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Personal Orientations. At the same time, however, Faith Oriented Reflection correlated positively with Xenosophia and Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality only in partial correlations controlling for Religious Fundamentalism. These latter results, therefore, identified the Biblical Fundamentalist Surround as relatively more open.

Further evidence of relatively greater Biblical Foundationalist openness appeared in findings for Intellect Oriented Reflection. Within a Biblical Foundationalist Surround, Intellect Oriented Reflection correlated positively with Truth of Texts and Teachings, whereas this relationship was negative within a Religious Fundamentalist Surround. As would be expected of an index of openness, Intellect Oriented Reflection also correlated positively with Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and Openness to Experience across both surrounds. A negative relationship with the Intrinsic Religious Orientation identified Intellect Oriented Reflection as incompatible with sincere religious commitments within a Religious Fundamentalist Surround, but this partial correlation was nonsignificant within a Biblical Foundationalist Surround. In both surrounds, Intellect Oriented Reflection correlated positively with the Extrinsic Personal and negatively with the Extrinsic Social Orientations.

In additional results for the Religious Schema Scales, Truth of Texts and Teachings was relatively more open and religious when positioned within a Biblical Foundationalist Surround. Supporting this conclusion were findings that this scale correlated positively with Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; Openness to Experience; and all three religious orientations within the Biblical Foundationalist Surround, but within a Religious Fundamentalist Surround associations with Xenosophia, Openness to Experience, and the Extrinsic Social Orientation were all nonsignificant. The only remaining contrast for Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality was a positive correlation with the Intrinsic Religious Orientation within the Biblical Foundationalist, but not within the Religious Fundamentalist Surround. Xenosophia was incompatible with an Intrinsic Religious Orientation only within a Religious Fundamentalist Surround, and Openness to Experience was compatible with an Intrinsic Religious Orientation only within a Biblical Foundationalist Surround. Finally, the Intrinsic Orientation correlated positively with the Extrinsic Personal Orientation only within the Biblical Foundationalist and negatively with the Extrinsic Social Orientation only with the Religious Fundamentalist surrounds.

In summary, complex patterns of partial correlations appeared across the two ideological surround. Where differences appeared, the most important implications were clear. The Religious Fundamentalist Surround was a relatively more closed and the Biblical Foundational Surround a relatively more open religious perspective.

Defense Against Secularism as Mediator

Mediation analyses examined the possibility that Defense against Secularism could explain the incompatibilities of Faith Oriented Reflection and various indices of fundamentalism as independent variables with Intellect Oriented Reflection as the dependent variable. Mediation first required that each independent variable predict the mediator (Baron & Kenney, 1986). Significant associations with Defense against Secularism did in fact appear for Faith Oriented Reflection ([beta] = .57), Religious Fundamentalism ([beta] = .73), Biblical Foundationalism ([beta] = .69), and Truth of Texts and Teachings ([beta] = .61, ps < .001). As Table 5 demonstrates, Defense against Secularism fully mediated negative associations of Faith Oriented Reflection, Biblical Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teachings with Intellect Oriented Reflection and partially mediated this connection for Religious Fundamentalism.

Clarifying Analysis

Both Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism exhibited direct partial correlations with Defense against Secularism. The absence of a relationship had been considered in the hypotheses as a possible outcome for Biblical Foundationalism, and its linkage with Defense against Secularism was in fact weaker than that observed for Religious Fundamentalism. To further clarify these conceptually noteworthy data, partial correlations reexamined connections of these two scales with each Defense against Secularism item separately.

Religious Fundamentalism exhibited significant positive partial correlations with all 17 items. The strongest relationship appeared for claim, "Reason is an enemy of faith and must be rejected" (.36, p < .001), with the weakest association being evident for the self-report, "Reason is a weapon that the culture uses to destroy faith" (.12, p <.05).

For Biblical Foundationalism, 13 of 17 items displayed significant relationships. The statement exhibiting the strongest connection said, "Pressure to be reasonable is a wedge that the culture tries to drive between us and our faith" (.21, p < .001); and the weakest partial correlation once again appeared for the statement about reason serving as a weapon (.12, p < .05). The four nonsignificant relationships (p > .05) appeared for the following items: "The true Christian can put no trust at all in reason, science, and philosophy" (.00); "Reason is an enemy of faith and must be rejected" (-.05); "The demands of culture and reason to base beliefs on science must be rejected as incompatible with religion" (.07); and, "The theory of evolution is an example of how science and reason are dedicated to eliminating faith" (.09).

