Creation of an Objective Measure of God Images in Children

A Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of the School of Psychology & Counseling

Regent University

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree,

Doctor of Psychology

By

Heather D. Gilliam

October 26,2012

UMI Number: 3536185

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3536185

Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346

Creation of an Objective Measure of God Images in Children

Approved by:

^ CP PLdCa^P "(Chair of Committee)

Q \ 7 . t 8 \ \ X Date

Glendon Montfffy, PsyS). (Committee Member) \ E > y z i > \ u

iDate

nmrer Rip octoral Program Director) Date

Abstract

The current study was conducted to facilitate the development and pilot testing of an

objective measure of God images (GI) in children ages 8-12. Developmentally

appropriate items were developed based on literature on GI in children and current adult

measures, as well as the potential influence of parenting on GI. Following administration

to a sample of 79 children, a principle components analysis with varimax rotation was

conducted. The components that emerged reflected trust, value, and acceptance. The

implications and recommendations for future research related to these findings are

discussed.

iii

Acknowledgements

This author wishes to express her gratitude to

Dr. Olson, for her flexibility, patience, encouragement, and thorough approach to

evaluation of content throughout the proposal and evaluation of results.

Dr. Moriarty, whose insight into the research on God image provided supportive

structure to this study that has held up through changes in pace and strategy.

Anna Shirokova, whose statistical efficiency and competency provided critical

movement toward completion of results.

The Gilliam family, who have waited with encouragement, support, and hope to

see this project completed and for an opening to a new chapter in life.

Dr. Mark Gage, for supportive feedback, collaboration, and enthusiastic

appreciation for the value of this study.

Samw'se Bermudez, whose flexibility of attachment and openness to expression

of experience reveal God's active image and infinite hope.

Donna Jean Gilliam (1937-2012), whose unconditional love, strength, and

optimism shaped an image of God, changing generations.

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract iii Acknowledgements iv List of Tables vii List of Figures viii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

Religion and Spirituality 5 The Problem 6

CHAPTER II: Method of Literature Review 11 God Representations: God Image and God Concept 11 Theoretical Influences on Assessment Development 15

Developmental Theory and God Image 15 Attachment and God Image 20 Parenting and God Image 22 Views of God, Self, and God Image 25

Objective Measurement of God Image 26 Studies of Objective Measurement of God Image in Children 28 Direction From Objective Measurement Studies 35 Additional Considerations for Instrument Development 36

Integration and Diversity 36 Ethical Concerns 37

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 39 Development of Scale Concepts 39 Scale Design 41 Survey Construction 42 Expert Review 45 Informed Consent 45 General Demographics and Preface to Survey 46 Specific Demographics 47 Participant Selection and Survey Administration Process 47

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 51 Descriptions of Participant Data 51 Statistical Results 52

Data Screening and Transformations 53 Principal Component Analysis 55

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION 67 Theoretical Support and Reflections 67

Basis of Exploring GI in Development 67 Basis of Exploring GI in Attachment and the Relational Context 69 Data Support and Reflections 70 Component 1: Trust 71 Component 2: Value 72 Component 3: Acceptance 73 Missing Factors 74

Recommendations 75

v

Item Reduction 75 Instrument 76

Limitations 76 Participant Attainment & Settings 76 Participant Selection/Exclusions 78 Additional Factors 80

Conclusions 80 References 82 Appendix A: Information Form 91 Appendix B: Informed Consent 92 Appendix C: Preface, Assent, The God Question 95 Appendix D: Survey 96 Appendix E: Item-Scale-Content 100 Appendix F: Items With Content Sources 103 Appendix G: Participation Request Letter 107 Appendix H: Participation Response 109 Appendix I: Parent Announcement/Letter 110

vi

List of Tables

Table 1: Current Studies on Objective Measurement and GI in Children 34 Table 2: Sources of Completed Surveys 47 Table 3: Participants: Number by Age 49 Table 4: Participants: Number by Religious Perspective 50 Table 5: Participation Rates 52 Table 6: Descriptive Statistics and Missing Values 54 Table 7: Eigenvalues and Explained Variance for the Initial Solution (Eight Components) 57 Table 8: Component Loadings for the Initial Eight-Component Solution 60 Table 9: Eigenvalues and Explained Variance for the Rotated Solution (Three Components) 63 Table 10: Component Loadings 65

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1: Scree plot: Eight-component solution 58 Figure 2: Scree plot: Three-component solution 64

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Religion and spirituality have become significant fields of inquiry with regard to

psychological assessment and outcomes in treatment. Leading researchers and guiding

organizations are bringing the clinical relevance of competency in these areas to light in

mainstream training for psychologists. With major accrediting agencies such as Joint

Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations mandating spiritual

assessment in the majority of the hospitals and mental health facilities in the United

States (Hodge, 2006), the need for competency and more thorough investigations of valid

methodology through research is on the rise. The American Psychological Association's

(APA; 1992) Ethical Standards of Psychologists provide guidelines for clinical

competency and give credence to the consideration of religious diversity and the need for

professional tools and competencies in an area in which clinicians have not traditionally

become equipped (Brown, 2007). Inclusion of a V-code (V62.89) in the Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (DSM-IV; APA, 1994) to account

for a "religious or spiritual problem" puts these considerations on the map for clinical

attention. Eck (2002) also advocated for professionals to assess, understand, and hold

respect for religious values.

For years, spiritual education and doctrine/teaching programs in religious settings

have utilized an understanding of the processes of spiritual development to produce

1

literature that is relevant to teachers who foster spiritual and religious growth in children.

Although Freud (Dufresne & Richter, 2012) recognized religious ideas and concerns as

having "exercised the strongest possible influence on mankind" (p. 51). Psychology as a

science is in the earlier stages of the scientific recognition of these notions, particularly

with regard to the impact on children within the clinical setting. Development of

measures that enhance our ability to promote competence in these areas may bring clarity

and direction in otherwise cloudy and less-traveled territory.

Religious and spiritual concerns have been emerging for some years with in-depth

implications for clinical inquiry and relevance to the lives of most individuals. Clinicians

and psychotherapists are increasingly being called upon to deal with the spiritual

concerns of their clients (Sperry, 2003). Leading researchers, such as Shafranske and

Maloney (1996), have presented a case for inclusion of religion in the practice of

psychology. Shafranske and Maloney suggested inclusion of religious concerns in

psychological practice to validate the human experience of religion and its relationship to

professional psychology because it defines the relationship between the science and

profession of psychology. According to Hathaway, Scott, and Garver (2004), assessment

of religious and spiritual domains is necessary as the outcomes of these areas are

associated with "many facets of adaptive functioning" (p. 97). However, given the nature

of managed care's influence on time-limited interventions and the responsibility of

psychology professionals to deliver empirically supported practices, the existing

measures for God images (GI) assessment remain most appropriate for a pastoral care

setting, versus a clinical setting, regardless of any potential connections between GI and

clinical presentations.

2

Additionally, objective, time-limited, and developmental^ congruent measures in

children are not well represented as an initiative in literature or practice. As the practice

of clinical psychology has moved into the broader realm of health care, multidisciplinary

approaches and collaboration abound in recent literature and practice. Even neuroscience

is tuning in to the inquiry by conducting endeavors to understand the connection between

God and science known as neurotheology (Ratcliffe, 2006). Medicine, social work,

clerical services, and psychology may be in varying stages of developing competency in

religious and spiritual inquiry in clinical situations. A mutual sharing among related

fields may lend us to best practices for continued development of competencies for

treatment, especially in areas in which expertise is underdeveloped and under-defined.

Regarding religion and spirituality in pediatric medicine and treatment, Koepfer (2000)

stated,

Addressing religion and spiritual issues in therapeutic settings has become increasingly common in many areas of health care. One area that has lagged in this regard is pediatric medicine. There is a prevalent myth that children are not capable of cognitively grasping spiritual or religious ideas and concepts. Furthermore, spirituality has often been disregarded as an active variable in treatment and therapeutic relationships, (p. 188).

Furthermore, Sexson (2004) highlighted a number of issues from a pediatric

psychology perspective, offering guidance related to religious and spiritual assessment in

children and adolescents:

(1) Impact of religion and spirituality on medically and psychologically ill children and adolescents, (2) Evaluation of children in the context of their family with their cultural and religious beliefs, (3)Techniques to talk to children about religion and spirituality, (4) Pediatric psychiatrists' receptivity to spirituality of children and adolescents, and (5) Ethical issues between medical/psychology work and religion and spirituality, (p. 35-47).

3

Part one of Sexson's considerations is consistent with APA's (1994) mandates for

practicing within competency in that clinicians must be aware of spirituality as a valid

domain for assessment of functioning and must operate ethically on the patient's behalf

within bounds of competency.

The aim of this study was to develop a brief, 20- to 30-item objective measure of

GI in children and offer preliminary results information regarding the construct/content

validity of the measure. The purpose of such an instrument would be for use in competent

pastoral care or in clinical settings in which the religious development or spiritual

dispositions of a child would be of concern or relevance to a clinical presentation or as

consistent with a child or family's approach to meaningful growth, wellness, and finding

solutions in life.

Assessment of domains related to religious and spiritual issues, through either

measurement or development of a measurement, carries its own unique set of

considerations (Paloutzian & Park, 2005, p. 69). Reliance upon the validity of existing

measures of GI involves understanding validity in convergent, conditional, and content

domains prior to the utilization of information for the purposes of development of a new

instrument (Kendall, Butcher, & Holmbeck, 1999, p. 125). Existing objective GI

measures are designed for an adult population and include, but are not limited to God

Image Questionnaire (GIQ; Gaultiere, 1989), God Image Scales (GIS; Lawrence, 1997),

God Image Inventory (Gil; Lawrence, 1991), Adjective Ratings of God (Gorsuch, 1968),

Attachment to God Inventory (AGI; Beck & McDonald, 2004), Loving and Controlling

God Scales (Benson & Spilka, 1973), Nearness to God Scale (Gorsuch & Smith, 1983),

and Concept of God and Parental Images (Vergote et al., 1969). Additional measures

4

have emerged in psychology literature, but those listed are among the most used in

research with sufficient validity and reliability information available to guide scale

development for the present study.

Religion and Spirituality

It is important to note that differences between the definitions of religion and

spirituality vary across disciplines and theoretical bases. Discussion of the distinctions

between religion and spirituality are beyond the scope of this study but are contained in

multiple references throughout this study. Paloutzian and Park (2005) lent their expertise

to the history and scientific study behind this discussion with their definitions of religious

development and spirituality. They defined religious development as "the child's growth

within an organized community that has shared narratives, practices, teachings, rituals,

and symbols in order to bring people closer to the sacred and to enhance one's

relationship to community" (p. 125). Spirituality was referred to as the search for and

relationship with whatever one takes to be a holy or sacred transcendent entity

(Pargament, 1999). Their most basic clarifications of the two constructs suggest

interpretations of religion as a set of practices, more culturally based, etc., and spirituality

as a more experiential individual perception. While GI may be more generally reflected

in literature as an experience-based construct, the development of GI generally occurs

within the contexts of relationships, a religion (as in spiritual practice), or cultural setting

(Hill & Hall, 2002). These ideas are discussed more fully in the review of literature

section on understanding the GI and God concept. The language of the DSM-IV (APA,

1994)—a "religious or spiritual problem"—suggests the representation of a unitary facet

in human life and a relevant domain for assessment or attention in clinical situations.

5

However, for the purposes of this study, differentiations will be held in the view of

religion as the context within which a spiritual experience, such as the development of

the GI, often occurs.

The Problem

A number of issues exist with regard to the measurement of GI, in literature,

research, ethics, and practice. Perhaps the foremost and overarching concern is with the

validity of existing measures of GI (both objective and projective), particularly with

regard to use with children. Projective measures of GI carry certain validity cautions as

other projective measures (i.e., interrater reliability, dependence upon motor and creative

abilities, as well as an individual's willingness/ability to connect with emotional

experiences and translate those experiential processes into viewable form; Koppitz 1966,

1968; Seitz, 2001). Objective measures that have been traditionally used, were trusted

based on the validity offered primarily by the developing theorists and researchers.

In addition to concerns related to validity and ability to generalize results of

existing GI measures, there is some concern for the ethical implications of the usage of

the measurements that are currently available. It is not always clearly defined as to

whether these instruments are best suited for clinical practice, pastoral care, or both.

Competence issues with regard to addressing religious and spiritual issues in conjunction

with psychological concerns exist on both sides of the discipline. With the study of

religion and religious concepts being increasingly understood within the domain of

cognitive science (Barrett, 2000), assessment of GI represents an extension of both

psychological and religious/spiritual domains of human functioning.

6

The ethics, usage, and implications need to be addressed more clearly in literature

featuring GI measures. An exemplar reflection of GI measurement and promotion of

competency is in Moriarty's (2006) text on pastoral care and depression. This work was

produced in order to inform pastors regarding a clinical issue and the implications for

measurement and exploration of GI as a means of addressing the clinical issue. The

discussion of the text and direction for measure administration took on the form of an

entire text, promoting competency prior to assessment administration and guidance for

navigation of clinical issues that extend beyond the scope of pastoral care. In addition to

directives for competency regarding religious and spiritual issues, clinical and pastoral

work with children in general should be guarded with well-developed and specialized

mandates and professionally guided direction.

More specifically with regard to measurement of GI in children, there is no

substantial or validated literary or research-based evidence of the availability of an

objective GI measure created for children. To date, the majority of research referencing

assessment of GI in children uses (a) projective measures not readily available in the

public domain (without clear and valid scoring/categorical criteria); (b) projective

measures with scoring protocols such as the Koppitz system (Koppitz, 1968), with

standard psychometric concerns for interrater reliability; (c) objective measures

(Kauffold-Entner, 1997) not created for use with children; or (d) a combination of both

objective (without child norms) and projective measures (Muller, 2005).

With regard to the use of projective drawings, the interference of motor problems,

creative developmental concerns, and the potential for various developmental concerns

are just a few considerations that may impact projective child drawings (Koppitz, 1968;

7

Solomon, 1978). These influences on a child's artistic expression and ability to draw

figures may create varied results that may not be able to be meaningfully interpreted for

clinically implicated or spiritual concerns. Gillespie (1994) discussed such considerations

and limitations on the use of projective drawings. These considerations can be

meaningfully applied to enhance the interpretive integrity of exercises such as the Draw a

God (Moriarty, 2006; Moriarty & Davis, 2011) projective, provided that the child has

reached a developmental capacity for abstraction and can project his or her GI into a

drawing.

Objective measures such as the GIQ, Gil, or GIS, which were originally designed

and preliminarily validated on adult populations have been used on child populations in

research (e.g., Kauffold-Entner, 1997, used the GIQ and GIS with child participants),

which may further mystify the current understanding of GI in children. Without

developmentally appropriate questions, informed by developmental theory and

formulated to target progressive developmental states in childhood, these previously

formulated objective measures may not assess for the more relevant aspects of a child's

subjective experience of God.

Perhaps the most common measures referred to in the measurement of GI

literature include the GIS, GIQ, Gil, and projective drawing techniques. While literature

on measurement of GI is not limited to that which includes the utilization of these

measures, they will be discussed here due to their common inclusion in GI measurement

research. Gaultiere (1989) developed the GIQ to include 70 items. Lawrence (1991,

1997) developed the Gil in 1991 (eight scales and 156 items) and subsequently the GIS

in 1997 (six scales and 72 items or three scales and 36 items). Aside from objective

8

measures are projective techniques such as the Koppitz (1966) system for drawing a

human figure, Rizzuto's projective and interview techniques or lesser-known,

unpublished drawing of God projective techniques.

