https://ejournal.iai-tribakti.ac.id/index.php/psikologi https://doi.org/10.33367/psi.v7i2.2298
Religious Moderation Attitude: Development Scale
Rena Latifa1*, Muhamad Fahri 2, Naufal Fadhil Mahida3 UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Indonesia
1rena.latifa@uinjkt.ac.id, 2m.fahri@uinjkt.ac.id, 3naufal.mahida18@mhs.uinjkt.ac.id
*Correspondence
Article Information:
Received January 16, 2022 Revised September 13, 2022 Accepted October 05, 2022
Keywords:
Moderate attitude, attitude scale, religious moderation.
Abstract
The assessment of religious moderation is still in its early stages of development and is having difficulty accepting the criteria indicated. As a result, religious moderation is sometimes interpreted as being indecisive, only making judgments that favor certain people or groups, and seeming irresponsible by refusing to take a political stance. Furthermore, the concept of religious moderation is frequently misunderstood. Using the CFA validity test approach, this study attempts to create a religious moderation instrument based on a psychological paradigm in which an attitude is understood based on particular ideas (beliefs), emotions, and prior behavior toward religious moderation (Confirmatory Factor Analysis). We define religious moderation as the middle way or not being extreme in one view (tawassuth), upholding balance and justice (i'tidal), appreciation of life's diversity (tasamuh), relying on consensus-based problem- solving (Shura), engaging in constructive good deeds for the common good (ishlah), is active and innovative in leading goodness (qudwah), and can accommodate the state, nation, and culture (muwwathanah). The study's findings reveal three (3) aspects of religious moderation, represented by characteristics such as particular ideas (beliefs), emotions, and prior experiences connected to the principles of religious moderation discussed above.
INTRODUCTION
The Indonesian Ministry of Religious Affairs (2019) has the vision to develop a moderate religious understanding in Muslim society, which is not extreme in attitude and does not glorify unlimited free thinking, to raise a harmonious and peaceful life for diverse Indonesian religions. Moreover, Indonesia's National Medium-Term Development Plan (RPJMN) for 2020-2024 has included this moderation. Within Islam, religious moderation is understood similarly to the term “wasathiyyah” which is not new in Islam. It was already studied, discussed, and published by many Muslim scholars.
Starting from the Charte of Moderation in Religious Practice, which the PERGAS Singapore organization initiated in 2003, then The International Center for Moderation in Kuwait in 2004, followed by the 'Amman Message 2004, Assembly for Moderate Islamic Thought and Culture in Jordan 2004, The Makkah Declaration, Saudi Arabia 2005. In addition, there is also Al-Qardhawi's Center for Islamic Moderation and Renewal in
Doha-Qatar 2008, the Global Movement of Moderates Foundation (GMMF) in Kuala Lumpur-Malaysia 2012, and the Institute’s Wasathiyyah Malaysia (IWM) 2013, The Bogor Message in Indonesia 2018 came to the concept of Religious Moderation formulated by the Ministry of Religion of the Republic of Indonesia in 2019. On the other hand, Suhartawan (2021) stated that the knowledge contained in the Qur'an about religious moderation directs humans’ potential toward the benefits of religious and state institutions, educates future generations, builds cross-generational collaboration, and improves the quality of a more open religious understanding and also creates a culture of dialogue between religious leaders and state leaders.
Following the above phenomenon, there might be a problem which is the concept of religious moderation seems to have a top-bottom cycle, where scholars, politicians, and academics offer a concept of religious moderation that is considered mature enough to be socialized and realized in social life without any consideration of digging deeper into the knowledge of the community first about the concept of religious moderation itself. Thus far, studies involving the public on religious moderation have studied psychology, especially regarding moderate attitudes. Let's look at the development of technology and information with the current presence of social media. It not only provides convenience in spreading religious values (Rustandi, 2020), but it can also become an arena for contests and competitions for religious narratives that are practical and tend towards understanding an exclusive religion (Hefni, 2020). The PPIM UIN Jakarta survey in 2020 stated that in cyberspace, religious understanding is more dominated by conservatism than moderate understanding (Halimatusa’diyah et al., 2020). An exclusive and conservative religious understanding can lead a person to have a rigid and static mindset, which then does not rule out the possibility of causing intolerance in his daily life. The results of other studies show that Generation Z, who resides in 3 big cities (Bandung, Depok, and Bogor), has a moderate attitude toward religion that is still below the average. In contrast, their understanding of religion is considered good (Adawiyah et al., 2021).