In short, a finer grained analysis of reactions to secularism suggested that the Biblical Foundationalist was clearly less likely than the Religious Fundamentalist to assume that "true Christians" should engage in a wholesale rejection of reason.

Discussion

Traditional religions maintain intra- and extra-traditional forms of openness. Evidence supporting this Religious Openness Hypothesis appears in positive correlations of the intra-traditional openness of Faith Oriented Reflection with the extra-traditional openness of Intellect Oriented Reflection. Such relationships appear in studies conducted with Hindus in India (Kamble et al., 2014) and with Muslims in Iran (Ghorbani et al., 2013) and Malaysia (Tekke et al., 2015). In American Christians, however, this linkage is negative. Two observations demonstrate that this finding cannot mean that Christians maintain a wholly more narrow-minded faith that walls out their intellect. First, statistical procedures controlling for Religious Fundamentalism uncover a positive connection between these two forms of openness in American Christians (Watson et al., 2011). Second, Christians in Iran display a positive zero-order relationship between these two constructs (Watson, Ghorbani, Vartanian, & Chen, 2015). The present project argued that this American-Iranian contrast results from the sociological adjustments of Christian ideological surrounds within the secular West that are unnecessary within theocratic Iran. Development of a Defense against Secularism Scale made it possible to support this hypothesis.

As hypothesized, Defense against Secularism in an American sample correlated positively with Faith Oriented and negatively with Intellect Oriented Reflection. Data also confirmed predictions that Defense against Secularism would display direct connections with indices of fundamentalism, including Religious Fundamentalism, Biblical Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teaching. Expected ties with more closed forms of religious and psychological functioning appeared as well in negative ties with Faith, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and Openness to Experiences. Positive associations with all three Religious Orientation Scales documented the broad religious relevance of these defensive reactions to secularism. Perhaps most noteworthy, however, were the mediation results. Defense against Secularism fully mediated the inverse connections of Faith Oriented Reflection, Biblical Foundationalism, and Truth of Texts and Teachings with Intellect Oriented Reflection and partially mediated this effect for Religious Fundamentalism. Such outcomes supplied especially compelling evidence that Christian perceptions of secularism encouraged a divorce between their faith and their intellect.

Religious Fundamentalist and Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surrounds

Defense against Secularism exhibited direct connections with both Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism, not only in zero-order but also in partial correlations. In conformity with previous findings (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015), the Religious Fundamentalist Ideological Surround, nevertheless, emerged as a relatively more closed and the Biblical Foundationalist Surround as a relatively more open Christian perspective. At the broadest level, these findings suggested that perceptions of secularism were relevant to both Religious Fundamentalists and Biblical Foundationalists, but the meanings of that relevance varied with the frame of the surround.

In partial correlations controlling for Biblical Foundationalism, Religious Fundamentalism predicted rejection of Intellect Oriented Reflection; Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; Xenosophia; and Openness to Experience. A nonsignificant partial correlation with Faith Oriented Reflection suggested a failure to use reason even faithfully, an outcome observed previously (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015). A negative correlation with the Extrinsic Personal Orientation perhaps revealed an additional refusal to connect religious commitments with personal experience. Positive linkages with Truth of Texts and Teachings and with the Intrinsic Religious Orientation confirmed a grounding of the Religious Fundamentalist Surround within religious traditions. In short, extra-traditional openness seemed incompatible and intra-traditional openness seemed irrelevant to Religious Fundamentalism. When framed within this surround, Defense against Secularism seemed to suggest the ghettoization of faith as a defensive maneuver against reason.

In partial correlations controlling for Religious Fundamentalism, the greater openness of Biblical Foundationalism was obvious in direct linkages with both forms of Religious Reflection; Xenosophia; Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; and Openness to Experience. Positive connections with Truth of Texts and Teachings and with all three Religious Orientations confirmed that this perspective maintained foundations in traditional religion. In short, Biblical Foundationalism exhibited both intra- and extra-traditional openness. When framed within this surround, Defense against Secularism suggested that beliefs about reason as a weapon against faith pointed toward a perceived sociological reality, but that this reality required a use of reason to defend the faith.

