Hi Lonny! I don't know any instrument to measure reverence/awe. But it's possible to use Visual Analogical Scales (VAS) in subjective measurements. The method of VAS is a horizontal line linking two poles ("-" vs "+", "absolutely not" vs "absolutely yes"). The line has NO scales between the two extreme poles. Subjects just put a cross at the point they subjectively feel like. Then you measure the distance between one pole and the cross, or between the middle of the line and the cross.

In your case, you could use "pride" and "humility" as poles, if you think there's a continuum between the two. Or you could use two scales ("more or less humility" vs "more or less pride") together, or randomly for half of the test items (50% "more or less humility", 50% "more or less pride") counterbalanced between subjects.

This paper aims to validate a contextualized Sense of Reverence scale (SOR), but it's the same focus on a disposition rather than the measurement of a current state that you are after...

Ai, A.L., Wink, P., Gall, T.L., Dillon, M. and Tice, T.N., 2015. Assessing Reverence in Contexts A Positive Emotion Related to Psychological Functioning. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, p.0022167815586657.

Neuroscientists have, however, attempted to measure with fMRI the neural correlates of moral beauty and how they differ from aesthetic/facial beauty - that's the closest I've seen to getting to measuring the state itself rather than the disposition: 

Wang, T., Mo, L., Mo, C., Tan, L.H., Cant, J.S., Zhong, L. and Cupchik, G., 2014. Is moral beauty different from facial beauty? Evidence from an fMRI study. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, p.nsu123.

Thank you Philippe! Thank you Dragos!

-- Lonny

Dear Lonny,

I wonder if you have found what you were looking for? I am currently searching for precisely that (a scale to measure incedental awe). 

Hi Tiarah! Not yet - but the search continues! My mentor and I are also working on a theory of biophilia and appreciation of wilderness which may get us closer... lots of material there.

Thank you for your response, Lonny! There is a recent publication (see reference below) by my past supervisor in which they used a self-created scale (Cronbach’s α = .83) to measure awe. It has, thus, only been used once up till now, but perhaps it will be of help to you. 

van Elk, M., Karinen, A., Specker, E., Stamkou, E., & Baas, M. (2016). ‘Standing in Awe’: The Effects of Awe on Body Perception and the Relation with Absorption. Collabra, 2(1).

Tiarah - wow, thank you! This is extremely helpful. Thank you for taking the time to share this!

Hi Lonny!

You ask if there is a standard psychological instrument to measure the state of reverence/awe.

Let me say that I prefer to say assess or evaluate to measure because the measure concept makes us think of a degree of rigor I believe does not exist in psychology in the sense that it exists in physics, for example

With this caveat in mind, as I see it, Kohlberg's semi-structured interview (see, for this respect, Colby, A. & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment. Two volumes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, is a suitable and deep standard psychological instrument to assess one’s development of moral reasoning and, to an extent, one’s sense and state of reverence/awe. 

Think, for example, of Kohlberg’s hypothetical Heinz dilemma, in which Heinz faces a hard, say, moral choice: To steal a drug from a pharmacy to save his wife's life who was dying of a terribly bad cancer or not to steal and respect a greedy druggist who has invented such drug and asked for it a vast amount of money Heinz could not afford. Among other things, individuals are asked to say whether Heinz should/should not steal the drug and why.

Individuals’ answers (Heinz should/should not steal) and justifications could be classified into six stages (Stages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) of moral reasoning. To an extent, each stage also represents, say, a stage of reverence/awe. As the late Kohlberg gave up his stage 6 qua empirical stage, what follows presents responses and justifications for each stage of moral reasoning and, to an extent, of reverence, awe and even fear. (Stages 1. 2, 3, 4, and 5). Note that these stages have much more to do with the justification presented for a given answer than the answer in itself.

Consider the following answer and justification: "Heinz should steal the drug because her wife is a famous actress and hence, Heinz should have a sense of reverence or even awe to his wife". This would be a stage 1-oriented response of moral reasoning and also sense of reverence and awe. 