Digital media, like banquet table that provides many things, is free to access many religious narratives and is often used by certain groups to spread conflict and revive identity politics which is marked by the fading of affiliation to religious institutions, the shift of religious authority, the strengthening of individualism and the change from pluralism to tribalism (Hefni, 2020). Packaging religious language in digital media is sometimes a subjective reality, so it makes religious language into religious imagery in an ambiguous order (Fakhruroji et al., 2020). As a consequence of this phenomenon, digital media tends to project society on a religious understanding with less comprehensive and far from substantive and essential, and also far from moderate and tolerant. Similarly, the relationship between one's religious understanding cannot be confirmed to be correlated with their attitude about religious moderation. Besides that, religious moderation will later be assumed to be a safe playing attitude, which is not firm
in making a choice and is even considered an extension of an understanding that prioritizes unlimited freedom.
Responding to those problems, it is necessary to construct instruments of religious moderation that have been tested empirically in terms of validity and reliability. So far, studies related to the instruments of religious moderation have not been widely conducted by researchers. However, at least there is Dinar Pratama (2020) has developed a measurement of religious moderation attitudes for high school (SMA) students using the Thurstone scale and the Equal Appearing Interval method. In her study, she stated that the scale could only be used to measure the attitude of religious moderation at the level of high school students, so further research is needed if the object of measurement is the general public. In addition, the instruments only use the four dimensions of religious moderation initiated by the Ministry of Religion in 2019, deemed insufficient to cover the concept of religious moderation as a whole. And the instruments do not reduce the indicators of the attitude dimension explicitly.
According to the American Psychological Association (APA), attitude is a relatively enduring and general evaluation of an object, person, group, problem, or concept ranging from negative to positive (VandenBos, 2015). Attitudes provide a summary of the evaluation of the object based on certain beliefs, emotions, and past behavior towards the object so that one can rate the object in negative to positive dimensions (VandenBos, 2015). Eagle and Chaiken (Haddock & Maio, 2008) say that attitudes are psychological tendencies expressed by evaluating certain entities based on their liking or disliking. Furthermore, Haddock and Maio (2008) concluded that attitudes include an evaluative assessment of something in the form of likes or dislikes, agreement or disagreement about an object or person (Haddock & Maio, 2008). Fishbein and Ajzen say that attitude is a learned predisposition to respond consistently favorable or unfavorable about a particular object. It was further explained that everyone forms a belief in an object, where this belief is related to how a person attributes the object so that an attitude of likes (favorable) and dislikes (unfavorable) is formed (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
On the other hand, Haddock and Maio (2008) explain that attitudes have multiple components: affective, cognitive, and behavioral. Affective is a component of feelings or emotions associated with attitudes towards an object. In this component, there is a mere exposure effect where the feeling or desire to like an object increases due to frequent exposure to the object. Second, cognition is a component of thoughts, beliefs, and attributions associated with objects. Cognitive can influence attitudes toward objects through conscious consideration of an object's negative and positive characteristics. The third is behavior, a component of past behavior towards an object that will affect attitudes towards that object. A further explanation is given by Bem (Haddock & Maio, 2008).
Bem explains that people often don't have access to their attitudes, especially when their
attitude towards something is ambiguous or weak. They have to go through reasoning about judging their past behavior. This is called self-perception theory.
Furthermore, Haddock and Maio (2008) explain attitudes can be seen from two perspectives; one-dimensional and two-dimensional. One-dimensional is the perspective of seeing negative and positive attitudes on a continuum or one dimension where the negative pole is on one side, and the positive pole is on the other. In contrast, two- dimensional is the perspective of seeing positive attitudes as one dimension and negative attitudes as another. The two-dimensional perspective can distinguish if someone has an ambivalent nature towards an object. One-dimensional perspective cannot distinguish when a person has an ambivalent attitude or does not have an attitude toward an object (Haddock & Maio, 2008).