That meanings of relationships differed across ideological surrounds also appeared in partial correlations of Religious Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism with specific items from the Defense against Secularism Scale. Both surrounds embraced the statement, "Pressure to be reasonable is a wedge that the culture tries to drive between us and our faith." In contrast to the Religious Fundamentalist Surround, the Biblical Foundationalist Surround did not at the same time agree that "the true Christian can put no trust at all in reason, science, and philosophy;" that "reason is an enemy of faith and must be rejected;" and that "the demands of culture and reason to base beliefs on science must be rejected as incompatible with religion." These data, therefore, suggested that pressure to be reasonable as wedge against faith meant that reason had to be rejected within a Religious Fundamentalist Surround. Within a Biblical Foundationalist Surround, however, the cultural use of reason as a wedge, and not the use of reason itself had to be rejected.

Further evidence that meanings may vary across ideological surrounds appeared in partial correlations between the two Religious Reflection Scales. Within both surrounds, partial correlations transformed a negative zero-order relationship into one that was significantly positive. This outcome has sometimes been observed previously (Watson et al., 2014) and so requires interpretation as an at least somewhat reliable effect. Within the conceptual framework of this project, Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection perhaps correlated positively within a Religious Fundamentalist Surround because they both included shared variance defining reason as a process that functions outside this more closed frame of faith. Within the Biblical Foundationalist Surround, however, this positive relationship may have further confirmed that reason is at home within this more open frame of faith. A similar interpretation would also apply to the positive correlation observed between Faith Oriented Reflection and Openness to Experience within both ideological surrounds.

Additional Implications

In addition to clarifying American Christian reactions to secularism, these data may have had additional implications that deserve at least some attention. Three specific issues may be most important.

First, this investigation once again made it clear that "fundamentalism" within the social sciences cannot be interpreted as a univocal phenomenon. Contrasts between Religious Fundamentalist and Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surrounds made that point previously (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015), and the present study replicated many of those previously reported contrasts. Especially noteworthy, however, were new insights suggested by the mediation analyses. Defense against Secularism fully mediated negative linkages of Biblical Foundationalism and of Truth of Texts and Teachings with Intellect Oriented Reflection; but for Religious Fundamentalism, this mediation was only partial. Religious Fundamentalism, therefore, appeared to have meanings beyond a defense against secularism. Development of the Biblical Foundationalism Scale involved the use of procedures that attempted to express Religious Fundamentalism items in a language that was more cognitively open and less condemning of other perspectives. The additional meanings made evident in this partial mediation effect perhaps reflected the influence of these condemning attitudes.

Second, the present data supplemented previous observations in suggesting that caution is essential when interpreting the Religious Schema Scales (Streib et al., 2010). Creation of these measures in Germany and the United States operated from the assumption that the closed-mindedness of Truth of Texts and Teachings could be conceptualized as being at least somewhat in polar opposition to the open-mindedness of Xenosophia and of Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality. Positive correlations among these three measures in Indian Hindus (Kamble et al., 2014) and in Malaysian Muslims (Tekke et al., 2015) have already challenged that assumption. In this study as well, Truth of Texts and Teachings within the Biblical Foundationalist Surround correlated positively with the other two religious schemas, an outcome sometimes (Watson et al., 2014) but not always (Watson, Chen, Ghorbani, & Vartanian, 2015) observed with American Christians. The implication, therefore, seems clear. Meanings of the Religious Schema Scales apparently vary across ideological surrounds.

Third, as in previous projects, mean responding to the Extrinsic Social Orientation was significantly lower than to the Intrinsic and Extrinsic Personal Orientations. The Extrinsic Social measure also displayed positive partial correlations with both Biblical Foundationalism and Religious Fundamentalism; yet, this orientation had negative implications within both ideological surrounds. The Extrinsic Social Orientation, for example, predicted lower levels of Intellect Oriented Reflection; Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; and Openness to Experience. This religious motivation, therefore, may have interfered with religious potentials for openness even within the Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surround.

Limitations

As with any investigation, particularities in procedures necessitate caution in interpretation. Three issues seem most noteworthy.

First, internal reliabilities for Openness to Experience; Fairness, Tolerance, and Rationality; and Xenosophia proved to be relatively low. More robust zero-order and partial correlations might appear following development of more internally consistent operationalizations of these constructs.

Second, university students served as the research participants and they are not representative of American Christian populations generally. Results would surely vary with Christians sampled from denominations and congregations defined by a more Religious Fundamentalist form of commitment in comparison to others more closely aligned with a Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surround.