Consider now the following answer and justification: "Heinz should steal the drug because, if he doesn't his, consciousness is going to bother him". This would be a stage 2-oriented response of moral reasoning and sense of reverence and awe.  

Note that stages 1 and 2 are in Kohlberg's theory pre-conventional stages in that moral reasoning and sense of reverence/awe and even fear at these stages have to do with egocentric, personal, and rudimentary motives, not societal considerations and moral norms, nor they have to do with prescriptive and generalized principles (see below)    

Think of the following answer and justification: "Heinz should steal the drug because, if he doesn’t, his friends and colleagues are going to form a bad image of him as a husband and even say that is not, as it were, a nice and decent guy" This would be a stage 3- oriented response of moral reasoning and sense of reverence and awe. A response of this type makes us think of an individual who looks for social approval and hence, has a sense of awe, reverence and fear before those who are close to him/her, such as his/her friends, colleagues, and relatives.

Think now of the following answer and justification: "Heinz should steal the drug because his wife, as an actress, already contributed  a lot to the social progress of her own and  even other countries. Now, it is her husband who, in name, say, of the social or others, feels a sense of social responsibility, reverence an awe to her. This would be a stage 4-oriented response of moral reasoning and sense of reverence and awe.  A response of this type makes us think of an individual who is aware that s/he lives in a world where individuals have duties and rights, and has  a sense of reverence and awe to his/her society as a coherent whole, not only  to his/her friends, colleagues  and relatives. One might say that that individual is thinking in terms of morality and reverence/awe as if s/he were a generalized other (see, for this respect, G.H. Mead’s work).

Note that stages 3and 4 are in Kohlberg's theory conventional stages in that moral reasoning and sense of reverence/awe have now to do not with egocentric, personal, and rudimentary motives, but societal considerations and moral norms.   

Think now of the following answer and justification: "Heinz should steal the drug because s/her is aware that one’s right to live transcends one’s right to property”

This would be a stage 5 or stage 6-oriented response of moral reasoning and sense of reverence and awe.  A response of this type makes us think of an individual who prioritizes moral principles (one’s right to life) over social and moral norms and even that moral norms (e.g., not to steal) should be violated when they do not guarantee the role of moral principles (the principle of justice, for example) in situations of moral conflict and choice. I say stage 5 or stage 6-oriented response because, as mentioned above, the late Kohlberg quit his stage 6 as empirical and structural reality, albeit he has maintained it as the telos of one’s moral thinking, reverence and awe

According to Kohlberg, Stage 5 and 6 are post-conventional stages, either in terms of morality or in terms of reverence and awe, just because they go beyond widespread social rules and moral norms in order to fulfill one’s deep respect, reverence and awe to one’s self-chosen principles. Thus, at the post-conventional level (i.e., stages 5 and 6) one’s is aware that social rules, moral norms, and respect, reverence, and awe to others are at the heat of our respect for ourselves, the others, and even the universe. When this is the case, we can say that we are conscious and aware of what might called a cosmic and infinite perspective that seems to rule over the world and the universe. Again, when this is the case, we are experiencing a true sense of justice or morality, and reverence/awe. I say “true sense” because it is not imposed on us neither by personal and egocentric reasons (pre-conventional morality, reverence and awe) nor by social regularities and widespread moral norms (conventional morality, reverence and awe) but because it has to do with self-chosen, prescriptive, generalizable, and universalizable principles (post-conventional morality, reverence and awe).

I hope that I have got your question and that this helps.

Best regards.

Thank you Orlando - this is very intriguing. Kohlberg's work is certainly mainstream. Perhaps then the Trolley Problem could be approached this way too? Thank you!

Hi Lonney!

Your are right when saying that the Trolley Problem or dilemma could be approached from a Kohlbergian approach. Kohlberg's approach is not now mainstream. Mainstream now is Turiel and his colleagues' social domain theory, of which I do not think much, as could see if you have time to read my New Ideas in Psychology paper, titled: Social Domain Approach: A Critical Review,

Best regards,

Thank you Orlando! I have downloaded your paper and will look into what you shared with me - thanks!