Meanwhile, Ajzen explained that attitudes could be assessed from three dimensions of response which are cognitive, affective, and conative (Ajzen, 2005).
Cognitive refers to the perceptual response to an object. Responses are cognitively formed after someone attributes the characteristics of objects. The results of this attribution then become beliefs that determine a person's favorable or unfavorable attitude toward an object. Affective refers to feelings towards objects, expressed verbally and in physiological responses that appear to objects. Conative is the tendency of behaviors, intentions, and actions regarding an object. The conative response can be expressed by expressing behavioral intentions and behavior seen about the object (Ajzen, 2005).
So that the formulation in this study is how to measure the attitude instruments, which include the attitude indicators above (beliefs, emotions, and past behavior) in the context of religious moderation, the dimensions of religious moderation used in this study are based on the Bogor Message (2018), which is the commitment of Muslims to uphold the concept of Islamic wasathiyah, which was agreed upon by around 100 Islamic figures, scholars, and Muslim scholars from Indonesia and around the world, including Grand Sheikh Al Azhar, Ahmed Muhammad Ahmed Al-Thayyeb. This commitment was formed from a meeting entitled High-Level Consultation of World Moslem's Scholars on Wasathiyah Islam, held in Bogor-Indonesia on March 3, 2018 (Sangsoko & Muhyiddin, 2018).
The Bogor message itself was present before the Ministry of Religion's concept of religious moderation was published, and it was gradually formulated from 12 cores to 7 core values of Islamic moderation “wasathiyah” (Ramadhan & Syauqillah, 2018) including; Tawassuth, which is defined as always taking the middle way or the straight path with the truth, without being extreme (excessive) in one option/way/point of view or practice; I'tidal, which means balance and justice based on the principle of fairness that is proportional and not extreme or excessive; Tasamuh, which is intended to recognize and respect diversity in all aspects of life; Shura, which relies on consultation and problem solving through deliberation to reach consensus; Ishlah, which is involved in reform and constructive good deeds for the ordinary people; Qudwah, which involves
efforts to pioneer noble initiatives and lead human welfare; Muwwathanah, which accepts Indonesian nationality and plurality and commitment as a good citizen.
Considering the problems and shortcomings of the above studies and also accommodating indicators of attitudes and concepts of religious moderation as a whole, this study tries to construct a measurement of the instruments of religious moderation attitude' so that it can be a scientific basis for measuring attitudes of religious moderation among the general public.
METHOD
The design of this study is instrument development research with a quantitative paradigm using a research and development design that refers to the development procedure of Kyriazos and Stalikas (2018) with modifications. Four stages are involved in this study; First, the determination of indicators and dimensions; in this case, the attitude indicators include beliefs, emotions, and past behavior. Besides those indicators, the dimensions of religious moderation include the seven concepts of the 2018 Bogor Minutes (Ramadhan & Syauqillah, 2018).
The second stage is conducting a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) to formulate research instrument items; these represent the community's perspective in formulating instrument items related to religious moderation attitudes. FGD participants are 15 people with the criteria; 5 people have a fundamental religious affiliation background, five have a moderate religious affiliation background, and the remaining five have a liberal religious affiliation background. This FGD aims to obtain items of religious moderation from various religious perspectives and backgrounds. Following that, research instruments from the FGD are distributed to respondents online. Finally, quantitative analysis using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) methods is conducted.
Population and Sample
The population in this study was the Indonesian people with the following criteria;
Muslim, Indonesian citizen status, and minimum age of 18 years. The research sample comprised 305 respondents (N=305). The sampling technique was purposive sampling, using Google Forms. The researcher included a statement of the respondent's willingness and ensured that the respondent's data was anonymous and would only be used for research purposes. Of the total sample, 67.2% were female, and 32.8% were male.