For the Gil (Lawrence, 1991), internal reliability and preliminary validity work

were presented by Lawrence with the introduction of the instrument. Although he cited

that a sample of 1,580 U.S. adults was obtained, it is noted that the applicability of the

instrument, in terms of validity information yielded by the original standardization, is

restricted to an adult, Christian population (Hill & Hood, 1999). Thus, there is some

question of the ability to generalize these results with a young population with ideas in

dynamic developmental states. Lawrence's (1997) subsequent work of the GIS was also

reported as valid (also utilizing an adult population) by early research and in its use by

other researchers. However, as noted by Lawrence (1997), not all results of the

instrument's use remain consistent when attempting to assess for the various constructs of

GI on varying populations (p. 220). The review of literature on measurement of GI in

children as discussed in this study attest to these mixed findings.

The essential problem addressed by this study is the lack of an available, brief,

and valid objective measure of God representations in children. Despite the emergence of

religious and spiritual issues as valuable considerations and demands for competency

within clinical practice, children have rarely been addressed in these domains

(Roehlkepartain, King, Wagener, & Benson, 2006). Paloutzian and Park (2005) cited

research indicating that 95% of parents hold a religious affiliation, and upwards of 90%

desire religious education for their children (p. 124; Chapter 7 of Paloutzian & Park's

work holds additional commentary on these findings, including the notion that, despite

9

the 95% parental religious affiliation, the literature on children and enuresis is five times

as prevalent as the literature on children and faith). While there appears to be

considerable interest in religious development in U.S. culture at large, Benson,

Roehlkepartain, and Rude (2003) reported that when reviewing databases for articles on

children, 1% of database articles attend to the issue of spirituality in children. The

availability of literature addressing measurement of God representations in children is

even more scarce.

10

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Method of Literature Review

The primary method for obtaining and reviewing literature was through utilization

of the Regent Library electronic databases of Regent University. The primary databases

utilized were EBSCOhost Research Databases, Psyclnfo, PsycArticles ERIC, Proquest,

Dissertations and Theses, Google, Reference reserve materials from the Regent

University card catalog, and Amazon.com. Search words and phrases such as "God

Image," "God Concept," "Measure," "Inventory," "Scales," "Children," "God Image &

Child/Children," "Religion & Spirituality," "Religious & Spiritual Issues/(in

Treatment/Assessment)," and "Treatment & God Image" were utilized in varying

combinations to search for relevant literature on the topics discussed in this study. The

majority of references in this work come from journal articles, books, and dissertations.

Direct contact was made with the author of one dissertation to obtain a copy of the

manuscript and utilize the findings therein to develop guided conclusions and direction

for the development of the measure to be created in this study.

God Representations: God Image and God Concept

Numerous key figures have played a role in the understanding of God

representations and, specifically, GI. A few major contributors are highlighted here for

11

their connectivity to developmental and measurement considerations in understanding GI

in children: Freud, Klein and Winnicott, Gualtiere, Lawrence, and Rizzuto.

Freud's contributions as described by Rizzuto (1979) are in the understanding of

God representations as a parallel to the infant/child's response and connections to

parental figures. While some of Freud's philosophical assumptions, including the "primal

father" (Rizzuto, 1979, pp. 35,60,132), differ from the philosophical background of GI

theorists at large, his incorporation of object relations theory and understanding of the

relational and parental influences on GI have been replicated by theory time and again via

the scientific study of God representations. Freud's (1950, p. 147) assumption of the God

that exists in believers as an image of an "exalted father" is one of the earlier descriptive

parallels between parent-child relationships and GI.

Klein (1948) described the process of infant-maternal attachment and the manner

in which the mother-object relates and translates into the God-object via the dynamic

quality of the human relationship. Winnicott (1953) further developed these ideas by

adding the concept of transitional space, which represents the developmental, psychic

position in which transitional objects (such as a blanket, toy, or mental object, parental

perception) serve as precursors to the illusory construction of a representation of God.

Rizzuto's (1970,1979) contributions to the scientific understanding of God

representations serve as a hallmark of most current research of GI and God concepts.

Rizzuto's distinction between the GI and God concept brings clarity that has been an

essential feature of the scientific study of God representations at large and, more

specifically, with regard to assessment with God representations. In addition, her dual

view of types of God representations is consistent with mainstream theology and

12

philosophy in the understanding of the knowledge of the divine and the feelings toward

the divine as two separate aspects of the human experience of God. The current

availability of literature bringing clarity to the GI in early life are abbreviated in

comparison to the overall availability and influence of literature in the area of God

representations (Rizzuto, 1970,1979) at large. An in-depth understanding of GI and God

concept as coined and developed my Ana-Maria Rizzuto in her various works is essential,

along with the subsequent contributing literature, which references these constructs.

The God concept, as developed in children, may be best understood in terms of

"religious rituals," or "communication and transmission of religious knowledge" (Barrett,

2000, (p. 29) or, in other words, learning that takes place within a religious or spiritual

context. Religious practices, teaching, learning, and the development of cognitive

understanding regarding who God is and the attributes of God's character may all be part

of the formation of the God concept. Language, symbols, ritualistic patterns, and

archetypes common to various cultural, spiritual, and religious practices may all be

included in an individual's formation and descriptions of his or her subjective God

concept.

Rizzuto (1970,1979) described the GI as a subjective experience of God,

incorporating emotional reactions and internalized relational responses to God. Spero

(1992) suggested the potential for the formation of GI as a process originated not of

imaginative or emotional response but by God. This view from a creationist perspective

incorporates the propensity for the development of GI stemming from the property of

man being created in the image of God. Lawrence (1997) described GI as an intrinsic

psychological working model of who God is as a person, stemming from the imagination

13

of the individual. With strong psychoanalytic underpinnings, the GI may be understood

as both an illusory and reality based a mechanism that reflects the image of early

caregivers.

Perhaps the most significant of contributions toward extracting and understanding

information regarding the emotional experience of God known as GI are from the

creators of the more commonly used and researched measures of GI. The Adjective

Ratings of God scale by Gorsuch (1968) and the Loving and Controlling God Scales by

Benson and Spilka (1973) may carry the most validity in terms of their historical

precedence and their availability in the literature. Others that appear in studies that have

served to enhance the scientific understanding of components of GI include the Concept

of God and Parental Images by Vergote et al. (1969), the Nearness to God Scale by

Gorsuch and Smith (1983), and, more recently, the AGI by Beck and McDonald (2004).

Lawrence's Gil (1991) and GIS (1997) have also been utilized in GI research.

The literature introducing and utilizing these instruments brings definition to the

intuitive connections between the relational and attitudinal constructs they tap into and

collective individuals' acknowledgment of an experience of God. Further, they serve as

flagships in assessment of GI that provide direction for the production of further research

on GI measurement, as well as implications for treatment when GI is of clinical

relevance. The availability of these measures to clinicians, clergy, and the public domain

have aided in understanding, scale development, and validity for the past few decades of

literary exploration of GI. In addition, critique of these instruments serves to clarify the

relevant assessment domains of GI. Concerns for multicollinearity, shared variance

among constructs, and the difficulties related to delineation of terms referencing GI

14

versus God concept serve to caution and guide further research. The incorporation of

some of these instruments in the current studies of measurement of GI in children help to

extract items in an informed way for the measure to be created in this study.

Theoretical Influences on Assessment Development

Developmental Theory and God Image

The development of GI at large is theoretically derived by Rizzuto (1979),

making the distinction between God concept (cognitive, conceptual, belief) and GI

(subjective, emotional, experiential). The articulation of this difference is profound in that

the more current research has indicated that early stages in development do not preclude a

child from having the capacity for genuine spiritual experience (Goldman, 1964; Wilber,

1996), nor is the capacity for abstract cognitive or verbal and linguistic abilities a

prerequisite to early spiritual experience (Dillon, 2000). By bringing distinct definitions

to GI and God concept, Rizzuto set the stage for understanding GI more clearly as the

experience of God, which can exist during childhood, apart from an advanced cognitively

developed understanding of God. Her theory renders an understanding that children can

experience God early in life, including the idea that by 3 years of age, a child may

consciously experience curiosity related to God, despite the inability to formally

comprehend religion until the age of 6 years.

Williams (1971) studied the development of the God concept from a Piagetian

perspective and identified the age of 6 years as the critical age for God concept readiness.

Nye and Carlson (1984) explored the congruence between the development of God

concepts in children with Piaget's model of cognitive development and found the

developmental stages to be congruent throughout stages of childhood. While there is the

15

inevitable potential for overlap of constructs of GI and God concept, the recognition of

varying stages of the formation of either construct is critical to effectively conducting

evaluative studies with children of various ages. In differentiation between the constructs,

the findings on God concepts provide a consistent basis for the illustration of a distinct

contrast between the recognized age of a formal God concept and the findings of the

recognition of the earlier formation of an image of God as reported to have been

identified in children younger than 6 years. The process of item construction and

selection occur with attention to the linguistic and cognitive processes consistent with

Piaget's theory and with the intention of eliciting responses of an emotional or

experiential nature reflecting GI over God concept.

Tamminen and Nurmi (1995) also presented findings of religious experiences

early in a child's life. Tamminem (1994) explored religious experiences in childhood and

adolescence with a sample of 3,000, 7- to 20-year-olds and found a notable decrease in

(reported) religious experiences in adolescent years (subsequent to childhood). This

suggests that there is an early time in life during which religious experiences and ideas

(as in the GI) are more readily accessible before entering the developmental/identity

confusion (i.e., Erikson) stages of adolescence, which might inhibit the availability of

responses to religious, spiritual, or Gl-related experiences and ideas. Tamminem also

reported that girls may be more open, in a relational sense, to exploration and also more

committed in their perceptions. Some researchers would attribute this finding to

projection theory, which suggests that persons may tend to hold projective images that

align with characteristics specific to their own gender and role. A similar distinction

between males and females is reported by Hertel and Donahue (1995) in which they note

16

an occurrence consistent with projection theory: women viewing God in supportive,

female roles and men viewing God in the context of male roles. Regardless of the

complexity of gender, age, stage, or preexisting framework of children, the goal in

creating a GI measure for children was to capture the subjective emotional representation

of God within the developmental context in which it is available and forming.

Freud's psychoanalytic contribution to the concept of God representations shaped

the assumptions of Rizzuto on the role of development and the study of GI formation:

"The God representation... follows epigenetic and developmental laws that can be

studied systematically" (Ruzzuto, 1979, p. 179). Klein and Winnicott (19th to 20th

century), as informed by psychoanalytic and object relations theory, posited that the

capacity for religious feelings is rooted in the primary relationship between mother and

child: "Trust and a sense of protection evolve into a sense of deity" (Gerkin, 1994).

Rackley (2007) suggested that the key role of object relations in understanding the

developing GI is not necessarily in the child's experience of God but "that they

experience relationships with significant others within their surroundings" (p. 19), and

these experiences provide a basis for which an individual experiences God later in life.

Gerkin (1994) explored projective identification and GI, reflecting on object

relations theory and psychology of religion. This was a theoretical study that discussed

implications, from an anthropological standpoint, of the origin of GI and its presence in

infancy. The position in this study aligned with Klein and Winnicott in their assumptions

regarding infancy, maternal bonding, and the precursors for religious experience.

Gerkin's essential conclusion is in the idea that the infant-mother relationship serves as

the foundation for the development of an image-reflecting deity.

17

Shafranske's (1992) exploration of religion, mental health, and early life

encourages a view of religion with regard to children as "a complex, multidimensional

experience that includes religious representations, beliefs, attributions, and practices ....

these interrelated features are a determining factor with regard to a child's sense of self

and others" (p. 173). The encouragement toward a view of developmental complexity

continues as Barrett (2001) challenged the standard views of a cognitive, Piagetian

interpretation with regard to religious development. As discussed earlier in this section,

the dual paradigm between the consistent Piaget God concept processes and the potential

contrast of the remainder of the paradigm of religious experiences and development, such

as GI remains on the table for discussion. There is comfort in the comparison of the

unknown to the accepted frameworks of psychology's history. However, no theoretical

template is one-size-fits-all, and Barrett's challenge moves us in the direction of a new

openness to evaluation of experiences beyond our cognition—those of spiritual and

transcendent quality. Barrett offered the suggestion "from P. Boyer's (1994) notion that

concepts organize experiences, including religious experiences ... [and] argues that

religious events and ideas appear radically different from ordinary experience because

they violate certain default assumptions about things in the world" (Andreson, 2001, p.

27). From this perspective, it is plausible to query the idea that the experience of God, or

GI, may evolve outside of, albeit including, the common developmental templates

understood by psychological theory thus far.

Psychology remains noticeably in the immature stages of exploring measurable

and definitive human response to the phenomenological experience of God. The

exploration of supernatural concepts in psychology thus far is marked by two surges in

18

research, both based on cognitive developmental theory. The first was in response to

Piaget's work and the attention given to faith, prayer, and the development of God

concepts. The second is recognized to have begun in the 1990s with the reevaluation of

cognitive theory to include notions of intuitive abilities, domain-specific knowledge, and

supernatural phenomenlology. While it is noted that "religious concepts operate under the

same conceptual principles and tendencies of children's everyday cognition" (Johnson &

Boyatzis, 2006, p. 211.) Boyer (1994) maintained the position on the potential violation

of assumptions brought about by seeking to understand spiritual experience. His basis is

the observance that the reliance upon prior established theory has resulted in exclusion of

development of theories that may more fully explain human experiences relative to the

supernatural (Roehlkepartain et al., 2006, p. 213).

The influence of multiple broad and expansive theories is noted in regard to the

understanding of God representations. These theories include, but are not limited to,

object relations (Gerkin, 1994; Maxon, 1996; Rizzuto, 1979,1988,1996), Durkeim's

theories of metaphoric parallelism (Hertel & Donahue, 1995), attachment and parenting

(Baumrind, 1971a; Dickie et al., 1997), spiritual development (Roehlkepartain et al.,

2006), stages of faith development (Fowler, 1981), and developmental theory (Piaget's

cognitive development, Kohleberg's moral development, and Erikson's psychosocial

development).

The developmental issues that guided and informed creation of a measure of GI

for children are theoretically derived from developmental stage theorists as previously

discussed, along with parenting styles (i.e., Baumrind, 1971a), cognitive development

(i.e., Piaget), moral development (i.e., Kohlberg), psychosocial development (i.e.,

19

Erikson), and faith development (i.e., Fowler). The age of children in the target

population (8-12 years) represented the developmental parameters and filter through

which developmentally appropriate questions were formulated. The items were

constructed based on the ability of the target population to comprehend, reflect upon, and

respond to the items in a manner consistent with their subjective abilities across multiple

developmental domains.

Attachment and God Image

Bowlby's (1969, 1988) attachment theory has served as a precursor for

understanding parent-child interactions and the relational dynamics that extend from an

infant's early experiences with caregivers. At the most basic level, Bowlby's model

suggests three types of attachment: secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent. The

attachment style developed by the infant child is anticipated based on the level and

quality of care and interaction by the primary caregiver(s). A secure attachment is

anticipated within the context of a mother or caregiver providing a sense of safety and

trust in early life, consistently and appropriately responsive to the needs of the child. In

the absence of the experience of mother as a provider of comfort and safety, an avoidant

attachment style may occur in which an infant detaches from her. The third type,

anxious/ambivalent, may be described as the vacillation between polarities of seeking

nearness/proximity and comfort or, in contrast, resistance and/or anger toward the

caregiver.

