Journal of Psychology and Theology 2004, Vol. 32, No. 4, 283-294 Copyright 2004 by Rosemead School of Psychology Biola University, 0091-6471/410-730 283 O n September 11, 2001 religion wore a variety of masks. On that day, religion motivated heroic deeds and acts of profound compas- sion as well as providing the impetus for acts of hatred and destruction. For psychology of religion researchers these disparate faces have motivated decades of effort to describe and quantify a religion that is mature, compassionate, and meaningful versus a religion that is utilitarian, dogmatic, or fanatical. The most influential theory in this area, dating back to the 50s, has been Gordon Allport’s distinc- tion between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orienta- tion. Early on, Allport (1950) provided rich conceptu- al definitions of these constructs. Specifically, intrin- sic religiosity was described as mature and meaning- ful religion, whereas extrinsic religiosity was described as immature and utilitarian in nature. In a widely cited quote, Allport summarized this distinc- tion: “the extrinsically motivated individual uses his religion, whereas the intrinsically motivated lives his” (Allport & Ross, 1967, p. 434). However, although Allport’s descriptions of mature versus immature reli- gion have been widely applauded, his operationaliza- tion of these constructs has generated criticism. Specifically, rather than measuring mature religious strivings, the Intrinsic subscale of the Allport and Ross Religious Orientation Scale appears to assess religious commitment or self-rated importance of religion (Donahue, 1985; Kirkpatrick & Hood, 1990). Some have even suggested that the Intrinsic religiosity subscale assesses the fanaticism of the “true believer” (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993). The promise and problems of Quest motivation Beginning in the 1970s, Daniel Batson and col- leagues have argued that Allport failed to include facets of mature religion in his measurement of intrinsic religiosity. Specifically, Batson has argued that Allport described features of mature religion—complexity, readiness to face doubt, self- criticism, knowing incompleteness, tentativeness, a continuing search for truth—which he failed to directly assess in the Religious Orientation Scale (Batson et al., 1993). To remedy this situation, Bat- son proposed an additional religious motivation called “Quest.” According to Batson, Quest motives involve many of those features described, but not formally assessed, by Allport. In Batson’s words, Quest captures a religious orientation that “involves honestly facing existential questions in all their com- plexity, while at the same time resisting clear-cut, pat THE MULTIDIMENSIONAL NATURE OF QUEST MOTIVATION RICHARD BECK AND RYAN K. JESSUP Abilene Christian University Although Daniel Batson’s (1976) construct of “Reli- gion as Quest” has been widely applauded as an important theoretical innovation in the assessment of religious motivation, there are lingering concerns regarding the validity of the Quest construct. This study follows up some past suggestions in the litera- ture that Quest may be a multidimensional construct and that facets of Quest may have very different relationships with religious variables. To test these hypotheses we constructed a multidimensional mea- sure of Quest and administered it to 183 college stu- dents along with measures of spiritual well-being, Christian orthodoxy, extrinsic and intrinsic religiosi- ty, and Batson’s 12-item Quest measure. Overall, the results suggest that Quest is indeed a multidimen- sional construct and that the dimensions of Quest need to be assessed separately to assess Quest’s con- struct validity. Specifically, two broad trends were noted. First, some facets of Quest seem to capture the free-roaming existential Quest Batson has fre- quently described. However, other facets of Quest seem to be compatible with orthodox Christian beliefs, suggesting that possessing metaphysical con- victions are compatible with Quest-like attributes. Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to Richard Beck, PhD, ACU Box 28011, Abilene, TX, 79699. Email: beckr@acu.edu