Meanwhile, demographic data regarding age were dominated by respondents aged 21–
30, which comprised half of the share, as shown in the following table:
Table 1. Ages
Ages Quantity Percentages
17-20 21-30 31-40 41-50
>50 None
96 152
34 18 3 2
31%
50%
11%
6%
1%
1%
Total 305 100%
As for the last education aspect, the respondents of this study were dominated by Islamic Universities, which amounted to 51.1%, followed by Islamic schools with 18.4%
of the share, then by general (non-Islamic) schools and general (non-Islamic) universities with 15.4% and 15.1% respectively. And in the aspect of religious affiliation, it was found that the Islamic organization Nahdhatul Ulama dominated the share with more than three- quarters of the percentage, followed by Muhammadiyyah with only 8.5%. Following that, 7.9% of the portion was witnessed by participants who have no religious affiliation, while Tarbiyah Islamiyah had 3.9% of the share, and the rest can be seen in the following table;
Table 2. Religious Affiliation
Religious Affiliation Quantity Percentages Nahdhatul Ulama
Muhammadiyyah Sarekat Islam Tarbiyah Islamiyah Thoriqoh Dasuqiyah
Salafi Government None-affiliation
235 26
2 12
1 3 2 24
77%
8,5%
0,7%
3,9%
0,3%
1%
0,7%
7,9%
Total 305 100%
And in the aspect of work background, students have the most significant share of participants, with 64.3%, followed by private workers with 17.4%. In contrast, homemakers, civil servants, and teachers have less than one-tenth portion with only 5.2%, 3.9%, and 3.3%, respectively. The distribution of respondents above implies a proportional distribution and represents the community in the test of the instrument of religious moderation in this study.
Instruments
In this research instrument, there are two compositions; 1). Attitude indicators include (Haddock & Maio, 2008); belief (the respondent's thoughts, knowledge, and insight about religious moderation), emotions (the respondent's feelings about religious moderation), and past behaviors (the respondent's experience associated with religious moderation); 2). The value of religious moderation includes; Tawassuth (middle path / straight path with truth and not extreme in one view), I'tidal (balance and justice), Tasamuh (respect for the diversity of life), Shura (deliberation for consensus agreement),
Ishlah (participation of constructive goodness for the benefit of all), Qudwah (good initiatives for the glory and welfare of humans), Muwwathanah (accommodating the state, nation, and culture).
Table 3. Blueprint of religious moderation attitude scale
Indicators Item Instruments
Dimensions of religious moderation
Tawasuth I’tidal Tasamuh Syura Ishlah Qudwah Muwwathanah
Belief
S18
I believe religious moderation is necessary to maintain the harmony of national life.
√ √
S19
For me, religious moderation is indispensable for a multicultural Indonesian society.
√ √
S20
I believe religious
moderation is essential so that there are no ethnicity, religion, race, or inter- group relation issues among the community.
√ √ √ √
S21R
Religious moderation is not necessary because religion already has its way of truth.
X X
S22R
Religious moderation is not necessary, as it reflects indecision in religion.
X X
Emotions
S23R
I feel uncomfortable when I disagree with others about differences in teachings/
mazhab/traditions.
X X X
S24R
I don’t feel guilty about having to put out words that could offend others in defense of my beliefs.
X X X
S25
I feel happy to respect other people from any background.
√ √ √
S26
I like to accommodate other people for deliberation to find a middle ground when there are differences of opinion.
√ √ √
Past Behavior
S27
I can intercede with friends with different opinions about teachings/mazhab/and traditions.
√ √ √
S28R
When a friend reads a verse of the Qur’an in the dialect of his native region, I blame him and ask him to read the Qur’anic verse correctly.
X X X
S29
I try to avoid extreme attitudes in imposing my beliefs on others.
√ √ √
S30R
I can commit an act of violence to stand up for my religion.
X X
Notes:
√: favorable X: unfavorable
Data Analysis
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to see how many dimensions are measured by the items of religious moderation. Similarly, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used to validate each item in measuring the dimensions generated based on the EFA analysis.
RESULTS
Results of Extraction Exploratory Factor Analysis of Religious Moderation Attitude Instruments
The religious moderation attitude instruments consist of thirteen items.