Third, all results of this project were essentially correlational; so, confident inferences about causation are unwarranted. Mediation results did, of course, support a causal model suggesting that Defense against Secularism helped explain Christian rejections of Intellect Oriented Reflection. Definitive evidence for causation in this and in all other findings of this project will, nevertheless, require supportive findings derived from other research designs.

Conclusion

According to the Ideological Surround Model, religions and other cultural processes operate as incommensurable social rationalities defined not only by their norms, but also by their sociological context. Evidence testing the Religious Openness Hypothesis has supported that idea. Faith and Intellect Oriented Reflection correlate positively among Christians in Iran just as they do among Hindus in India and Muslims in Iran and Malaysia. In American Christians, however, this relationship is negative. The present investigation confirmed secularism as a sociological context that helps explains this American difference. Perceptions of secularism also operated as a contextual factor that wholly or partially accounted for an antipathy toward the intellect that described various forms of fundamentalism. Efforts to offer broad social scientific generalizations about any religion, therefore, may need to remain sensitive to the influences of sociological context.

More specifically, these data may also have something important to say about diversity within conservative Christian perspectives within the United States. Half a century ago, Pelikan (1965) worried about a defensiveness of Christian intellectuals that seemed largely attributable to their reaction to Darwinian evolution. In the present project, one statement defining the Religious Fundamentalist Ideological Surround said, "The theory of evolution is an example of how science and reason are dedicated to eliminating faith." Hence, the Religious Fundamentalist Ideological Surround did display this and other forms of defensiveness. A wholesale rejection of reason more generally suggested that the intellect will have difficulties finding any home at all within the Religious Fundamentalist Ideological Surround. Pelikan's worry, therefore, received empirical confirmation.

Pelikan (1965) also believed, however, that Christian intellectual defensiveness was unnecessary. To support this suggestion, he returned to the work of Martin Luther, who he quoted as saying, "No science ... should stand in the way of another science, but each should continue to have its own mode of procedure and its own terms" (p. 58). The unspoken implication, therefore, was that sciences and religions operate as incommensurable rationalities, and incommensurable rationalities present no existential threat to faith.

As Pelikan (1956) also pointed out, Luther found ways to interpret Genesis that today would preclude defensiveness toward Darwinism. Many other possibilities for accomplishing that purpose are available as well (e.g., Girard, 2007); and all such interpretations will surely be open to disputation and defense. Such argumentation should, nevertheless, encourage a use of reason to develop an extra-traditional openness that can help a tradition speak and be heard within its sociological context. In the present study, the Biblical Foundationalist Ideological Surround predicted an embrace of reason and did not display a significant linkage with the statement, "The theory of evolution is an example of how science and reason are dedicated to eliminating faith." Hence, the defensiveness that worried Pelikan did not define this ideological surround. If the belief is that intellectuals should find a home within Christian Ideological Surrounds, then Biblical Foundationalism may deserve additional research attention.

P. J. Watson

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Zhuo Chen

University of Oregon

Ronald J. Morris Erin Stephenson

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Address all correspondence to P. J. Watson, Psychology/Department #2803, 350 Holt Hall--615 McCallie Avenue, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga 37403, U.S.A. E-mail address is paul-watson@utc.edu.

References

Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.

Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (2004). A revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale: The short and sweet of it. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14, 47-54.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual. New Yor. NYk: Oxford University Press.

Dover, H., Miner, M., & Dowson, M. (2007). The nature and structure of Muslim religious reflection. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 2, 189-210.

Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Chen, Z., & Dover, H. (2013). Varieties of openness in Tehran and Qom: Psychological and religious parallels of faith and intellect oriented Islamic religious reflection. Mental Health, Religion, & Culture, 16, 123-137.

Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Saeedi, Z., Chen, Z., & Silver, C. F. (2012). Religious problem-solving and the complexity of religious rationality within an Iranian Muslim ideological surround. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51, 656-675.

Ghorbani, N., Watson, P. J., Shamohammadi, K., & Cunningham, C. J. L. (2009). Post-critical beliefs in Iran: Predicting religious and psychological functioning. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 20, 217-237.

Girard, R. (2007). Evolution and conversion. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facetsof several five-factor models. In I Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychologyin Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

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, 348-354.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling [White paper]. Retrieved from http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf

Hood, R. W., Jr., Morris, R. J., & Watson, P. J. (1986). Maintenance of religious fundamentalism. Psychological Reports, 59, 547-559.