This theory also carries the assumption that the attachment style established early

in life may generalize to relationships later in life setting common themes for self and

others in terms of relational expectations, which may include one's perception of God.

20

Kirkpatrick and Shaver (1990), operating from Bowlby's work on attachment, suggested

that individuals who experienced insecure types of attachments in early life may seek a

relational, connected experience of a loving God, which serves to "compensate" for the

lack of secure attachment. In other views, correspondence theory suggests that one's

perception of God is formed in a manner consistent with one's early relational

experiences.

Compensation theory and correspondence theory have emerged in the literary

discussions regarding the nature of an individual's development and quality of

attachment to God and GI. Kirkpatrick (1997) suggested that reactions of correspondence

are evidenced by the congruence of early attachment style and later relational

experiences. In contrast, reactions of compensation are evidenced when an individual

seeks relational experiences that counter the (usually insecure) attachment patterns of

early life. Kirkpatrick (1992,1997) has led the discussion on understanding and

interpreting these theories and their potential to emerge in consistent and contrasting

ways between images of God that are characterized as distant and uninterested to more

idealized images of God as loving and accepting. Further testing of working models of

attachment including the correspondence versus compensation hypotheses suggest

evidence for the reality of applicability of both theories in exploring attachment styles of

an individual and the subsequent formation of GI (i.e., Beck & McDonald, 2004,

Granqvist, 1998; McDonald, Beck, Allison, & Norsworthy, 2005).

Kirkpatrick and Shaver (1990) noted that most traditional Christian views of God

"correspond very closely to the idea of a secure attachment figure" (p. 318). In a study

attempting to understand nuclear family influences on the formation of GI, Hertel and

21

Donahue (1995) reported also that Christian respondents were three times more likely to

endorse measure items that characterized God as loving. Their discussion represents a

parallel to literature on attachment and parenting as they noted findings (within a child

population) representative of "corresponding" GIs relative to parental influence in

childhood. Their suggestions bring recognition to the concept of "horizontal religion" in

stating that "so far as God images are concerned, it is within the family that scholars

should seek the theologically significant interaction" (p. 189).

Parenting and God Image

The GI of a child has its origins in the relational quality and experiences between

child and parent. Freud (1950,1964; Dufresne & Richter, 2012) and Rizzuto's (1970,

1979,1988,1996) contributions as discussed earlier involve ideas from views of the

influence of primal man to more highly developed ideas regarding a child's functioning

in object relations. Regardless of the origins of the development of God and parent/object

representations, consensus exists in the notion that from birth an infant develops a

familiarity and perception of the parent or caregiver. The perception under development

is characteristically dynamic through the individual development of the child and through

the progression of relational experiences between the parent and child (Chartier &

Goehner, 1976; Dickie et al., 1997; Kirkpatrick, 1992,1997). In addition, the perception

being developed is unique to the specific child and parent. Two children in one family

may perceive the same parent differently based on the unique experiences occurring

within the relationship between individual parent and individual child. The common

thread between the GI of siblings in a family, or of children of a similar age from

different families, lies in the certainty of the process-oriented quality of the development

22

of GI (Gerkin, 1994) and the tremendous influence of parenting and the dynamics of the

parent-child relationship upon the GI (Hertel & Donahue, 1995).

As redundantly stated in the discussions of this study, the limited availability of

literature focusing specifically on measurement of GI in children brings difficulty to the

effort of forming conclusions regarding how to measure precise aspects of the nature of

GI in children. The multiplicity of factors contributing to GI reduces the variance of

singular constructs, making them difficult to isolate in content-loaded questions and for

assessment. However, the support for the notion of parental influence as a distinct

component of development of a child's GI does exist in theory (e.g., Freud, Rizzuto,

Klein, and Winnicott) and in current literature (e.g., Hertel & Donahue, 1995;

Kirkpatrick, 1992,1997; McDonald et al., 2005). Rizzuto's (1970,1979,1988,1996)

work also speaks to the connection between parent-child communication and GI, noting

that if caregivers communicate about God to their children while relating themselves in a

caring, loving way, the GI of those children is more likely to emerge with a loving

characterization. Conversely, if caregivers communicating about or presenting God to the

children relate to the child in a manner that is characterized by harshness and cruelty,

then it is more likely that the children will develop a GI or experience of God

characterized by the same negative features. These notions are from the perspective

object relations theory and consistent with correspondence theory.

Baumrind's (1971a) theory supposes four basic styles of parenting: authoritarian,

authoritative, permissive, and neglectful. To date, there is only one explicit literary

connection between Baumrind's theory and GI measurement. Kirkpatrick (2005)

suggested that Baumrind's descriptions of warmth and control are essentially parallel to

23

the loving and controlling constructs in Benson and Spilka's (1973) scales. Hertel and

Donahue (1995) adopted two views of God for their study: God as loving and God as an

authoritarian figure (p. 188). These views of God parallel a portion of Baumrind's theory,

however, there is no reference or discussion of the theoretical connection. A summary of

Baumrind's parenting styles offers the following abbreviated, but thorough, descriptions

of each parenting style:

Authoritative: High Control and High Warmth

. . . f l e x i b l e b u t f i r m , m a i n t a i n i n g c o n t r o l a n d d i s c i p l i n e b u t s h o w i n g s o m e reason and flexibility as well, and communicating expectations but allowing verbal give-and-take. They score as high on demandingness and responsiveness, and have clear expectations for behavior and conduct which they monitor, and their discipline fosters responsibility, cooperation, and self-regulation, their children cope the best, are individuated, mature, resilient, achievement oriented, self-regulated and responsible, and have the highest scores on tests of cognitive competence.

Authoritarian: High Control and Low Warmth

These parents are highly directive, value obedience and are more controlling, show less warmth and nurturance and more distance and aloofness, and discourage discussion and debate. They are high on demandingness but low on responsiveness, maintaining order, communicating expectations, and monitoring the children carefully. Their children have a multitude of problems, and are less individuated and show lower internalization of pro-social values, ego development, and perform more poorly on cognitive tests and see their parents as more restrictive.

Permissive: Low Control and High Warmth

These parents they make fewer demands, and allow the children to regulate themselves for the most part, using little discipline. They are higher on responsiveness but lower on demandingness, requiring little maturity and conventionalism, and avoid confrontation of problematic behavior. The children are less assertive, and less cognitively competent, their children were often smarter but less achievement oriented, showed less self-regulation and social responsibility, and were more likely to use drugs than the previous two. Only children from rejecting and neglecting homes are more likely to use drugs.

Neglectful (and/or Rejecting): Low Control and Low Warmth

24

These parents are low on both demandingness and responsiveness; they do not structure, organize, discipline, attend and supervise... and may actively reject or neglect the children. The children cope the worst, and are the least competent of the four groups. Their children are antisocial, lack self-regulation, have more internalizing and externalizing problems, lower scores on cognitive tests, are more immature and reject their parents as role models. They are most likely to use drugs and alcohol. (Baumrind, 1971)

Views of God, Self, and God Image

As the exploration of contributing factors to the nature of GI has progressed in

recent years, the knowledge of views of self and views of God himself as participatory

factors in the explanation of GI is represented. Benson and Spilka (1973) revealed that

positive self-esteem was related to positive and loving images of God; conversely,

diminished self-esteem was related to images of God as impersonal, rejecting, and

controlling.

In understanding the formation of one's self-concept along with one's views of

God, it is commonly believed that both functions of perception may be influenced by the

dynamics of parent-child relationships. Chartier and Goehner (1976) reported

correlations between positive parental communication and higher self-esteem, as well as

higher self-esteem and positive GI. They states, "A believer's level of self-esteem may

influence his ability to see God as loving and accepting" (p. 227). This finding speaks to

the connectivity between parent-child relational indicators (i.e., communication) and GI.

In another light, the direction of understanding self-esteem or views of self as a

major contributor to GI was offered by Buri and Mueller (1993) in their finding that after

factoring out self-esteem, parental factors were only responsible for 2% of the variance in

GI among college students. Regardless, of the potential overlap of

parents/parenting/parental influence with self-concepts, both constructs are represented in

25

the measure created for this study in order to make further contributions to the

understanding of each feature of GI in children.

Objective Measurement of God Image

Spiritual assessment tools have been few in number in comparison to

psychological assessment tools overall but still available in psychology and related fields.

A number of instruments are noteworthy for their unique contributions and for their use

as the foundation for later development of assessments of GI and spiritual constructs:

Spiritual Assessment Inventory by Hall and Edwards (2002), an adjective rating scale for

perceptions of God by Gorsuch (1968), Concepts of God and Parental Images (Vergote et

al., 1969), Rizzuto's (1979) God/Family Questionnaire (Hill & Hood, 1999), the Loving

and Controlling God Scales by Benson and Spilka (1973), the Nearness to God Scale by

Gorsuch and Smith referred to instruments of assessment for the more specific construct

of GI, Gaultiere's (1989) GIQ, as well as Lawrence's work in the GII (1991) and the GIS

(1997). The measure and scales of the GII and GIS were created for clinical and pastoral

settings to assess for the individual's experience of feelings toward God (i.e., GI) versus

the cognitive understanding or awareness of God (i.e., God concept). The distinct purpose

in the development of the GII and GIS instrument was to tap into GI as a uniquely

defined construct within the human experience. These instruments were designed on the

basis of A. -M. Rizzuto's (1979) distinction between the God concept and the God image,

and utilized items evoking responses based upon the individual's emotional response

toward God. Items generated are statements or assertions about God, and responses

require individuals to agree or disagree with statements on a 4-point Iikert scale. These

measures explore issues of belonging (Presence and Challenge scales), goodness

26

(Acceptance and Benevolence scales) and control (Influence and Providence scales).

(Lawrence, 1997)

Lawrence (1977) reported internal consistency among the original eight scales of

the GII: Presence, Faith, Salience, Challenge, Benevolence, Acceptance, Influence, and

Providence. He found the highest reliability in the Presence subscale, with a .94

correlation coefficient. The GIS was developed by Lawrence as an abbreviated version of

the GII with six subscales. Further, Lawrence reduced the GIS making a three-scale, 36-

item instrument available. An online version of the GIS with three scales (Presence,

Acceptance, and Challenge) was produced by Gattis (2002) for clinicians with a master's

(or more advanced) degree and for pastors. The aim of this development was to produce

additional validity and reliability for the 36-item, three-scale version of the GIS. A

criticism of these scales is the potential problem of multicollinearity among the constructs

represented in the scales (viz. Rackley, 2007). This criticism suggests that items often tap

into the construct of one's learned, cognitive concept of God, rather than the emotional,

affective response or image of God. The theoretical distinction between GI and God

concept is more clear in discussion rather than proven through assessment. The dissection

of cognitive and emotional process related to both the concept and image of God has

been and remains a challenge in the development of GI assessment. In recognition of the

aforementioned critiques and challenges, only the reduction of items/scales and the .94

correlation coefficient of the Presence scale served to inform this study in terms of the

selection of measure items for the children's GI measure developed.

27

Studies of Objective Measurement of God Image in Children

Hertel and Donahue (1995) tested Durkeim's theory of metaphoric parallelism,

looking at the GI of parents, parenting, and children. Their finding included the idea that

nurturing and loving parenting was associated with parents having a nurturing and loving

GI. Subsequently, nurturing and loving parenting was associated with a child's GI being

characterized as nurturing and loving. Additionally, findings suggesting that children may

identify with perceptions of God consistent with their subjective gender role

identification were noted. Overall, the findings suggest a relational-parental influence on

the child's GI. This finding holds particular strength not only from the theoretical

underpinnings evident in the findings, but in the utilization of a sample of 8,000 children

and 10,000 parents in the study. Their use of author-developed scales from Search

Institute research of Benson, Williams, and Johnson (1987) did not preclude their results

from aligning with the results of other more commonly known and validated measures

such as the GIS. The Search Institute is a nonprofit organization that specializes in the

production of research and resources promoting positive development in children,

adolescents, families, communities, and a variety of institutions.

A Search Institute project entitled "Young Adolescents and Their Parents"

provided the scales utilized in Hertel and Donahue's (1995) study. A youth survey of 319

items and a parallel survey of 328 items for parents was utilized. The parallel surveys

were designed to obtain objective reports of religious beliefs and varied attitudes and

practices, along with values and behaviors, of the youth subjects. The same background

characteristics were examined in their parents (Hertel & Donahue, 1995). The dimensions

of God as love and God as authority/authoritarian as discussed in the study were revealed

28

through factor analysis of the surveys. The empirical emergence of these scales is

comparatively valuable for looking at current research and for the direction of potential

items and scales.

Dickie et al. (1997) compared children's images of parents and God in two

samples (N = 49 mdN= 94) of 4- to 11-year olds, using an author-directed interview

regarding the child's perceptions about God and their parents, along with visual

portrayals with child ratings from items on the Bern Sex Role Inventory (Bern, 1974).

Information on the interview questions for this study were not delineated in their

published findings other than with the suggestion that the interviews with children were

based on the thematic content of the essential questions of the study (i.e., the nurturing,

and powerful qualities of God and parents, discipline styles, etc.) For the illustrations

from the Bern Sex Role Inventory (Bern, 1974), children were asked to rate their view of

the images depicting adjective qualities in conjunction with their view of the images

being similar or dissimilar to their mother, father, and God. Findings suggest that girls'

GI was associated more with the discipline style of their parents than boys' GI.

Consistent with relational-parental findings, this study further indicates the young girls'

(typically) more highly developed attributes of being more affective or relationally and

emotionally attuned are more heavily influenced by factors in the parent-child

relationship or interactions. In addition, the overall finding was that children's images of

parents with the mother as powerful and with father as nurturing were associated with a

powerful and nurturing GI. The findings in this study were found to be consistent

regardless of race, socioeconomic status, and religious affiliations.

29

Kauffold-Entner (1997) researched the effects of separation and divorce on the

junior high-age child or adolescent's concept of God. The GIQ and GIS were

administered to 218 junior high-aged children and adolescents. In the varied U.S. public

school system, this might consist of children and adolescents ages 10-15. They found no

statistically significant results and discussed this finding in light of the potential

moderating and mediating effects of their sample coming from a faith-based school and

the consistency of participants having remained in the same school throughout the events

of separation and/or divorce. According to the authors' interpretations, they suggested

that a child's GI may be less influenced by situational factors than by the relational

consistencies of their life. Further interpretation and discussion of these findings may do

well to consider prior literary distinctions among God representations (e.g., Rizzuto,

1979). God concept (cognitive), evaluated in this study, differs from GI (emotional),

perhaps lending this particular study to insignificant conclusions. The differences

between the constructs of image and concept of God were not a focal point of the

authors' interpretive discussion in the study.

Peterson (1999) explored birth order and GI with a group of 149 adult, graduate

students. Since the study required participants to report Gl-related responses based on the

childhood experience of their birth order, it is only an indirect and retrospective

representation of childhood GI. This study is included as it rules out a situational context

(birth order) that is closely related to and could be confused with the relational contexts

that are found to be of significance in other studies. The participants were administered

the GIS, the Gorsuch Adjective Checklist (Gorsuch, 1968), and the Loving and

Controlling God Scale (Benson & Spilka, 1973). The results indicated no statistically

30

significant differences between varying birth order and GI results as derived from a

synthesis of instrument results. Relationships with parents, parenting, discipline, etc.,

were not an aim of this study.