Exploratory Factor Analysis was conducted to see the number of dimensions measured by the items of the religious moderation attitude instruments. The EFA analysis was carried out using the principal component method with the criteria of eigenvalue > 1.
Determination of the number of dimensions measured by these three following items of religious moderation attitude, which are:
1. Based on the criteria, the resulting eigenvalue is more significant than one (Kaiser, 1960).
2. Based on the cumulative variance with a minimum limit of more than 50%.
3. Based on the scree plot or scree test made by plotting the eigenvalues (Cattell, 1966).
Table 4. Exploratory Factor Analysis Component
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total % of
Variance
Cumulative
% Total % of
Variance Cumulative %
1 3.927 30.205 30.205 3.927 30.205 30.205
2 1.652 12.704 42.909 1.652 12.704 42.909
3 1.600 12.311 55.220 1.600 12.311 55.220
4 .931 7.158 62.378
5 .834 6.413 68.791
6 .807 6.210 75.001
7 .738 5.676 80.678
8 .656 5.046 85.723
9 .650 4.999 90.722
10 .465 3.579 94.301
11 .285 2.189 96.490
12 .243 1.871 98.361
13 .213 1.639 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Based on the EFA analysis conducted using the Principal Component Analysis method and compared with the above criteria, the number of factors is:
1. Based on the criteria, the resulting eigenvalue is more significant than one (Kaiser, 1960). Attitude variable items measure three dimensions, with details of the first
dimension having an eigenvalue of 3.927, the second dimension having an eigenvalue of 1.652, and the third dimension having an eigenvalue of 1,600.
2. The Attitude variable items measure three dimensions based on the cumulative variance with a minimum limit of more than 50%. The three dimensions explain 55% of the variance of the attitude items.
3. Based on the scree plot or scree test made by plotting the eigenvalues, the attitude items measure three dimensions, as seen from the steepness of the three points on the scree plot.
With the fulfilment of the above criteria, three dimensions are measured by the religious moderation attitude scale items.
Results of Rotation Exploratory Factor Analysis of Religious Moderation Attitude Instruments
After the three dimensions are found from the extraction factor results, rotation is carried out to determine the items that measure the three known dimensions. The notation used is varimax. The following is a table of item rotation results.
Table 5. Rotated Component Matrix
Component
1 2 3
S18 .855 .163 .005
S19 .849 .192 .041
S20 .825 .137 -.061
S21R .698 .010 .343
S22R .695 .063 .384
S23R .080 .362 .593
S24R .048 .199 .607
S25 .047 .651 .130
S26 .098 .826 .000
S27 .157 .706 -.120
S28R .075 -.144 .625
S29 .188 .408 .279
S30R .099 -.047 .662
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 4 iterations.
Based on the explanation above, the results of the EFA rotation analysis on the dimensions of beliefs with items S18, S19, S20, S21R, and S22R are in accordance with what is theorized, which is measuring the belief dimension. Meanwhile, there is a difference between what is theorized and the results of the EFA analysis on the dimensions of emotions and past behaviours. Based on what is theorized, the dimensions of emotions are explained by items S23R, S24R, S25, and S26, and the dimensions of past behaviour are explained by items S27, S28R, S29, and S30R. Based on the results of
the EFA analysis, S25, S26, S27, and S29 measured the dimensions of emotions, and S23R, S24R, S28R, and S30R measured the dimensions of past behaviours. A description of each item is attached to Appendix 1.
Results of the Validity Test of the Religious Moderation Attitude Instruments using Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The second-order CFA analysis was conducted to confirm the items measuring the dimensions of the religious moderation attitude instruments after the EFA was conducted.