Kamble, S. V., Watson, P. J., Marigoudar, S., & Chen, Z. (2014). Varieties of openness and religious commitment in India: Relationships of attitudes toward Hinduism, Hindu religious reflection, and religious schema. Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 36, 172-198.

MacIntyre, A. (1978). Against the self-images of the age. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

MacIntyre, A. (1988). Whose justice? Which rationality? Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

Pelikan, J. (1965). The Christian intellectual. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Streib, H., Hood, R. W, Jr., & Klein, C. (2010). The Religious Schema Scale: Construction and initial validation of a quantitative measure for religious styles. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 20, 151-172.

Tekke, M., Watson, P. J., Ismail, N. A. H., & Chen, Z. (2015). Muslim religious openness and ilm: Relationships with Islamic religious reflection, religious schema, and religious commitments in Malaysia. Manuscript under review.

Watson, P. J. (1993). Apologetics and ethnocentrism: Psychology and religion within an ideological surround. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 1-20.

Watson, P. J. (2011). Whose psychology? Which rationality? Christian psychology within an ideological surround after postmodernism. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 30, 307-316.

Watson, P. J. (2014). Transition beyond postmodernism: Pluralistic culture, incommensurable rationalities, and future objectivity. Review & Expositor, 111, 33-40.

Watson, P. J., Chen, Z., Ghorbani, N., & Vartanian, M. (2015). Religious openness hypothesis: I. Religious reflection, schemas, and orientations within religious fundamentalist and biblical foundationalist ideological surrounds. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 34, 99-113.

Watson, P. J., Chen, Z., & Hood, R. W., Jr. (2011). Biblical foundationalism and religious reflection: Polarization of faith and intellect oriented epistemologies within a Christian ideological surround. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 39, 111-121.

Watson, P. J., Chen, Z., & Morris, R. J. (2014). Varieties of quest and the religious openness hypothesis within religious fundamentalist and biblical foundationalist ideological surrounds. Religions, 5, 1-20.

Watson, P. J., Ghorbani, N., Vartanian, M., & Chen, Z. (2015). Religious openness hypothesis: II. Religious reflection and orientations, mystical experience, and psychological openness of Christians in Iran. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 34, 114-124.

Watson, P. J., Sawyers, P., Morris, R. J., Carpenter, M., Jimenez, R. S., Jonas, K. A., & Robinson, D. L. (2003). Reanalysis within a Christian ideological surround: Relationships of intrinsic religious orientation with fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 31, 315-328.

Authors

P.J. Watson is U. C. Foundation Professor of Psychology at the University of Tennessee at Chatttanooga. He received a Ph.D. in Experimental Psychology from the University of Texas at Arlington. His research focuses on the psychology of religion and on personality functioning especially as it relates to the self.

Zhuo Chen is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology at the University of Oregon. His research area is in personality and social psychology. He received a master's degree in Research Psychology at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and also a master's degree in Mathematics at the University of Oregon.

Ronald J. Morris is Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. He has received master degrees in Research Psychology and in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the same university. His previous research has largely centered on the psychology of religion.

Erin Stephenson (B.S. in Psychology, Wofford College) is a master's student in the Mental Health Counseling program at the University of Tennessee at Chattanogga. She plans to attend a doctorate program in counseling or in sport psychology upon completion of her master's degree.

Table 1
Factor Loadings for Items in Defense Against Secularism Scale (N = 425)

Item                                                         Loading

1      Reason is a weapon that the culture uses                .64
       to destroy faith.

2      Secular commitments to reason and open-mindedness       .71
       are a ploy to purge our laws of the essential
       foundations that they must have in God.

3      Pressure to be reasonable is a wedge that the           .72
       culture tries to drive between us and our faith.

4      Science, philosophy, and so-called "rationality"        .82
       rest upon a sinful human pride that seeks to
       weaken Christian faith.

5      Cultural demands that we be reasonable are just         .80
       a way to destroy biblical definitions of marriage.

6      Reason cannot be trusted, only faith can.               .79

7      In their confused commitment to reason,                 .71
       intellectuals are unable to avoid the deeply
       mistaken notion that the creation of humanity is
       based upon so-called scientific facts.

8      Secularist beliefs urge the use of reason and           .82
       open-mindedness in political life because the real
       motive is to destroy our religious beliefs.