Shakel (2001) investigated the effects of parental death during childhood on the

adult experience of God. As with Peterson (1999), this study indirectly suggests results

related to measurement of child GI because of the reflection upon the experience of death

of a parent during childhood. Shakel inquired into the relationship between parental death

during childhood on the adult's experience of God. Similarities exist with the Peterson

study in the nature of two of the three assessment tools utilized in each study. Participants

included 72 adults ages 23-83 who were assessed via author interview, the Benson/Spilka

Loving Scale, and the Benevolence Scale of the Gorsuch Adjective Checklist. The results

of this study suggested that GI in adulthood was less understood through individuals

viewing God as loving but rather through the adult's relationship (or past relationship,

during childhood) with the deceased parent. Unlike Peterson's birth order study with

nonsignificant findings, the emphasis in Shakel's study on parent-relational factors

yielded a significant result. An additional finding for Shakel was that grief resolution was

related to individuals' holding emotional reflections on the positive aspects of God.

Although this study was conducted with adult participants, the findings are consistent

with other studies, emphasizing the influence of the parental-relational aspects on GI.

Muller (2005) explored the image of God and self in 100 abused and nonabused

African-American and Caucasian females, ages 11-18, from a variety of religious

backgrounds. The participants were administered the five factor domains of the Adjective

Checklist (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983; John, 1990) and a projective figure drawing of God

31

technique, utilizing the Koppitz (1966) system. The notable differences in this study were

found between the race of the participants but not in the abuse status. Further, African-

American girls were found to present with more emotional indicators of their GI. Muller

cautioned that race alone is likely insufficient as an indication of GI differences but that

the cultural norms that are reflected in one's racial context may lead to further

conclusions. This finding is also an indication of the strength of relational qualities upon

the formation of a child's GI, as parenting carries distinctive aspects of cultural context.

Chartier and Goehner (1976) compared responses among measures of parent-

adolescent communication, self-esteem, and GI in a sample of 84,10th- and llth-grade

adolescents. The measures used were M. J. Bienvenu's Parent-Adolescent

Communication Inventory, the Coopersmith (1967) Self-Esteem Inventory, and a five-

item differential extracted from Benson and Spilka's (1973) 13-item semantic differential

developed for measuring loving and controlling GI. They reported significant findings

between parental communication and self-esteem, between self-esteem and GI, and

between practical communication and GI. These findings of relationally-based

connections between parental influence and GI preceded the findings of other studies

discussed here and further iterated Benson and Spilka's findings between the

connectedness of self-esteem and GI.

Findings in these studies are mixed and, for some, inconclusive and incomparable

to one another due to the variability among measures used, indices of measures,

population variability, and situational factors involving the context of the child

participants. Despite the inconsistencies among age, gender, culture, race, and

generational period of participants, as well as in the limited number of studies directly

32

targeting assessment of GI in children, similarities were found in the impact of parents,

parenting, and parents' GI on child GI. Table 1 highlights the variability in these studies:

33

Table 1

Current Studies on Objective Measurement and GI in Children

Author Age No. GI measure* Constructs Findings** Kauffold-Entner

Children & adolescents

218 GIQ, GIS Separation & Divorce God Concept

NSS

Muller Adolescent (females)

100 5F-AC, FDOG GI Self-Image Abuse Status

SS-Race NSS— Abuse

Shakel Adults (23-83 years)

72 Interview, BSLS, GAC-B

Parent Death Experience of God (Adult)

SS

Dickie Children (4-11 years)

N= 49 N = 9 A

Interview BSRI

GI Parent Image SS

Hertel & Donahue

5th-9th grade adults (Parents)

8,000 10,000

SIS Parent GI Parenting Child GI

SS

Peterson

Chartier & Goehner

Adults (grad students) Adolescents (10th-llth

grade)

149

84

GIS, GAC, LCGS PACI, SEI, LCGS (5 items)

Birth Order GI

GI Communication Self-Esteem

NSS

SS

*GIQ = God Image Questionnaire (Gaultiere, 1989) GIS = God Image Scales (Lawrence, 1997) GAC = Gorsuch Adjective Checklist (Gorsuch, 1968) GAC-B = Benevolence Scale of the GAC (Gorsuch, 1968) LCGS = Loving and Controlling God Scale (Benson & Spilka, 1973) FDOG = Figure Drawing of God (Koppitz System, 1966) 5F-AC = Five factor domains of the Adjective Checklist (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983; John,

1990) BSLS = Benson/Spilka Loving Scale (Benson & Spilka, 1973) BSRI = Bern Sex Role Inventory (1974) SIS = Search Institute scales (Benson, Williams, & Johnson, 1987) PACI = Bienevue's (1968) Parent-Adolescent Communication Inventory SEI = Coopersmith's (1967) Self-Esteem Inventory ** SS = Statistically significant finding; NSS = Nonstatistically significant finding.

34

Direction From Objective Measurement Studies

These few items of literature on measurement of GI in children represent a

foundational aspect for scale development in the creation of the child GI measure for this

study. While the combined findings in these works do not yield a full consensus or a

representation of a unified set of anticipated norms with regard to measurement of GI in

children, the interpretation of the findings as informed by the theory behind GI at large

suggests the inclusion of relational and parental influences on any future work in

measurement of GI. Additional research may do well to bring greater focus to relational

and parental factors and the child GI, with subsequent inquiries of population and

situational factors. Perhaps situational contexts should be approached with caution as

they are included in the study of child GI, making interpretations primarily through the

relational lenses of such constructs.

Differences between parental-relational experiences may result in a great deal of

the differences of GI in children, based on theoretical and literary findings. However,

other contexts do apply and substantiate differences among child populations. Overall, a

child's spiritual and religious development (as well as the GI) are not free of the

influence of the interaction of multiple domains of functioning and context. Cognitive,

cultural, and social patterns of life and development all contribute to the formative

process of individuals and of their constructed views of self, others, and situations. It is

suggested that differences between racial and ethnic contexts exist even within similar

religious and spiritually formative patterns but that the development and influence upon

those differences is relatively unexplained (Roehlkepartain et al., 2006, p. 283). These

authors also encouraged thinking about differences and influence upon religion and

35

spirituality in terms of the literal aspects of a sociocultural context by answering basic

questions about what is the age of a child from a particular perspective, what/when is the

beginning of life, and how/when do children enter as members of their religious/spiritual

community (p. 287)? Formation of identity within one's specified context and the prior

established connections between ideas of self and GI (e.g., Benson & Spilka, 1973;

Chartier & Goehner, 1976) may also represent a domain of significant relevance. Even

bearing the literary weight of parental influence as a primary indicator of the form and

quality of the GI, a more thorough, socioculturally informed perspective may allow for

more descriptive interpretations of differences of parental influences on GI among

diverse groups of children (Muller, 1995).

Additional Considerations for Instrument Development

Integration and Diversity

The integration of a Christian worldview is clearly implied and even explicit in

this study. However, the development of the measure was with the intent for use with

populations of religious diversity. The value of understanding the connections between

development and spiritual issues is not new territory for psychology or related fields.

However, as Roehlkepartain et al. (2006) noted, practical application and implementation

are lacking. Further understanding and clarification of well-defined constructs in spiritual

functioning may prove to be essential features of spiritual inquiry's entrance into

mainstream health and psychology practices. Hathaway's (2003) identification of

clinically significant religious impairment is an example of how literary and scientific

development can support the inclusion of DSM-IVs (APA, 1994) V-code for addressing

36

a "spiritual or religious problem" and equip practitioners to become more cognizant of

domains of functioning that were previously unattended to in professional practice.

Considerations for issues of cultural diversity are paramount in spiritual

development as well as spiritual assessment. Because God representations are primarily

influenced by parents, cultural and ethnic differences were anticipated to play a

significant role in the development of God representations. Differences in family

structure (e.g., matriarchal vs. patriarchal), accepted practices of discipline, and

relationships within the family are just a few domains of difference that were expected to

emerge to complicate validity and warrant evaluation beyond the scope of the current

study. Cultural differences stemming from geographic location, religious affiliation,

socioeconomic status, and education were also expected to surface as speed bumps in the

generalizing and analysis of assessment results.

Ethical Concerns

Sexson's (2004) discussion of ethical issues in the interface of medical and

psychology practices with religious and spiritual considerations provides a template for

professional development in the area of incorporating spiritual inquiry into clinical work

with a child population. This includes considerations for thinking broadly about diversity

in terms of spirituality, religious affiliation, cultural norms and distinctions of faith and

practice, attitudes toward treatment/assessment, etc. (see Eck, 2002, and Tan, 2003, for

more comprehensive descriptions and direction regarding ethical issues with addressing

religious and spiritual concerns overall). Clinical awareness of these issues as they

surface in the clinical presentation of a child and his or her family warrants a sought-out

understanding of how to dialogue with and provide intervention for child patients and

37

their caretakers regarding the relationship between their spiritual functioning and clinical

presentation.

Another essential feature of ethical consideration is to allow the child the

experience of patient/client privilege and understanding of what they are responding to,

as would be the mandate of informed/testing consent for any other patient or participant.

Consistent with any type of child assessment, a limited number of items and individual

abilities are relevant in terms of performance and response on an instrument. A child's

ability to read, comprehend, respond, etc., in a developmentally appropriate and

consistent manner are requisite to obtaining meaningful and accurate responses from

children, as well as to inform the creation of test items.

A strength in terms of the cautions brought on by use of child self-report measures

is the suggestion of Paloutzian and Park (2005) that with regard to response to inquiry

based on religious or spiritual experience, "persons refuse to report experiences that do

not have and do not simply affirm having experiences that they are knowledgeable about"

(p. 69). In light of the experiential aspects of GI, the Principal Investigator (PI) hopes to

find, in conjunction with Paloutzian and Park and Tamminen (1994), a set of open and

straightforward responses to test items showing accurate, conclusive evidence of the

nature of GI in children.

38

CHAPTER HI

METHODOLOGY

The approach to this project was tri-fold: development of the measure, pilot

testing of the measure, and report and synthesis of testing results.

Development of Scale Concepts

Establishment of a premise for content and scale inclusion for the child GI

measure began with understanding the convergent, conditional, and content validity of

existing objective measures of GI. Review of available objective measures of GI and

related constructs provided direction for the structure of a new, child GI measure. For

example, the preliminary validity information for the AGI allows for deliberate selection

of content/items that have been most useful in assessing for attachment style. Likewise,

the availability of validity information for the GIS reveal the most relevant content for the

constructs represented in the scales. Although, some research has suggested evidence of a

unitary construct in the GIS (Rackley, 2007).

The questions for the measure of GI in children were formulated to address valid

indices of the existing objective measures, as developmentally presented in children. In

addition, measure items were considered as they account for the major literary and

theoretical influences on the study of the early development of God representations. The

process of instrument development required careful attention to the differences between

constructs related to GI. From a developmental theory perspective, the aim of creating an

39

instrument tailored to these processes was to be able to assess for GI in early,

developmental states and shed light on how GI is reflected upon and demonstrated in the

younger phases of life.

A special emphasis of consistencies between item responses and parental

influence prevailed as indicated by current literature. The direction of theory and

literature resulted in indices reflecting parenting, feelings toward God, and connection to

God. A scale reflecting the nature of subjective parental-relationship experiences was

based upon a well-defined conceptualization of parenting. Baumrind's (1971a) parenting

styles theory and literature are well-known and commonly endorsed parenting

classifications that were used to inform production of potential responses to measure

items. An index of parental influence may be best understood as a scale reflecting the

contribution of parental style's influence upon the development of a child's GI, which

included items from multiple elements such as relational quality and disciplinary style,

etc.

While parenting style as a construct broadly encompasses dozens or more facets

of human behavior within the context of a parent-child relationship, key features of

relationships such as attachment, discipline style, and communication were highlighted in

the content of the items and response choices in the measure as articulated in responses

directly about God. Tailoring questions that evoke responses about how children feel

about God with choices reflecting parenting styles allows for a dual yield of clinical

information that may be relevant for exploration in a therapeutic context. While children

may respond to a question that reveals their experience of God, responses may also reveal

a parallel between their experience of God and their experience of parents. For example,

40

communication lies among the domains common to features of clinical attention in

parent-child relationships and parental influence upon the GI. Chartier and Goehner

(1976) explored self-esteem, communication with parents, and GI, concluding that there

are distinct connections between the quality of communication between parents and

children and GI.

Prior to the findings of Chartier and Goehner (1976) on self-esteem, the

connection between self-esteem and GI was established by Benson and Spilka (1973).

The development of Benson and Spilka's Loving and Controlling God Scales revealed a

positive relationship between self-esteem and loving/accepting images of God. A

negative relationship between self-esteem and rejecting images of God was also

implicated. Items reflecting self-esteem and self-appraisal were developed in recognition

of the relationship between views of self and GI.

Scale Design

The developed measure included four scales reflecting views of God that

represent (a) quality of attachment to God: secure, avoidant, anxious; (b) attributes/views

of God; (c) views of self; and (d) a parallel to aspects of the four major parenting

categories as discussed in the review of literature. These indices are based on the

conceptual domains that were most emergent in the literature review. Item responses and

scales account for but do not fully extrapolate the known and unknown contributions to

GI of children's views of God, parenting, attachment, and self-image as these ideas

contribute to the quality and formation of GI. The selection of items took the following

steps:

41

1. Survey Construction: The initial step in scale development was to establish sets of

items in each of the four categories. Ten to 12 (or more) items comprise the

content of each scale as presented in the pilot administration. This strategy served

to establish scales formatted in developmentally appropriate language for children

and as informed by the Presence subscale of the GIS (Lawrence, 1997), the

avoidance and anxiety subscales of the AGI (Beck & McDonald, 2004), and other

descriptive indicators of experiences with God as deemed reliable in the available

literature on assessment of GI.

2. Expert Review: The categorized item pool was submitted to committee members

directing the current study and a limited number of volunteer reviewers selected

for their

expertise in areas related to the measure, either in assessment of children or

measurement of GI. This process generated comments and dialogue to enhance

the practical utility of the measure. Based on this informal review, items were

combined, removed, or adjusted for scoring, resulting in a more coherent set of

scales.

3. Survey Procedure: The final stage or pilot testing involved multiple

administrations of the measure items and testing of the content validity.

Survey Construction

The strategy for the formation of the instrument was based on the theoretical basis

of four prominent factors associated with GI, including (a) attachment (anxious, avoidant,

secure), (b) God (adjective/descriptions), (c) self-image, and (d) parental style/parenting

parallel.

42

Scale 1 items were derived from the AGI (Beck & McDonald, 2004), utilizing

content from items with a statistical strength (Eigen values) greater than 0.6 indicating

avoidant or anxious attachments. The language was adapted to produce items for use with

the comprehension levels of children 8-12 years. For example, see the following:

Avoidance:

My experiences with God are very intimate and emotional (AGI item).

God & I are close to one another (Child Survey item).

Anxious:

I often worry about whether God is pleased with me (AGI item).

I wonder if God is happy with me (Child Survey item).

Scale 2 items were produced with the same approach as Scale 1, using content of

items from the Adjective Ratings of God Scale (Gorsuch, 1968) and the Presence Scale

from the GIS (Lawrence, 1997) to provide descriptions of God based on developmentally

appropriate language and descriptions of relational experiences.

Adjective Child Survey Item

Faithful God is always there for me.

Distant God is far away from me.