The religious moderation attitude instruments consist of thirteen items. The unidimensional validity of the measuring instrument was tested using CFA to ensure whether the items measured the variable. The second-order CFA analysis was conducted to see the items and dimensions measured in the attitude variable. The results of CFA with the second order model were found to be unfit, with Chi-Square = 952.46, df = 65, P-Value = 0.000 and RMSEA = 0.212. This study modifies the model, in which the measurement errors on several items are free to correlate with each other, then the fit model is obtained with Chi-Square = 43.91, df = 31, P-Value = 0.06, and RMSEA = 0.037. The next step is to report the validity test results of each item of religious moderation. The results can be seen in the following table:
Table 4. Validity of test items
Dimension Item Coefisien Std.Error t- value
Note
Beliefs S18 0.97 -0.03 32.33 Valid
S19 1 --- --- Valid
S20 0.89 -0.04 25.31 Valid
S21 0.62 -0.06 11 Valid
S22 0.64 -0.05 11.87 Valid
Emotions S25 0.97 -0.14 6.94 Valid
S26 1 --- --- Valid
S27 0.76 -0.08 9.18 Valid
S29 1.13 -0.16 6.88 Valid
Past Behavior
S23R 1 --- --- Valid
S24R 0.91 0.14 6.66 Valid
S28R 0.49 0.12 4.1 Valid
S30R 0.7 0.12 5.73 Valid
Note: Valid= t-value>1.96, Coefficient = 1 = anchor item
Based on the table above, it can be seen that all items are declared valid to measure the attitude of religious moderation. Thus, all of these items can be used when measuring the attitude variable of religious moderation.
DISCUSSION
Religious moderation attitude items based on EFA analysis with eigenvalue criteria of more than one, a cumulative frequency of more than 50%, and scree plot steepness, measuring three dimensions (beliefs, emotions, and past behavior). After finding the items measuring three dimensions, the items were validated using CFA analysis. After the model is modified, the unidimensional model fits the data. This means that these items correctly measure the three dimensions produced by the EFA and one higher factor, which is the variable of religious moderation attitude.
The results of this study explain that individuals who are already moderate are if they cognitively have thoughts, beliefs, and attributions about the moderate concept, which are characterized by seven characteristics of religious moderation based on the concept of the Bogor Message (2018); emotionally they like the seven characteristics of religious moderation, and they also have experience in the past regarding the application of the seven characteristics of religious moderation. They consider these characteristics appropriate/suitable for them to be applied to various life contexts.
If referring to the theory of Ajzen (2005), it can be explained that moderate attitudes can be assessed from three response dimensions, which are cognitive, affective, and conative. Cognitive refers to the perception response to the concept of religious moderation. Cognitive responses are formed after someone attributes the characteristics of religious moderation. The results of this attribution then become beliefs that determine a person's favourable or unfavourable attitude toward religious moderation. Affective refers to feelings towards religious moderation; both expressed verbally and physiological responses that arise to the concept of religious moderation. Conative is the tendency of
behaviours, intentions, and actions related to religious moderation. Conative responses can be expressed by expressing behavioural intentions and visible behavior regarding religious moderation.
Furthermore, the analysis results in this study explain that the scale of religious moderation attitudes can be categorized into negative and positive attitudes, where the scores are on a continuum (Haddock & Maio, 2008). Based on the CFA analysis, there is no negative loading factor, meaning that the higher the value on these items, the higher the measured factor, in this case, the attitude of religious moderation. The limitation of the data analysis used is that it cannot distinguish when someone has an ambivalent attitude or does not have an attitude toward religious moderation. Further analysis is needed to measure the ambivalence attitude; this is because CFA can only check the continuum scale with a one-dimensional perspective seen from the positive or negative factor loading.
CONCLUSION
This study found the results of the construction of a measuring instrument for religious moderation that had gone through the process of exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis to measure attitudes with three dimensions validly; beliefs, emotions, and past behaviors related to the seven characteristics of religious moderation based on the Bogor Message (2018), which are Tawassuth (middle path / straight path with truth and not extreme in one view), I'tidal (balance and justice), Tasamuh (respect for the diversity of life), Shura (deliberation for consensus agreement), Ishlah (participation of constructive goodness for the benefit of all), Qudwah (good initiatives for the glory and welfare of humans), Muwwathanah (accommodating the state, nation, and culture).