9      The secular demand that we be reasonable is a           .83
       strategy to get us to reject our faith when it
       conflicts with science.

10     The government should determine what a marriage         .70
       is based upon the Bible and not upon reasoning
       about sexuality and nature.

11     The true Christian can put no trust at all in           .58
       reason, science, and philosophy.

12     Secular evaluations of whether a pregnancy makes        .75
       sense are just one example of how beliefs based
       upon reason destroy the life-affirming beliefs
       of our faith.

13     Our culture uses reason to attack prayer in public      .82
       settings and to disparage our Christian faith
       more generally.

14     Reason is an enemy of faith and must be rejected.       .75

15     Intellectuals use reason to undermine our               .79
       Christian sense of right and wrong.

16     The demands of culture and reason to base beliefs       .78
       on science must be rejected as incompatible
       with religion.

17     The theory of evolution is an example of how            .77
       science and reason are dedicated to
       eliminating faith.

Table 2
Correlations Among Defense Against Secularism, Christian
Religious Reflection, Religious Schema, Openness to
Experience, and Religious Orientation Scales (N = 425)

Scale                            1      2         3          4

1. Defense against Secularism    -   .57 ***   -.49 ***   .61 ***
2. Faith Oriented Reflection     -      -      -.21 ***   .78 ***
3. Intellect Oriented            -      -         -       -.34 ***
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and            -      -         -          -
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance,          -      -         -          -
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia                    -      -         -          -
7. Openness to Experience        -      -         -          -
8. Intrinsic Religious           -      -         -          -
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal            -      -         -          -
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social             -      -         -          -
Orientation

Scale                               5          6          7

1. Defense against Secularism    -.15 ***   -31 ***    -.22 ***
2. Faith Oriented Reflection      .11 *      -.15 *      .09
3. Intellect Oriented            .27 ***    .49 ***    .28 ***
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and            .17 ***    -.18 ***     .00
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance,             -       .35 ***    .47 ***
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia                       -          -       .25 ***
7. Openness to Experience           -          -          -
8. Intrinsic Religious              -          -          -
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal               -          -          -
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social                -          -          -
Orientation

Scale                               8          9          10

1. Defense against Secularism    .56 ***    .33 ***    .24 ***
2. Faith Oriented Reflection     .76 ***    .53 ***     .16 **
3. Intellect Oriented            -.37 ***     -.06     -.17 ***
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and            .80 ***    .50 ***    .19 ***
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance,            .08        .06      -.14 **
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia                    -.26 ***    .13 **      -.04
7. Openness to Experience          .06        .02      -.16 **
8. Intrinsic Religious              -       .39 ***      .08
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal               -          -       .27 ***
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social                -          -          -
Orientation

p < .05, * p < .01 ** p < .001

Table 3
Zero-Order (r) and Partial (rab.c) Correlations of Religious
Fundamentalism and Biblical Foundationalism With
Other Measures (N = 425)

                                       Religious Fundamentalism

Variable                                   r          rab.c

Defense against Secularism              .73 ***      .38 ***
Faith Oriented Reflection               .72 ***       -.05
Intellect Oriented Reflection           -.49 ***    -.44 ***
Truth of Texts and Teachings            .79 ***      .31 ***
Fairness, Tolerance, Rationality          -.04      -.19 ***
Xenosophia                              -.40 ***    -.43 ***
Openness to Experience                    -.08      -.16 ***
Intrinsic Religious Orientation         .77 ***      .36 ***
Extrinsic Personal Orientation          .38 ***      -.15 **
Extrinsic Social Orientation             .16 **       -.04

                                       Biblical Foundationalism

Variable                                   r          rab.c

Defense against Secularism              .69 ***      .21 ***
Faith Oriented Reflection               .87 ***      .70 ***
Intellect Oriented Reflection           -.31 ***     .21 ***
Truth of Texts and Teachings            .83 ***      .49 ***
Fairness, Tolerance, Rationality          .08        .20 ***
Xenosophia                              -.20 ***     .26 ***
Openness to Experience                    .01        .14 **
Intrinsic Religious Orientation         .77 ***      .34 ***
Extrinsic Personal Orientation          .53 ***      .43 ***
Extrinsic Social Orientation            .21 ***      .15 **

Note: Partial Correlations for Fundamentalism control for
Biblical Foundationalism whereas partial correlations
for Biblical Foundationalism control for Fundamentalism.