Scale 3 items were produced to reflect domains of self-image such as cognitive

ability, physical appearance, and performance (performance considered consistent with

Erikson's psychosocial stage of industry vs. inferiority) that were identified in literature

for the production of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the Tennesee Self-Concept

Scales (Fitts & Warrant, 1996).

43

Domain Child Survey Item

Cognitive My ideas are important to God.

Physical I look as good as other kids.

Performance God is not pleased with my school work ® (® = reverse-scored

item).

Scale 4 items were created to evoke endorsement potential experiences of God

that parallel the parental experiences as categorized by Baumrind

(authoritarian/controlling, authoritative/loving, neglectful, permissive). These items also

strongly reflect the concepts of loving and controlling God (Benson & Spilka, 1973).

When I am having fun, God:

Doesn't know what I am doing that is so fun (neglectful).

Is glad that I am having fun when I obey the rules (loving/authoritative).

Keeps track of what I am doing every second (authoritarian/controlling).

Lets me keep having fun (permissive).

The survey in its entirety included a demographic information form (see

Appendix A), parental informed consent for parent completion (see Appendix B), a

preface exercise with child assent (see Appendix C), and 44 objective survey items (see

Appendix D). The preface for child completion included a statement of disclosure

regarding the nature of the survey with child assent, a context-informed

description/concept of God statement, and The God Question. The God Question was the

initial item to which children responded to the question, "Do you believe in God?" If a

child responded "no" to The God Question on the preface, their participation was

complete with that response. If children responded "yes" to The God Question, they

44

proceeded to complete the objective items. The objective portion of the survey was

comprised of 44 items with 5-point Likert-scale responses for evaluation utilizing

principle components analysis. This study included intent of providing suggestions for

item reduction for replication of the study.

Expert Review

The preface and items were reviewed by a small selection of expert reviewers.

This group included the Pi's two committee members—Lynn Olson, PhD, ABPP, and

Glen Moriarty, PsyD—two additional licensed psychologists (not professionally

connected with the current study) with specialized expertise in treatment of children, a

minister of religious education, and a licensed elementary educator. Subtle changes in

phrasing of items were made to refine the instructions to children, presentation, and

readability in terms of comprehension for child participants.

Informed Consent

The informed consent was developed in accordance with HEPAA regulations and

APA standards for parental consent for child participation in a research study. Child

assent was included on the preface completed by the child participants prior to their

selection of items on the objective portion of the survey. Revisions to consent forms and

approval for proceeding with identification and surveying of participants were approved

by the Human Subjects Review Committee of Regent University, School of Psychology

and Counseling. Privacy of child participants was ensured with use of children's initials

and date of birth. No full names or further identifying information (i.e., gender, school

grade, etc.) of child participants were requested on any consent/assent documentation for

this study.

45

General Demographics and Preface to Survey

The sources and organizations providing collaborative efforts and access to child

participants with parental consent were two Unitarian/Universalist churches, one

Evangelical (mega) church, and a small varied sample of individually identified subjects

who participated based on affiliation with the PI. Two of the participating churches were

located in a midsize metro area of the middle great plains of the United States (Unitarian

Universalist and Evangelical). The third church was a Unitarian Universalist church in a

larger metro area of the midsouth of the United States. The individually identified

subjects were from various regions of the United States.

In addition to identifying information of the child participants' initials and date of

birth, the Information Form requested parental selection of a category describing the

religious perspective influencing their child. The options included Agnostic, Atheist,

Catholic, Jewish, Orthodox, Pagan, Protestant, Unitarian Universalist, and Other. The

majority of subjects' parents endorsing "Other" specified their religious perspective as

"Nondenominational." The rate of differences in responses between religious

perspectives is not evaluated in the current study. The information form completed by

parents included a question regarding any reading or cognitive difficulties that would

interfere with survey completion and/or require the assistance of available volunteers for

comprehension of item content.

46

Specific Demographics

Table 2

Sources of Completed Surveys

Source # Source type Geographic area # of Surveys (n) 1 Unitarian Universalist Great plains 24

3 Unitarian Universalist Midsouth 9

4 Evangelical Great plains 35

2 Other Various states 11

Note. Source # indicative only of coding in SPSS data set.

Participant Selection and Survey Administration Process

Churches, private schools, religious organizations, and personal or professional

contacts were approached for identification of child subjects for participation. Contact by

phone, email, posted mail, and personal/professional collaboration were utilized to

identify and obtain subjects for this study. The rate of affirmative decisions to collaborate

by church, school, and religious organization-affiliated professionals was remarkably low

in comparison to the number of persons, schools, churches, and organizations approached

for participation through a variety of methods. Achieving collaboration with

organizations with potential subjects resulted in a largely dual category, split sample of

primarily Universalist and Evangelical perspectives being represented in the population

of the N for this study, with a few exceptions. (See Discussion chapter for additional

information regarding complications of access to participants.)

In each setting, volunteers from the religious organization were present to assist

with administrative tasks and clarification of content of items as needed for any child.

Individually identified subjects were assisted by parents administering the survey. Parents

47

and volunteers were provided with explicit instructions from the PI to abstain from

assisting with the child subjects' response selections. Advanced communication with

program directors and children's ministers resulted in many parents having been

informed in the weeks prior that the survey would be administered on a scheduled date

during children's services. The PI was available to assist parents with questions or

concerns as they were invited to review the survey questions, complete the informed

consent and related information sheet, and provide permission and/or refusal for their

child to participate. These interactions between parents and the PI occurred as parents

signed their children into the children's services for the morning.

During the course of the children's classes/services, the children's ministries

directors introduced the PI and the survey activity to the children as a group. The survey

was introduced by the PI with appreciation for participation and/or patience with the

process for those children who opted to not participate. The survey process and disclosure

associated with assent were explained. The preface to the survey with The God Question

was read aloud by the PI in each of the three group survey settings (two Unitarian

churches and one Evangelical church). In addition, the objective items and response

choices were read aloud to assist with subjects in earlier phases of cognitive development

and reading comprehension levels. Questions and concerns from subjects were answered

as needed. The qualitative items on the survey made provision for indication and

disclosure of subjects' potential need to speak with parents or teachers/volunteers in their

religious settings if their participation resulted in some form of discomfort or if

participating resulted in children having questions about their beliefs and experiences of

God. For example, one subjects of 8 years requested to speak with someone directly

48

about how the content of a few items resulted in the recall of difficulties associated with a

paternal attachment figure. The child was assured of the validity of the disclosed

concerns by the PI, and the director of children's ministries addressed the child's

concerns and relayed information to the child's guardian. There were no other incidences

of follow-up questions or concerns raised by subjects, parents/guardians, teachers, or

volunteers in any setting.

Table 3

Participants: Number by Age (n = 79)

Age (years) # Developmental disability*

6 1 0

7 10 1

8 10 2

9 13 0

10 13 1

11 11 0

12 13 2

13+ 2 0

Unknown 6 0

*Needed help with reading and/or comprehension of items.

49

Table 4

Participants: Number by Religious Perspective (n = 79)

Religious perspective # Protestant 29

Orthodox 0

Catholic 1

Agnostic 0

Jewish 0

Unitarian 23

Atheist 0

Pagan 0

Other 26

50

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

Based on the review of literature and considerations upon the influence of GI

development, the measure included 44 objective items on four indices reflecting

attachment, views of God (adjectives), views of self, and parallels to parenting style. See

Appendix E for item-scale-content descriptions of items.

Descriptions of Participant Data

The goal of an N of 150 was not reached due to logistical factors involving

changes in the Pi's access to subjects during the course of the study. A total of 132 (N =

132) subjects were identified for the survey from four sources, representing a variety of

differences in religious contexts. Identified subjects were provided with the opportunity

to refuse the survey process either by parental election—in which case, consent was not

provided—or through child/subject-driven election not to participate. The number of

completed surveys was 79 of 132, yielding an acceptance rate of 59.8%. Child subjects

were also provided with the option to participate and decline to complete scale items

based on endorsement of a "no" response to the initial question entitled, The God

Question. This question simply stated, "Do you believe in God?" Children responding

"no" to The God Question totaled 6 of 132, representing 4.6%. This rate of endorsement

is consistent with research by Paloutzian and Park (2005), noting around a 95%

prevalence of belief in God in the general population. The survey participation rate of

51

59.8% resulted in 79 surveys to be included in the principle components analysis (n =

79).

Table 5

Participation Rates

Response to survey

Participants (n = 132)

Percentage of N Response description

"No" 6 4.6 No belief/Answered "No" to "The God Question"

Refusal 47 35.6 Refused to participate (no consent/assent)

Completed 79 59.8 Consent/Assent/Completed Survey (includes omissions)

Statistical Results

Based on the review of literature and considerations upon the influence of GI

development, the measure originally included 44 objective items. However, only the first

34 items of the administered God Survey were included in the principal component

analysis (PCA), which was conducted to determine what underlying structure exists

within these items. The last 10 items of the survey (Items 35-44) were eliminated from

the analysis due to the high percentage of answer omissions on these items and due to the

complex structure of these items. Children in the younger age range frequently evidenced

difficulty responding to the comparative complexity of the last 10 survey items, which

comprise the scale representing children's experience of God as it parallels with

Baumrind's (1971a) four parenting styles. Many children provided ratings for only one

item on each question, perhaps representing the style they most encounter in their

experience of God. Omissions were more frequent on the parenting parallel items than

any other categorized items, which did not require comparative ratings in the responses.

52

Items 1, 3,4,5, 21,28,30, and 33 were written as reverse-scored items for variability of

response patterns. Likert values were transformed in SPSS for each reverse-scored item.

Data Screening and Transformations

Prior to analysis, data were screened for data entry errors, missing values, outliers,

normality, and linearity. The number of items originally contributing to the analysis of

each variable is varied due to omissions from participants' surveys. A total of 14 (0.5%)

data points were missing data out of 2686 data points in the data set, and for each variable

missing values were replaced with the variable mean. See Table 6 for descriptive

statistics and missing values.

53

Table 6

Descriptive Statistics and Missing Values

Missing Item M SD N %

God & I are close to one another 2.52 1.37 0 .0 I trust myself more than I trust God 2.05 1.41 0 .0 When I pray, I tell God my feelings 2.64 1.59 1 1.3 God takes care of most things in my life 2.20 1.48 0 .0 I can't do anything without God 2.91 1.71 0 .0 I don't need to be close to God 1.92 1.45 0 .0 I worry if I am ok with God 1.99 1.39 1 1.3 I wonder if God is happy with me 2.77 1.52 0 .0 It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others 1.92 1.42 0 .0 I am afraid that God does not love me when I am in trouble 1.73 1.27 0 .0 I get mad at God for not answering me 1.41 .93 0 .0 I am worried about if God loves me 2.01 1.56 1 1.3 God is like a parent to me 3.82 1.57 0 .0 God is fair to me 4.31 1.10 1 1.3 God is always there for me 4.19 1.25 0 .0 God will listen to me at any time 4.25 1.20 0 .0 God shows me the way I should be 3.89 1.46 0 .0 God helps me with the things I care about 4.05 1.34 0 .0 God is in control of everything 3.90 1.44 1 1.3 God helps me feel better when I am upset 3.81 1.47 0 .0 God is far away from me 4.08 1.50 0 .0 God protects me from bad things 4.30 2.51 1 .0 God thinks that I am good enough 3.82 1.46 2 2.5 My ideas are important to God 4.15 1.23 0 .0 God thinks that I look as good as other kids 3.68 1.61 1 1.3 God is proud of me 4.18 1.22 0 .0 God is happy with me 4.06 1.20 0 .0 God thinks I am a failure 4.69 1.00 1 1.3 God wants me to be myself 4.53 1.18 0 .0 God is not pleased with me 4.46 1.19 0 .0 God thinks what I want is important 3.48 1.44 2 2.5 God believes I am a good son/daughter 4.38 1.03 0 .0 God is not pleased with my school work 4.05 1.48 1 1.3 God approves of my decisions 3.60 1.13 1 1.3

Next, data were examined for multivariate outliers using Mahalanobis distance.

This examination revealed that there were no multivariate outliers in this data set, since

A no cases exceeded % (34) = 65.247 at p = .001. A subsequent examination of normality

54

of all variables revealed that 21 variables had skewness values outside of the acceptable

range of -1 to +1; therefore, transformations were necessary. Various transformations

(square root, logarithm, inverse, reflect and square root, and reflect and logarithm) were

performed, and they yielded distributions of variables that were closer to normal.

Further, assumption of linearity was tested through examinations of scatter plot

matrix and bivariate correlations. Both of these methods indicated that variables had

linear relationships. Most correlations were within the acceptable range of .3-.8, and

scatter plot matrix did not indicate any multicollinearity problems. Therefore, further

analysis was considered acceptable.

Principal Component Analysis

Next, PCA was conducted. Within PCA, sampling adequacy was examined.

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .74, well above the required

value of .50, and Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (%2 (561) = 1419, p < .001),

which indicated that sampling adequacy was acceptable.

Initial eight-component solution. Initially, PCA produced an eight-component

solution, which was evaluated using the following five criteria: eigenvalue-one criterion,

proportion of variance accounted for, scree plot, residuals between observed and

reproduced correlations, and interpretability criterion. According to the eigenvalue-one

criterion, components with eigenvalues greater than one should be retained (Mertler &

Vannatta, 2010). In this solution, eight components with eigenvalues greater than one

needed to be retained. However, reliability of this criterion was considered to be

questionable in this case, because the number of examined variables was over 30, and

because communalities for 19 variables out of 34 variables (55.88%) were below 0.7.

55

Next, proportion of the explained variance was evaluated. This criterion also suggested

that eight components that accounted for 71.70% of total variance needed to be retained

in the model. See Table 7 for more details on the eigenvalues and explained variance

within the initial solution.

56

Table 7

Eigenvalues and Explained Variance for the Initial Solution (Eight Components)

Component Eigenvalue % of variance % cumulative

1 10.721* 31.53 31.53 2 3.182* 9.36 40.89 3 2.109* 6.20 47.09 4 1.921* 5.65 52.74 5 1.773* 5.21 57.96 6 1.362* 4.00 61.96 7 1.268* 3.73 65.69 8 1.078* 3.17 68.86 9 .965 2.84 71.70 10 .941 2.77 74.47 11 .811 2.39 76.85 12 .763 2.24 79.10 13 .744 2.19 81.29 14 .686 2.02 83.30 15 .624 1.84 85.14 16 .568 1.67 86.81 17 .511 1.50 88.31 18 .500 1.47 89.78 19 .443 1.30 91.09 20 .421 1.24 92.32 21 .322 0.95 93.27 22 .304 0.89 94.17 23 .269 0.79 94.96 24 .258 0.76 95.72 25 .255 0.75 96.47 26 .230 0.68 97.14 27 .206 0.61 97.75 28 .183 0.54 98.29 29 .176 0.52 98.80 30 .119 0.35 99.15 31 .107 0.32 99.47 32 .082 0.24 99.71 33 .060 0.18 99.88 34 .039 0.12 100.00 •Components with eigenvalues >1 should be retained according to this solution.

Additionally, the scree plot of the eigenvalues associated with each component

was examined. Even though Figure 1 indicates that the scree plot leveled off after the

eighth component, it appeared that the sharp drop of the eigenvalues stopped after the

57

third component, thus suggesting that perhaps three components with eigenvalues greater

than two need to be retained instead of eight components with eigenvalues greater than

one.