REFERENCES
Adawiyah, R. A., Tobing, C. I., & Handayani, O. (2021). Pemahaman Moderasi Beragama dan Prilaku Intoleran terhadap Remaja di Kota-Kota Besar di Jawa
Barat. Jurnal Keamanan Nasional, 6(2), 161–183.
https://doi.org/10.31599/jkn.v6i2.470
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, Personality, and Behavior (2nd ed.). Open University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
Fakhruroji, Moch., Rustandi, R., & Busro, B. (2020). Bahasa Agama di Media Sosial:
Analisis Framing pada Media Sosial “Islam Populer.” Jurnal Bimas Islam, 13(2), 203–234. https://doi.org/10.37302/jbi.v13i2.294
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Haddock, G., & Maio, G. R. (2008). Attitudes: Content, Structure and Functions. In Introduction to social psychology: A European perspective (4th ed., p. 22).
Blackwell. http://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/30465
Halimatusa’diyah, I., Sutanto, T., Nur Jannah, A., Awaludin, A., & Imam Fauzy, F.
(2020). Beragama di Dunia Maya: Media Sosial dan Pandangan Keagamaan di Indonesia (MERIT REPORT No. 1; Vol.1). PPIM UIN Jakarta.
https://ppim.uinjkt.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Merit-Report_Beragama- di-Dunia-Maya_072320.pdf
Hefni, W. (2020). Moderasi Beragama dalam Ruang Digital: Studi Pengarusutamaan Moderasi Beragama di Perguruan Tinggi Keagamaan Islam Negeri. Jurnal Bimas Islam, 13(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.37302/jbi.v13i1.182
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The Application of Electronic Computers to Factor Analysis.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141–151.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
Kementerian Agama (Ed.). (2019). Moderasi beragama (Cetakan pertama). Badan Litbang dan Diklat, Kementerian Agama RI.
Pratama, D. (2020). Pengembangan Skala Thurstone Metode Equal Appearing Interval untuk Mengukur Sikap Moderasi Beragama Siswa Sekolah Menengah Atas.
Jurnal Psikologi Teori dan Terapan, 11(1), 71.
https://doi.org/10.26740/jptt.v11n1.p71-82
Ramadhan, J., & Syauqillah, M. (2018). An Order to Build the Resilience in the Muslim World Againsts Islamophobia: The Advantage of Bogor Message in Diplomacy World & Islamic Studies. 5(2), 22.
Rustandi, R. (2020). Cyberdakwah: Internet Sebagai Media Baru Dalam Sistem Komunikasi Dakwah Islam. NALAR: Jurnal Peradaban dan Pemikiran Islam, 3(2), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.23971/njppi.v3i2.1678
Sangsoko, A., & Muhyiddin. (2018, March 5). Pesan dari Bogor untuk Dunia [Online].
Republika Online. https://www.republika.co.id/berita/dunia-islam/islam- nusantara/18/05/03/p8590s313-pesan-dari-bogor-untuk-dunia
Suhartawan, B. (2021). Wawasan Al-Quran tentang Moderasi Beragama. Jurnal Kajian Ilmu Al-Qur’an dan Tafsir, 1(2), 50–64.
VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2015). APA dictionary of psychology (2nd ed.). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14646-000
Appendix 1
Religious moderation attitude scale
Indicator First item Statement Item (after EFA)
Statement Belief S18 I believe religious
moderation is necessary to maintain the harmony of national life.
(Saya meyakini moderasi beragama sangat
diperlukan untuk menjaga keharmonisan kehidupan berbangsa.)
S18 I believe religious
moderation is necessary to maintain the harmony of national life.
(Saya meyakini moderasi beragama sangat
diperlukan untuk menjaga keharmonisan kehidupan berbangsa.)
S19 For me, religious
moderation is indispensable for a multicultural
Indonesian society.
(Bagi saya, moderasi beragama sangat
diperlukan bagi masyarakat Indonesia yang
multicultural.)
S19 For me, religious moderation is indispensable for a multicultural Indonesian society.
(Bagi saya, moderasi beragama sangat diperlukan bagi
masyarakat Indonesia yang multicultural.)
S20 I believe religious moderation is essential so that there are no ethnicity, religion, race, or inter- group relation issues among the community.
(Saya meyakini moderasi beragama sangat diperlukan agar tidak terjadi isu sara di kalangan masyarakat.)