* p < .05    ** p < .01    *** p < .001

Table 4
Partial Cotrelations Among Measures within Religious
Fundamentalist (above diagonal) and Biblical
Foundationalist (below diagonal) Ideological
Surrounds (N = 425)

Scale                           1.        2.         3.        4.

1. Defense against              -        -.08     -.40 ***     .09
Secularism
2. Faith Oriented             .10 *        -       .13 **    23 ***
Reflection
3. Intellect Oriented        -.22 ***   .23 ***      -       -.15 **
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and          .08      .50 ***    .10 *        -
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance,      -.17 ***   .20 ***   .29 ***    .33 ***
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia                  -.03     .22 ***   .37 ***    .24 ***
7. Openness to Experience    -.24 ***   .22 ***   .28 ***     .10 *
8. Intrinsic Religious         -.01     .47 ***     .02      .48 ***
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal          .08      .40 ***    .15 **    .33 ***
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social         .18 ***      .06      -.11 *     .11 *
Orientation

Scale                           5.         6.         7.

1. Defense against           -.27 ***   -23 ***    -.31 ***
Secularism
2. Faith Oriented              .09        .07       47 ***
Reflection
3. Intellect Oriented        .31 ***    .46 ***    .30 ***
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and        .19 ***      -.02       -.02
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance,         -       .37 ***    .47 ***
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia                .36 ***       -       .25 ***
7. Openness to Experience    .47 ***    .23 ***       -
8. Intrinsic Religious       .18 ***      .08      .19 ***
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal          .08      .35 ***      .05
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social         -.14 **      .03      -.15 **
Orientation

Scale                           8.         9.        10.

1. Defense against             .06        -.07      .13 **
Secularism
2. Faith Oriented            .30 ***     47 ***      -.06
Reflection
3. Intellect Oriented        -.21 ***    .13 **     -.11 *
Reflection
4. Truth of Texts and        .45 ***     .12 *       .03
Teachings
5. Fairness, Tolerance,        .04        .02      -.16 **
and Rationality
6. Xenosophia                -.16 **    .29 ****     .00
7. Openness to Experience      .08        .02      -.16 **
8. Intrinsic Religious          -         -.04     -.13 **
Orientation
9. Extrinsic Personal         .16 **       -       .19 ***
Orientation
10. Extrinsic Social           -.06     .24 ***       -
Orientation

Note: Partial Correlations within the Religious Fundamentalist
ideological surround control for Biblical Foundationalism
whereas partial correlations for the Biblical Foundationalist
ideological surround control for Fundamentalism.

* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

Table 5
Analysis of Defense against Secularism as Mediator of
Relationships of Faith Oriented Reflection and Various
Measures of Fundamentalism as Independent Variables
Predicting Intellect Oriented Reflection as
Dependent Variables (N = 425)

                                            Indirect
Dependent Variable             [R.sup.2]     Effect       CI-LL

Faith Oriented Reflection       .25 ***      -.25 *       -.32
Religious Fundamentalism        .28 ***      -.16 *       -.24
Biblical Foundationalism        .24 ***      -.25 *       -.32
Truth of Texts and Teachings    .24* **      -.19 *       -.25

                                             Direct
                                            without
Dependent Variable               CI-UL      Mediator     Direct

Faith Oriented Reflection         -.19      -.17 ***       .06
Religious Fundamentalism          -.08      -.39 ***    -.23 ***
Biblical Foundationalism          -.18      -.22 ***       .03
Truth of Texts and Teachings      -.14      -.24 ***      -.05

Note. Mediation analyses maintained the conventional focus on
unstandardized regression coefficients (B). [R.sup.2] values assess the
overall significance of the mediation model. The "indirect effect"
examines whether the influence of the mediator was significant as
defined by the lower limits (CI-LL) and upper limits (CI-UL) of the
confidence intervals. Indirect effects represent the association
between the independent variable and the mediator times the
association between the mediator and the dependent variable. Tests
of significance used 95% confidence intervals that were bias
corrected and based upon 1000 bootstrap samples. Confidence
intervals that do not include 0 identify a significant indirect
effect at the .05 level. "Direct without Mediator" effects reveal
the association of an independent variable with the dependent
variable, whereas the "Direct" effect describes this same
relationship after accounting for the influence of the mediator.

* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001