Scree Plot

12-

10-

6" a

* o 0 0 O Q o o (jm

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1213 141S16 1718 19 2021 22 23 24 25 2627 28 29 30 31 3233 34

Component Number

Figure 1. Scree plot (eight-component solution).

Further, examination of the residuals table indicated that there were 173 (30.0%)

non-redundant residuals with absolute values greater than .05. This large number of

residuals suggested that further iterations could improve the model. Finally, the fifth

criterion of interpretability was evaluated. According to this criterion, substantive

meaning of the retained components needs to be investigated, and their interpretation has

to be conducted in terms of what is already known about the constructs under

58

investigation (Jolliffe, 2002). Theory and previous research related to the concept of GI

in children has strongly suggested the presence of three distinct components within the

first 34 items of the God Survey. Furthermore, the interpretability criterion indicates that

each retained component has to have at least three items with significant loadings on that

component and that the variables that load on a given component should share similar

conceptual meaning (Jolliffe, 2002). However, the initial eight-component solution did

not meet this criterion, only three components had three or more items with heavy

loadings and with simple structure (see Table 8). Therefore, due to the fact that four out

of five criteria were either questionable or suggested that model can be improved, it was

decided that a three-component solution should be investigated.

59

Table 8

Component Loadings for the Initial Eight-Component Solution

Item Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 God is in control of everything 0.81 0.17 0.03 0.05 -0.06 0.00 1 o

00

0.04 God protects me from bad things -0.79 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.14 -0.03 0.14 -0.18 God is fair to me 0.78 -0.06 0.11 0.02 -0.21 0.14 0.03 0.03 God is always there for me -0.77 -0.11 -0.03 -0.08 0.02 -0.19 0.15 -0.02 God takes care of most things in my life -0.76 0.13 -0.13 0.09 -0.18 -0.09 0.08 -0.11 God is like a parent to me 0.75 0.18 0.02 0.06 -0.06 0.19 -0.38 -0.06 God shows me the way I should be 0.74 -0.05 -0.04 0.22 0.15 0.11 -0.15 -0.06 God will listen to me at any time 0.71 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 0.14 0.07 -0.13 0.02 God is proud of me -0.69 0.13 0.18 -0.12 -0.15 -0.33 0.05 0.25 God helps me with the things I care about -0.68 -0.03 -0.35 -0.30 0.05 -0.17 0.05 -0.06 God helps me feel better when I'm upset 0.68 -0.10 -0.05 0.08 -0.13 0.38 -0.20 -0.25 My ideas are important to God -0.67 0.10 0.11 0.08 -0.46 0.16 0.13 0.03 God is far away from me 0.66 0.09 -0.33 0.24 0.04 -0.24 -0.06 -0.11 God is happy with me -0.64 0.00 0.24 -0.28 -0.21 -0.33 -0.09 0.31 God & I are close to one another -0.60 -0.12 0.29 -0.21 -0.14 0.02 -0.16 -0.01 God believes I am a good son/ daughter 0.50 -0.15 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.47 0.15 -0.24 God thinks that I am good enough 0.48 0.02 -0.04 0.15 0.40 0.44 -0.07 -0.25 I wonder if God is happy with me 0.14 0.81 0.03 0.06 -0.15 0.12 0.13 -0.04 I worry if I am ok with God 0.00 0.81 0.09 -0.16 0.05 -0.21 -0.17 -0.02 It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others -0.19 0.10 0.69 -0.07 0.32 -0.16 0.17 0.12 God is not pleased with my school work 0.30 0.03 0.66 -0.12 -0.16 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 I am worried about if God loves me -0.05 0.52 0.61 -0.16 -0.03 0.03 -0.01 -0.22 God thinks I am a failure 0.08 0.02 -0.07 0.85 0.15 0.08 -0.09 0.00

60

Item Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 God is not pleased with me 0.24 -0.33 -0.17 0.58 -0.03 -0.06 -0.02 -0.18 God thinks that I look as good as other kids 0.06 -0.24 0.08 0.22 0.68 0.22 -0.07 -0.04 God thinks what I want is important 0.43 0.13 -0.17 0.00 0.57 -0.01 0.19 0.20 I get mad at God for not answering me 0.12 l ©

I—

* 00

-0.14 0.52 -0.52 0.05 0.14 0.18 God approves of my decisions 0.25 -0.02 -0.11 -0.02 0.05 0.76 0.08 0.19 I can't do anything without God -0.30 0.00 -0.07 0.01 -0.05 0.26 0.81 0.08 I don't need to be close to God -0.45 0.08 0.29 -0.07 0.15 -0.17 0.53 -0.14 God wants me to be myself 0.20 0.25 -0.26 0.37 0.22 0.10 -0.49 0.09 I trust myself more than I trust God -0.32 0.07 0.00 0.25 -0.09 -0.11 0.34 -0.63 When I pray, I tell God my feelings -0.49 0.04 0.27 0.09 0.06 -0.12 0.23 0.57 I am afraid that God does not love me 0.00 -0.42 -0.22 0.17 -0.25 0.17 0.12 0.56

61

Rotated three-component solution. Another PCA was conducted to retain

components with eigenvalues greater than two and to apply the varimax rotation. This

resulted in a three-component solution with the three components explaining over 47% of

the variance. After rotation, the first component accounted for 31.53% of variance, the

second component accounted for 9.36%, and the third component accounted for 6.20% of

variance (see Table 9 and Figure 2 for the details on the three-component solution).

62

Table 9

Eigenvalues and Explained Variance for the Rotated Solution (Three Components)

Component Eigenvalue % of variance % cumulative

1 10.721* 31.53 31.53 2 3.182* 9.36 40.89 3 2.109* 6.20 47.09 4 1.921 5.65 52.74 5 1.773 5.21 57.96 6 1.362 4.00 61.96 7 1.268 3.73 65.69 8 1.078 3.17 68.86 9 .965 2.84 71.70 10 .941 2.77 74.47 11 .811 2.39 76.85 12 .763 2.24 79.10 13 .744 2.19 81.29 14 .686 2.02 83.30 15 .624 1.84 85.14 16 .568 1.67 86.81 17 .511 1.50 88.31 18 .500 1.47 89.78 19 .443 1.30 91.09 20 .421 1.24 92.32 21 .322 0.95 93.27 22 .304 0.89 94.17 23 .269 0.79 94.96 24 .258 0.76 95.72 25 .255 0.75 96.47 26 .230 0.68 97.14 27 .206 0.61 97.75 28 .183 0.54 98.29 29 .176 0.52 98.80 30 .119 0.35 99.15 31 .107 0.32 99.47 32 .082 0.24 99.71 33 .060 0.18 99.88 34 .039 0.12 100.00 *Components with eigenvalues > 2 should be retained according to this solution.

63

Scree Plot

*3+.

10- y-r

m 3 m > c

4"

0"

1011 1213141S 16 171819 2021 22 23 24 25 2827 28 29 30 31 3233 34 Component Number

Figure 2. Scree plot (three-component solution).

Even though this varimax rotation did not improve the model fit drastically, it

provided the best defined factor structure and it had the best theoretical fit with previous

research. Moreover, interpretability criterion was improved dramatically: new solution

resulted in three components with 6 to 12 items per component. Eight items were

removed from analysis, because they had complex structure. Complex structure of items

means that their primary loading on one component is less than .4 and they do not have a

difference of at least .2 between their primary loading and other loadings (Jolliffe, 2002).

Thus, a total of 26 items with simple structure were retained. Component loadings for this

final solution are presented in Table 10.

64

Table 10

Component Loadings

Component Loading Component 1: Trust

God is like a parent to me -.81 God is in control of everything -.78 God is always there for me .70 I don't need to be close to God .68 God protects me from bad things .68 God is far away from me -.64 God is fair to me -.62 I can't do anything without God .62 God will listen to me at any time -.60 When I pray, I tell God my feelings .51 God wants me to be myself -.44 I trust myself more than I trust God .42

Component 2: Value God believes I am a good son/ daughter .79 God thinks that I am good enough .71 God is happy with me -.69 God thinks that I look as good as other kids .61 God thinks what I want is important .49 God approves of my decisions .45

Component 3: Acceptance I am worried about if God loves me .77 I worry if I am ok with God .65 I am afraid that God does not love me -.60 It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others .58 I get mad at God for not answering me -.54 God is not pleased with me -.51 God is not pleased with my school work .46 I wonder if God is happy with me .44

Component 1: Trust. As can be seen in Table 10, Component 1 has 12 items

with both positive and negative loadings, and it includes items that mainly describe the

adjectives of God and content indicating an avoidant attachment to God. It would be

logical to label this component Trust as the content of the items converge to reflect

varying positions on being able to trust in God. Varying responses to these items may

65

reflect a sense of trust in God or, conversely, a sense of mistrust or a degree of trust in

between these contrasted perceptions. The items in this component reflect common

descriptions of God and content that is indicated to reflect the degree to which one is

avoidant of God or, conversely, securely attached to God.

Component 2: Value. Component 2 has six items with positive and negative

loadings, and these items cover children's perceptions about themselves in relation to

God or their experience of how they believe God perceives them. This component can be

labeled Value. The similarity of content in these items represents beliefs about God's

value of me from the viewpoint or internal experience of the child, (i.e., How much does

God value me? What does God's value about me? How does God value me?). Items in

this component reflect content that children were able to commonly identify with as

being reflective of the interaction between their experience of self and God. This set of

items contains self-focused descriptions that indicate an experience of God's value of the

individual based on the perceptions of the self.

Component 3: Acceptance. Finally, Component 3 has eight items that mainly

deal with a child's worry about whether or not God is pleased with him or her. This

component can be labeled Acceptance, as responses reflect a range experience of God's

acceptance of the self/individual. Items in this component reflect varying degrees of an

attachment to God based on the anxious need to be close to God or a relatively secure

attachment to God that may suggest concern regarding God's acceptance. The child's

concern or perception of whether or not God accepts "me" as I am is the emerging theme

of this component.

66

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The current study is first of its kind, designed to produce a tool to meet the needs

of treatment providers and those seeking help for/with their children in a more

comprehensive approach than the standard of behavioral and functional assessment. If

nothing else is conclusive, this study demonstrates that 100% of those children willing to

respond to questions about their GI have subjective, unique, and individualized responses

to those questions. Not a single active, survey-completing subject backed out with

indications that he or she had no experience of God. Such confirmatory evidence supports

a thorough evaluation of the basis, strengths, and limitations of the current study, as well

as potential recommendations for future initiatives in research involving children and

their images of God.

Theoretical Support and Reflections

Basis of Exploring GI in Development

Early studies on the development of religious and spiritual capacities explored

stage development consistent with the progression of psychological literature overall.

Fowler (1981,1996) suggested stages of faith development. Williams (1971) suggested

the development of a God concept around the age of 6. Nye and Carlson (1984) noted the

parallel between Piaget's model of cognitive development and the linear models

regarding the development of God concepts/images. More contemporary writers (i.e.,

67

Johnson & Boyatzis, 2006) continue to explore the developmental foundations associated

with concepts and images of God. However, some research (Barrett & Keil, 1996; Barrett

& Richert, 2003; Dillon, 2000) has suggested that God concepts emerge earlier in

development than the cognitive mechanisms others have believed are associated with

God concepts. Trust versus mistrust is identified as the first stage in Eric Erikson's theory

of psychosocial stages of development. Themes of trust in God emerge in Component 1

to reflect a connection to a sense of God's presence and reliability that may precede the

ability to articulate relational experiences of trust with cognizance and a well-developed

understanding. In addition, researchers across the timeline of GI research suggest that GI

may develop earlier than cognitive/concept researchers had suggested (e.g., Goldman,

1964; Harms, 1944; Wilber, 1996). Hart (2003,2006) explored categorical models of

development that support potential distinctions between the developmental functions

underlying God concepts and GI. For example, on the hem of Tamminem's (1991, 1994)

work on transitional space and object relations, the preparedness hypothesis suggests that

GI emerges from internally existing mechanisms based on perceptual and relational

experiences, and that the God representations of a child develop in the form of

attachments outside of cognitive stage development (Barrett & Richert, 2003; Richert &

Barrett, 2005). Components 2 and 3 with identification of concerns of God's value of the

self and God's level of acceptance are further indications of a perception of a relational

experience with God, not necessarily based on mature formulations of the meaning of

acceptance and value of the individual.

68

Basis of Exploring GI in Attachment and the Relational Context

Bowlby's (1969,1973,1980,1988) work on attachment theory platforms our

understanding of human attachments and the psychological and emotional mechanisms

associated with affect, cognition, motivation, and overall experiences in relationships,

including one's connection to a divine attachment figure. Gerkin's (1994) description of

the relationship between infant and mother suggests that this primary attachment serves

as a foundation for development of image reflecting deity. Attachment and GI suggests a

number of different types of attachment to God that parallel Bowlby's theory of secure,

anxious, and avoidant attachments. Items for this survey designed to reflect variations of

avoidant or anxious attachments (or relative to each, secure attachment) were present in

Components 1 and 3 but combined with other item content to reflect relational

experiences of trust (Component 1) or acceptance (Component 3). Various tendencies in

GI have been explored in recent research (Granqvist & Kirpatrick, 2008; Kirpatrick,

1992,1997; Noffke & Hall, 2007). Beck and McDonald (2004) explored attachment and

GI through objective assessment with qualitative descriptions of attachments to God

paralleling Bowlby's attachment theory.

Internal working model is the suggested description for the evolving expectations

that are internally developed from our experiences with primary caregivers that help us

determine how others perceive or relate to us, specifically in relationships categorized by

attachment (Badenoch, 2008; Davis, 2010; Siegel, 1999). A sense of trust (i.e.,

Component 1) or acceptance (i.e., Component 3) may relate figuratively to the style of

attachment within relational contexts, even in attachment to God. Specific attachment

69

models related to GI are reviewed by Moriarty and Davis (2011), and include four

models:

1. Internal working model correspondence hypothesis (Kirkpatrick, 1992; Kirpatrick

& Shaver 1990): Relationship with God corresponds to experienced human

attachments.

2. Emotional compensation hypothesis (Kirpatrick, 1992; Kirpatrick & Shaver,

1990): Relationship with God compensates for "an insecure global attachment

style with humans" (p. 8).

3. Socialized correspondence hypothesis (Granqvist, 1998,2002; Granqvist &

Hagekull, 1999): Considerable childhood experience/s of secure religious

caregivers leads to a secure relationship with God.

4. Implicit-relational-knowledge (IRK) correspondence hypothesis (Hall, 2004; Hall,

Halcrow, Hill, & Delaney, 2005): Relationship with God reflects implicit

emotional experiences with others but is distinct from "people's explicit

religious/spiritual functioning" (p. 9).

It is suggested that the latter IRK model supports the plausibility of underlying anxiety

associated with compensatory frameworks in terms of attachment to God in adults (Hall

et al., 2005; Moriarty & Davis, 2011), but this description of the basis/motivation for

attachment to God is not yet supported for children's attachments to God.

Data Support and Reflections

Statistical extraction of content expressing GI based on literary content, without

predescribed significance of factors, leaves a strong portion of the variance of GI

unaccounted for. Components 1, 2, and 3 (from this analysis of survey results) revealed a

70

cumulative variance of 47.09%, or almost half, of the varied factors associated with the

child's GI. Missing factors from this survey, including a strong connection to parenting

(see Missing Factors discussion) may be known and unknown in the history of the pursuit

of understanding of what relates to GI.