S20 I believe religious moderation is essential so that there are no ethnicity, religion, race, or inter- group relation issues among the community.
(Saya meyakini moderasi beragama sangat diperlukan agar tidak terjadi isu sara di kalangan masyarakat.)
S21R Religious moderation is not necessary because religion already has its way of truth.
(Moderasi beragama tidak diperlukan, karena agama sudah memiliki jalan kebenarannya masing- masing.)
S21R Religious moderation is not necessary because religion already has its way of truth.
(Moderasi beragama tidak diperlukan, karena agama sudah memiliki jalan kebenarannya masing- masing.)
S22R Religious moderation is not necessary, as it reflects indecision in religious practices.
(Moderasi beragama tidak diperlukan, karena mencerminkan ketidaktegasan dalam beragama.)
S22R Religious moderation is not necessary, as it reflects indecision in religious practices.
(Moderasi beragama tidak diperlukan, karena mencerminkan ketidaktegasan dalam beragama.)
Emotions S23R I feel uncomfortable when I disagree with others about differences in teachings/
mazhab/traditions.
(Saya merasa tidak nyaman saat berbeda pendapat
S25 I feel happy to respect other people from any background.
(Saya merasa senang memuliakan orang lain
dengan orang lain terkait perbedaan
ajaran/mazhab/tradisi)
dari berbagai latar belakang apapun.)
S24R I don’t feel guilty about having to put out words that could offend others in defense of my beliefs.
S26 I don’t feel guilty about having to put out words that could offend others in defense of my beliefs.
S25 I feel happy to respect other people from any
background.
(Saya merasa senang memuliakan orang lain dari berbagai latar belakang apapun.)
S27 I can intercede with friends with different opinions about
teachings/mazhab/and traditions.
(Saya dapat menengahi teman yang sedang berbeda pendapat tentang ajaran/mazhab/tradisi.) S26 I like to accommodate other
people for deliberation to find a middle ground when there are differences of opinion.
(Saya senang
mengakomodir orang lain untuk bermusyawarah mencari jalan tengah saat terjadi perbedaan pendapat.)
S29 I try to avoid extreme attitudes in imposing my beliefs on others.
(Saya berupaya untuk menghindari sikap berlebihan dalam memaksakan keyakinan saya pada orang lain.)
Past Behavior
S27 I can intercede with friends with different opinions about
teachings/mazhab/and traditions.
(Saya dapat menengahi teman yang sedang berbeda pendapat tentang
ajaran/mazhab/tradisi)
S23R I can intercede with friends with different opinions about
teachings/mazhab/and traditions.
(Saya dapat menengahi teman yang sedang berbeda pendapat tentang ajaran/mazhab/tradisi) S28R When a friend reads a verse
of the Qur’an in the dialect of his native region, I blame him and ask him to read the Qur’anic verse correctly.
(Saat ada teman yang membaca ayat alquran dengan dialek daerah asalnya, saya menyalahkannya dan memintanya untuk membaca ayat alquran dengan benar)
S24R When a friend reads a verse of the Qur’an in the dialect of his native region, I blame him and ask him to read the Qur’anic verse correctly.
(Saat ada teman yang membaca ayat alquran dengan dialek daerah asalnya, saya menyalahkannya dan memintanya untuk membaca ayat alquran dengan benar)
S29 I try to avoid extreme attitudes in imposing my beliefs on others.
(Saya berupaya untuk menghindari sikap berlebihan dalam memaksakan keyakinan saya pada orang lain)
S28R When a friend reads a verse of the Qur’an in the dialect of his native region, I blame him and ask him to read the Qur’anic verse correctly.
(Saat ada teman yang membaca ayat alquran
dengan dialek daerah asalnya, saya menyalahkannya dan memintanya untuk membaca ayat alquran dengan benar) S30R I can commit an act of
violence to stand up for my religion.
(Saya mau melakukan satu tindakan kekerasan demi membela agama saya)
S30R I can commit an act of violence to stand up for my religion.
(Saya mau melakukan satu tindakan kekerasan demi membela agama saya)