Component 1: Trust

Component 1 represented 31.53% of the variance of GI in this survey, suggesting

one's trust in God as a primary factor in the child's personal experience of God.

Kirkpatrick (2005) provided a categorical summary of the strengths of attachment theory,

which served as the original basis of the first scale of the instrument that loaded in

Component 1 (and Component 3). He suggested that the fundamentally psychological,

comprehensive, explanatory, and scientific (pp. 18-19) nature of attachment theory lends

to the utility and validity of attachment as a structural basis for a variety of approaches to

understand the human experience. Consistent with the aforementioned process-oriented

approach to understanding GI, Kirkpatrick suggested, "This functional, process-oriented

approach enables its application to other phenomena such as religion, offering a basis for

addressing questions about both the causes of and individual differences in religious

belief and behavior" (p. 19). Eric Erikson's theory on psychosocial stages of development

suggests that attachment is rooted in the primacy of the early experiences with caregivers,

with the first stage being identified as trust versus mistrust. The experience of God as

trustworthy (or not) emerged in Component 1 from items with content involving

descriptions of God or a quality of attachment related to one's sense of God as

trustworthy. Heller (1986) also supported a parallel between attachment phenomena and

GI. Process-oriented perspectives of early GI in participants in early life experiences

71

preempts the option for this study to support literature on theories of

correspondence/compensation (e.g., Beck & McDonald (2004) and reviews by Moriarty

and Davis (2011). However, the nature of parental influence on GI as implied by the

literature assumes a correspondence view for the developmental state of child subjects.

The statistical data supporting the Presence subscale of the Gorsuch, (1968)

Adjective Ratings of God informed the development of Scale 2, part of which emerged

with themes of trust identified as Component 1. The content of items reflecting adjectives

of God loaded on Component 1, along with items reflecting the attachment varying

between avoidant and secure attachment. Heller (1986) suggested that intimacy and

omnipresence are themes of GI that transcend common familial and cultural influences.

While much of the theoretical and early assessment and research on GI does not examine

individual differences, the basis for utility remains. The subjective experiences and

descriptions of God from children via an assessment tool provide legitimate information

about that child's experience which can be further examined in the individual context

with the clinician examining attachment (particularly avoidance versus secure due to

paired loadings on Component 1) and parenting dynamics of the child's life. Examination

of a child's sense of trust in God may include descriptions of God's presence,

characteristics, and whether or not God is trusted or avoided.

Component 2: Value

Component 2, with items reflecting a sense of God's value of the self, resulted in

9.36% of the variance of GI as indicated in the survey. The basis of GI as the subjective

emotional experience of God indicates a complexity of elements of the self as a factor in

the individual's spiritual experience. Although not specifically delineated in current

72

literature, an essential thematic question underlying problems with attachment reflected

in Scale 1 (Components 1 & 3), for example, is that of the self. Am I good enough? Do I

do well enough? Am I liked/loved? How do I compare to others? Bowlby's (1973)

attributions of internal working models is that they include perceptions of others and the

self. The domains of instruments such as the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale and the

Tennessee Self-Concept Scales (Fitts & Warrant, 1996) provided the content basis for

producing items connecting self-perceptions to GI in Scale 3, which loaded primarily on

Component 2 to reflect a sense of the extent that God values me. Self-esteem has been

found to be positively correlated with images of God as loving and accepting and

negatively correlated with images of God as rejecting (Benson & Spilka, 1973). This

finding of a component loaded with themes of God's value of the self and the inquiry into

the connection between self-esteem and GI may support the mutuality between views of

self and parallel between the accepting/loving versus rejecting quality of GI and views of

parents/caregivers.

Component 3: Acceptance

Component 3 emerged with the lowest variance (6.20%) of the three components

(see Table 7). Themes of acceptance were apparent, stemming from items originally

designed to examine the degree of anxious versus secure attachment as it relates to GI.

(See attachment discussion in Component 1 discussion above). Component 3 could

potentially reflect ideas regarding God as punitive (Gorsuch's [1968] Adjective Ratings

of God), rejecting or controlling (Benson & Spilka's [1973] Loving and Controlling God

Scales), or authoritarian (Baumrind, 1971a) that could influence the extent to which one

experiences God's acceptance or lack thereof. A sense of anxiety around having a sense

73

of acceptance is universally understood. The theoretical underpinnings of an anxious

attachment to God (potentially by way of human caregiver relationships) are seen in

Component 3 with qualitative descriptions of concern with God's acceptance.

Missing Factors

Kirkpatrick (2005) described aspects of "God as a parental figure" (p. 80) at

extensive length, citing various works underlying parenting and GI theory, drawing the

conclusions that (a) the psychological mechanisms utilized to process information about

parenting also guide the experience of God, and (b) the "principal factors underlying

individual differences in images of God closely parallel the primary dimensions of

individual differences in parent styles." (p. 83). While a high frequency of omissions on

Scale 4 as presented to subjects suggests a decided absence of assumptions for item

reduction in the current study, the extensive literary support for a parallel between

experiences of parents and experiences of God may justify the continued exploration of

what may have been on Component/Scale 4 with improved design. Benson and Spilka's

(1973) Loving and Controlling God scales support, at a minimum, a dichotomous

perspective on the parallel between parenting and GI. (Anecdotally, before the parenting-

parallel items were removed from the current analysis, it was evident that the items

completed included response sets that gravitated toward authoritative (loving) and

authoritarian (controlling) styles most frequently.) Baumrind's theory of four parenting

styles, upon which Scale 4 was proposed, is a widely accepted theory. Additional

corroborative data on GI assessments supporting parallel views of parenting may support

an enhanced understanding of the influence of parenting style on the child's functioning,

not only for GI, but overall. Despite the design problem of Scale 4 leading to its omission

74

from the current analysis, it is expected (from a literary standpoint) that items with

content reflecting a parallel between views of God and parenting could represent a viable

portion of the variance of GI and/or a fourth component in an analysis that included

redesigned items/item responses.

Recommendations

Item Reduction

It is noteworthy that no subjects indicated difficulty in making Likert-scale

selections on noncomparative items (Scales, 1, 2, and 3). While these items could be

utilized in a dual-category (i.e., True/False) response format, statistical analysis may

provide more descriptive data based on Likert scale responses. Further, the lack of

expressed difficulty in responding to these items with a 5-point Likert response set

supports maintaining the response style as originally written for replication of a PCA.

Categorical responses of True/False might be more useful in other approaches to analysis.

Items from the first three scales that produced Components 1,2, and 3 could be

restructured as three revised scales for further validation of the constructs that emerged.

For the parenting parallel scale (Scale 4), a transition to multiple choice for

single-response categories is recommended based on the complexity of response choices

and the omission rate for these items. These factors made the scale items particularly

challenging for child subjects in the earlier stages of reading comprehension and working

memory. This scale as designed was too complex for respondents and was therefore

excluded. This study is relatively void of assumptions of reliability on this scale due to

the high frequency of omissions and the resulting limitation of invalid statistical data to

support item reduction based on component loadings.

75

Instrument

Regarding the omissions for the parenting style scale, the PI recommends

categorical versus continuous variables for response selection, allowing children to select

the experience that is most salient to them. Nelson and Jones (1957) suggested that GI

may be related to one's images of the preferred parent. The resemblance of a child's GI

to a parent that is either preferred or most influential is the assumption behind the

development of the parenting parallel scale. Moreover, to allow children to select a single

response that is most true for them in their experience of God may provide a more

concrete indication of the parenting style that is most consistent in children's life and

possibly thereby influence their experience of God.

Limitations

Participant Attainment & Settings

The strategy for identification of and gaining access to subjects through church

settings presented a significant challenge at onset that was maintained as an enduring

obstacle throughout the course of this study. Approaching children's ministers and

program directors was a purely administrative task of selecting

churches/schools/organizations, identifying key staff members/directors by phone or

website, and initiating contact via whatever modalities the available information

supported. Use of organization websites with staff listings provided most needed contact

information to send a request for participation via email, in letter form, or by phone. Once

contact was initiated, follow-up via the same and/or alternating methods of attempted

contact became an increasingly necessary occurrence. The vast majority of attempted

agreements for participation were met with a "No" of some sort. The PI found it

76

noteworthy that the majority of "No" responses came by way of receiving no response

from individuals/groups contacted, despite repeated and varied attempts to establish

contact to discuss the study. Many program directors noted that the curriculum for

children's ministries/classes were fixed either months or a year in advance, with no

availability for changes in that structure. Others noted a limited number of likely subjects

to make the contribution to the study that would have been worth the effort. Well-

established organizations noted that contributions to psychological research is not

included in their vision or mission as an organization and/or ministry. A few

ministers/directors of organizations simply struggled to understand the value of their

participation in the study or the potential benefit of their contribution of advocacy for

participation within their organization or church.

The successful minority of affirmative responses regarding participation were met

with immediate scheduling of a date for the PI to collaborate regarding program

directors' advance communication with parents and a scheduled date for on-site survey

administration. This was a process best served by the extension of flexibility on the part

of the PI to attain optimal participation without unnecessary disruption in the sequence of

group events (i.e., Sunday morning children's classes/services). Religious organizations

each have their own set of policies and procedures by which parents are involved, and

children are released by their parents into their classes or groups. In each setting, the

window of opportunity for direct contact between parents and the PI was limited. Parents

and children who arrived on site without awareness of the project required more in-depth

explanation of the survey, the purpose, and the value of the child's participation, along

with the complete absence of obligation to do so. These interactions were often awkward,

77

leaving many parents skeptical of the purpose and/or process of the survey. Many parents

provided consent with no questions asked and seemingly no concern for the content of

the consent or the survey items. Other parents labored over the details of the consent and

survey, some with their child begrudgingly following their parents' copious descriptions.

This approach to subject identification and recruitment provided the N necessary

to proceed with the current study but is not recommended for pursuit of replication. A

more ideal approach to subjects attainment may be through a private practice serving

children and families, perhaps a practice with an expressed faith-based perspective. In the

setting of a practice offering psychological services, staff members and subjects may be

more apt to understand the scientific, research, and treatment implications of trial

surveys. In addition, the personal buy-in of participation in treatment may predispose

parents and children to be more willing to complete questionnaires upon request.

Participant Selection/Exclusions

A critical aspect of ethical facilitation of participation involves the voluntary

status of all subjects. The request for responses regarding internalized images of God

holds the potential to provoke discomfort depending on one's experiences in relating to a

spiritual attachment figure. Operating from the proposed literary assumptions of

significant parental influence on GI (e.g., Beck & McDonald, 2004; Dickie et al., 1997;

Hertel & Donahue, 1995; Kirkpatrick, (1992,1997, 2005; Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1990), it

is expected that some subjects may experience at least subtle emotional reactions to

acknowledgement of factors related to their GI.

This potential anxiety was apparent in many parents and children as many

approached the PI with considerable inquiry prior to their decision to participate or

78

decline. The evidenced 47% rate of refusal for participation, however, may not represent

a considerable deviation from typical response rates depending on the approach to data

collection. Others initiated participation, but were provided the opportunity to opt out of

responses to objective items based on a response of "no" to The God Question. There

were no incentives to entice any subjects, nor any consequences or change in regard for

those who did not participate. The process of survey administration was about 12-15

minutes. Those who did not opt to participate were provided with alternative activities by

their teachers/program directors or they were given the opportunity to assist with the

administrative tasks of the process (i.e., handing out/picking up surveys, handing

out/picking up pencils, etc.). Parents and children were continuously urged to understand

that participation was voluntary.

In the group survey administration settings, the ability to reduce omission and

increase potential for comprehension of content and accuracy of responses was limited.

The settings and time frames by which the surveys were administered and completed

were not conducive to thorough scanning of surveys for omissions and corrections, etc.

While volunteers were on hand to assist children with reading/comprehension difficulties

(albeit covertly without undue implications of the child's difficulty around his or her

peers), the classes/services were to proceed as usual, without the PI or the administration

process disrupting the organizational objectives. It is recommended that future survey

administrations be conducted with a more limited age range of 10-12 years to reduce the

potential for limited comprehension of content, as well as limited comprehension of

instructions, thereby reducing the number of missing values in data for analysis. A

79

reduction in the number of omissions would support the validity and reliability of the

statistical results associated with future studies.

Additional Factors

The contextual and situational factors associated with the PI presented additional

limitations of access to subjects. The ability to access enough subjects to reach the

proposed N is a limitation of this study as it was conducted. Liturgical affiliation would

be a key strength in the ability to gain and maintain access to subjects. However,

researchers in traditional and nontraditional courses of study may do best to conduct

similar studies via the resources of practica placements, private practices, and/or

internship placements with a pediatric emphasis.

The Pi's presence in religious contexts with individuals who have beliefs

conflicting with the perspectives of the PI (or the religious values of the education

institution with which the PI is affiliated) may also present a challenge to the ability to

align with program directors of ministries with noncongruent religious/spiritual values.

Personal beliefs and biases of individuals who are affiliated with religious institutions as

staff members were more particularly inquisitive of the personal and spiritual background

of the PI. Brief discussions of the plausibility of generalizing GI between religious

perspectives were common in these situations.

Conclusions

At best, the proposed scales of this instrument provide at least some insight into a

respondent's images of God from a few psychological vectors. At worst, the instrument

provides only some insight. Gibson's (2007) suggestion of the multiplicity associated

with GI allows for exploration of those images in compound contexts across one's

80

individual experiences and perceptions. This instrument was designed to draw on the GI

versus God concepts (Gibson, 2006) in children, across multiple domains of their

subjective experiences of God, themselves, and others.

GI theory is reviewed broadly in other works (e.g., Moriarty & Davis, 2011).

Assessment and treatment-related issues specific to GI and children are just recently

explored (e.g., Olson, Maclin, Moriarty, & Bermudez, 2012). A specific focus on

objective assessment of GI in children rests upon the suggestions from the small group of

studies described in the current literature review and the theoretical precursors of the

emerging literature. Olson et al. (2012) emphasized themes of development and

attachment, which align with the basis of developmentally appropriate content to reflect

attachment specifically, as well as other areas of GI in a dynamic/developmental context

(i.e., self-perceptions, child's internal responses to adjectives of God). Since Harms

(1944) first explored the existence of GI in children through drawings, our curiosity has

kept the search going for data supporting the measure of a relational experience that is

qualitatively beyond measure. From Harms to Olson et al., the phenomenon of GI in

children captures researchers, but despite their best efforts, researchers may never

reciprocate. Scales 1-4 of this GI survey for children barely scratch the surface.

81

References

American Psychological Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4 ed.) Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical standards of psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.

Badenoch, B. (2008). Being a brain-wise therapist: A practical guide to interpersonal neurobiology. New York, NY: Norton.

Barrett, J. (2000, January). Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 29-34.

Barrett, J. (2001). Do children experience God as adults do? Religion in mind: Cognitive perspectives on religious belief, ritual, and experience (pp. 173-190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Barrett, J. L., & Keil, F. C. (1996). Conceptualizing a non-natural entity: Anthropomorphism in God concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 219-247.

Barrett, J. L., & Richert, R. A. (2003). Anthropomorphism or preparedness? Exploring children's God concepts. Review of Religious Research, 44, 300-312.

Baumrind, D. (1971a). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, Part 2(4), 101-103.

Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004, June). Attachment to God: The Attachment to God Inventory, tests of working model correspondence, and an exploration of faith group differences. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 32(2), 92-103.

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42,155-162.

Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Rude, S. P. (2003). Spiritual development in childhood and adolescence: Toward a field of inquiry. Applied Developmental Sciene, 7, 205-213.

Benson, P., & Spilka, B. (1973). God image as a function of self-esteem and locus of control. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 294-310.

Benson, P. L., Williams, D. L., & Johnson, A. L. (1987). The quicksilver years: The hopes and fears of early adolescence. Search Institute, San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1913). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.

82

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness, and depression. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness of religious ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. In Andreson, J. (2001) Religion in Mindz; Cognitive Perspectives on Religious Belief, Ritual, and Experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, J. (2007). Inquiry into the understanding and applications ofDSM-IV category Religious or Spiritual Problem, V-Code 62.89 by American Psychological Association (APA) psychologists. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Buri, J. R., & Mueller, R. A. (1993). Psychoanalytic theory and loving God concepts: Parent referencing versus self-referencing. The Journal of Psychology, 127(1), 17-27.

Chartier, M. R., & Goehner, L. A. (1976). A study of the relationship of parent-adolescent communication, self-esteem, and God-image. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 4(3), 227-232.

Coles, R. (1990). The spiritual life of children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman & Co.

Davis, E. B. (2010). Authenticity, inauthenticity, attachment, and God-image tendencies among adult evangelical Protestant Christians (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.

Dickie, J. R., Eshleman, A. K., Merasco, D. M., Shepard, A., Wilt, M. V., & Johnson, M. (1997). Parent-child relationships and children's images of God. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(1), 25-43.

Dillon, J. J. (2000). The spiritual child: Appreciating children's transformative effects on adults. Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 13(4), 4-18.

Dufresne, T., & Richter, G. C. (Ed. & Trans). (2012). The future of and illusion—Sigmund Freud. Buffalo, NY: Broadview Press.

Eck, B. E. (2002). An exploration of the therapeutic use of spiritual disciplines in clinical practice. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 21(3), 266-280.

Eshleman, A., Dickie, J., Merasco, D., Shepard, A., & Johnson, M. (1999). Mother God, Father God: Children's perceptions of God's distance. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(2), 139-146.

83

Fitts, W., & Warrant, W. (1996). The Tennessee self-concept scale (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Fowler, J. W. (1996). Faithful change. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.

Freud, S. (1950). Totem and taboo. New York, NY: Norton. (Original work published 1913)

Freud, S. (1964). The future of an illusion. Oxford, England: Doubleday.

Gattis, J. P. (2002). Developing a web-based scoring program for the God Image Inventory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62( 10-B), 4833.

Gaultiere, W. (1989). The development and preliminary validation of a measure of God Images. Retrieved from the PsycINFO database.

Gerkin, C. (1994). Projective identification and the image of God: Reflections on object relations theory and the psychology of religion. The treasure of earthen vessels: Explorations in theological anthropology in honor of James N. Lapsley (pp. 52-65). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Gibson, N. J. S. (2006). The experimental investigation of religious cognition (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.

Gibson, N. J. S. (2007). Measurement issues in God image research and practice. In G. L. Moriarty & L. Hoffman (Eds.), God image handbook for spiritual counseling and psyschotherapy: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 227-246). Binghampton, NY: Haworth/Routledge Press.

Gillespie, J. (1994). The projective use of mother-and-child drawings: A manual for clinicians. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.

Goldman, R. (1964). Religious thinking from childhood to adolescence. London, England: Routledge Kegan & Paul.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1968). The conceptualization of God as seen in adjective ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1, 56-64.

Gorsuch, R. L. & Smith, C.S (1983). Attributions of responsibility to God: An interaction of relgisous Beliefs and outcomes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 340-352.

Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The adjective check list manual. Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

84

Granqvist, P. (1998). Religiousness and perceived childhood attachment: On the question of compensation or correspondence. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(2), 350-367.

Granqvist, P. (2002, February). Attachment and religiosity in adolescence: Cross-sectional and longitudinal evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Granqvist, P., & Hagekull, B. (1999). Religiousness and perceived childhhod attachment: Profiling socialized correspondence and emotional compensation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 254-273.

Granqvist, P., & Kirpatrick, L.A. (2008). Attachment and religious representations and behavior. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 906-933). New York, NY: Guilford.

Granqvist, P., Ljungdahl, C., & Dickie, J. (2007, March). God is nowhere, God is now here: Attachment activation, security of attachment, and God's perceived closeness among 5-7 year-old children from religious and non-religious homes. Attachment & Human Development, 9(1), 55-71.

Hall, T. W. (2004). Christian spirituality and mental health: A relational spirituality framework for empirical research. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23, 66-81.

Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (2002). The spiritual assessment inventory: A theistic model and measure for assessing spiritual development. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 341-357.

Hall, T. W., Halcrow, S., Hill, P.C., & Delaney, H. (2005, August). Internal working model correspondence in implicit spiritual experiences. Paper presented at the 1131 Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Harms, E. (1944). The development of religious experience in children. The American Journal of Sociology, 50, 112-122.

Hart, T. (2003). The secret spiritual world of children. Makawao, HI: Inner Ocean.

Hart, T. (2006). Spiritual experiences and capacities of children. In E. C. Roehlkepartain, P. E. King, L. Wagener, & P. L. Benson (Eds.), The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 163-177). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hathaway, W. L. (2003). Clinically significant religious impairment. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 6,113-129.

Hathaway, W. L., Scott, S. Y., & Garver, S. A. (2004). Assessing religious/spiritual functioning: A neglected domain in clinical practice? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(1), 97-104.

Heller, D. (1986). The children's God. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

85

Hertel, B. R., & Donahue, M. J. (1995). Parental influences on God images among children: Testing Durkheim's metaphoric parallelism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34(2), 186-199.

Hill, P., & Hall, T. (2002, December). Relational schemas in processing one's image of God and self. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 21(4), 365-373.

Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. Jr. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiousity (pp. 387-409). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

Hodge, D. (2006, October). A template for spiritual assessment: A review of the JCAHO requirements and guidelines for implementation. Social Work, 51(4), 317-326.

John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Johnson, C. N., & Boyatzis, C. J. (2006). Cognitive-cultural foundations in spiritual development. In E. C. Roehlkepartain, P. E. King, L. Wagener, & P. L. Benson (Eds.), The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 211-223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal component analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

Kauffold-Entner, R. (1997, June). Effects of separation and divorce on the junior high age child's concept of God. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Kendall, P. C., Butcher, J. N., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1999). Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1992). An attachment-theory approach to the psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 3-28.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). A longitudinal study of changes in religious belief and behavior as a function of individual differences in adult attachment style. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(2), 207-217.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kirkpatrick, L., & Shaver, P. (1990). Attachment theory and religion: Childhood attachment, religious beliefs, and conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 315-334.

Klein, M. (1948). The psycho-analysis of children. London, England: Hogarth Press.

86

Koepfer, S.R. (2000). Drawing on the spirit: Embracing spirituality in pediatrics and pediatric art therapy. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 17(3), 188-194.

Koppitz, E. (1966). Emotional indicators on human figure drawings of children: A validation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22,466-469.

Koppitz, E. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children's human figure drawings. New York, NY: Grune and Stratton.

LaMothe, R. (1998). Sacred objects as vital objects: Transitional objects reconsidered. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 26(2), 159-167.

Lawrence, R. (1991). The God Image Inventory: The development, validation, and standardization of a psychometric instrument for research, pastoral and clinical use in measuring the image of God. Retrieved from the PsycINFO database.

Lawrence, R. (1997). Measuring the image of God: The God Image Inventory and the God Image Scales. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 25(2), 214-226.

Maxon, W. (1996). The development of god image in deaf children: An analysis from an object relations theory perspective. Retrieved from the PsycINFO database.

McDonald, A., Beck, R., Allison, S., & Norsworthy, L. (2005, March). Attachment to God and Parents: Testing the correspondence vs. compensation hypotheses. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24(1), 21-28.

Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2010). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods (4th

ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak.

Moriarty, G. L. (2006). Pastoral care of depression: Helping clients heal their relationship with God. Binghampton, NY; Haworth/Routledge Press.

Moriarty, G. L., & Davis, E. B. (2011). Client God images: Research, theory, and practice. In K. O'Grady, J. Aten, & E. Worthington (Eds.), Psychology of religion and spirituality for clinicians: Using research in your practice (pp. 131-160). New York, NY: Routledge.

Muller, J. (2005). Image of god and self in abused and non-abused African American and Caucasian adolescent females. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Nelson, M. O., & Jones, E. M. (1957). An application of the Q-technique to the study of religious concepts. Psychological Reports, 3, 293-297.

Noffke, J. L., & Hall, T. W. (2007). Attachment psycho therapy and God image, In G. L. Moriarty & L. Hoffman (Eds.), God image handbook for spiritual counseling and psychotherapy; Research, theory, and practice (pp. 57-78). Binghampton, NY: Haworth/Routledge Press.

87

Nye, W., & Carlson, J. (1984, September). The development of the concept of God in children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 145(1), 137-142.

Olson, L., Maclin, V., Moriarty, G., & Bermudez, H. (2012). God images. In D. F. Walker & W. L. Hathaway, Spiritual interventions in child and adolescent psychotherapy (Chapter 9). Washington, DC: APA Books.

Paloutzian, R. F., & Park, C. L. (2005). Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Pargament, K. (1999). The psychology of religion and spirituality? Response to Stifoss-Hanssen, Emmons and Crumpler. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(1), 35-43.

Pate, R., & Nichols, W. (1971, January). A scoring guide for the Koppitz system of evaluating children's human figure drawings. Psychology in the Schools, 5(1), 55-56.

Peterson, D. (1999, January). The relationship of birth order to religious experience and object relations functioning. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Rackley, B. (2007). God image and early maladaptive schemas: A correlational study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Publication No. AAT 3280069)

Ratcliffe, M. (2006). Neurotheology: A science of what? In Where God and Science meet: How brain and evolutionary studies alter our understanding of religion (Vol. 2): The neurology of religious experience (pp. 81-104). Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood Publishing Group.

Richert, R., & Barrett, J. (2005). RESEARCH: Do you see what I see? Young children's assumptions about God's perceptual abilities. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15(4), 283-295.

Rizzuto, A. M. (1970). Critique of the contemporary literature in the scientific study of religion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, New York, NY.

Rizzuto, A. (1979). The birth of the living God: A psychoanalytic study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Rizzuto, A. (1988). The father and the child's representation of God: A developmental approach. In S. H. Cath (Ed.), Father and child: Developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 357-381). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Rizzuto, A. (1996). Psychoanalytic treatment and the religious person. In J. W. Jacobson (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 409-431). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

88

Roehlkepartain, E., Benson, P., King, P., & Wagener, L. (2006). The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scott, D. (2003). Spirituality in child and youth care: Considering spiritual development and "relational consciousness." Child & Youth Care Forum, 32(2), 117-131.

Seitz, J. (2001, October). A cognitive-perceptual analysis of projective tests used with children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93(2), 505-522. doi:10.2466/PMS.93.5.505-522

Sexson, S. (2004, January). Religious and spiritual assessment of the child and adolescent. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13(1), 35-47.

Shakel, S. (2001, May). The effects of parental death during childhood on adult experience of God. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.

Shafranske, E. (1992). Religion and mental health in early life. In J. F. Schumaker (Ed.), Religion and mental health (pp. 163-176). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Shafranske, E., & Maloney, H. (1996). Religion and the clinical practice of psychology: A case for inclusion. Religion and the clinical practice ofpsychology (pp. 561-586). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. New York, NY: Guilford.

Solomon, S. (1978). Knowing your child through his handwriting and drawings. Oxford, England: Crown.

Spero, M. H. (1992). Religious objects as psychological structures: A critical integration of object relations theory, psychotherapy, and Judaism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Sperry, L. (2003). Integrating spiritual direction functions in the practice of psychotherapy. Journal of Psychology and Theology 31(1), 3-13.

Tamminen, K. (1991). Religious development in childhood and youth: An empirical study. Annales Academiae Scientiarum.

Tamminen, K. (1994). Religious experiences in childhood and adolescence: A viewpoint of religious development between the ages of 7 and 20. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 4(2), 61-85.

Tamminen, K., & Nurmi, K. (1995). Developmental theories and religious experience. In Handbook of religious experience (pp. 269-311). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.

89

Tan, S. Y. (2003). Integrating spiritual direction into psychotherapy: Ethical issues and guidelines. Journal of Psychology and Theology 31(1), 14-23.

Vergote, A., Tamayo, A., Pasquali, L., Bonami, M., Pattyn, M-N., & Custer, A. (1969). Concept of God and parental images. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 8(1), 79-87.

Wilber, K. (1996). The atman project: A transpersonal view of human development. Wheaton, IL: Quest.

Williams, R. (1971, January). A theory of God-concept readiness: From the Piagetian theories of child artificialism and the origin of religious feeling in children. Religious Education, 66(1), 62-66.

Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 26,137-143.

90

Appendix A: Information Form

The God Survey Information Form

(To be completed by Parent/Guardian)

Child's Initials:

Chid's Date of Birth (00/00/0000 Format):

Religious & Spiritual Perspective:

(Please check all that apply to you/your child. If more than one response, please indicate the primary perspective

influencing your family/child's perspective)

Agnostic Atheist Catholic Jewish Orthodox Pagan Protestant Unitarian Universalist Other

Does your child have any reading or cognitive difficulties that will require assistance for completion,

or prohibit them from being able to complete the survey? (Circle One) YES NO

If YES, please describe briefly:

TeacherA/olunteers will provide oral presentation of items for class to assist children in earlier stages of reading

abilities-

91

Appendix B: Informed Consent

INFORMED CONSENT The God Survey - CHURCH/SCHOOL

PROJECT TITLE: Creation of an Objective Measure of God Images in Children

INTRODUCTION The purposes of this form are to give you information that may affect your decision whether to say YES or NO to participation in this research, and to record the consent of those who say YES to participate in the study: Creation of an Objective Measure of God Images in Children at CHURCH/SCHOOL on DATE/TIME.

RESEARCHERS All reasearchers for this study are affiliated with Regent University, School of Psychology and Counseling Primary Researcher: Heather D. Bermudez, M.A., Doctoral Candidate Faculty Chair: Dr. Lynn A. Olson, Assistant Professor Faculty Co-Chair: Dr. Glendon Moriarty, Associate Professor

DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STUDY Several studies have been conducted looking into the subject of survey methods of assessment of God Image in adults. None of them have addressed the development of a brief survey method for assessment of God Image in children.

If you decide to participate, then you/your child will join a study involving research of children's emotional experiences and views of God. If you say YES, then your child's participation will last for about 25-30 minutes at All Souls Unitarian Church. Approximately 150 children will be participating in this study.

EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA You should have completed a brief information form. To the best of your knowledge, you/your child should not have impairing cognitive or reading disabilities that would keep you from participating in this study. For children in earlier stages of reading ability, the Primary Researcher: Heather Bermudez, and CHURCH/SCHOOL teaching staff/volunteers will be available to assist with reading items and/or read items aloud for children who wish to participate.

RISKS AND BENEFITS RISKS: If you/your child decide to participate in this study, then you/your child may face a risk of emotional discomfort related to their individual views of God. The researcher tried to reduce these risks by creating brief survey items. As with any research, there is some possibility that you/your child may be subject to risks that have not yet been identified.

BENEFITS: The main benefit to you/your child for participating in this study is spiritual enrichment and enhanced awareness of one's perceptions of God.

COSTS AND PAYMENTS The researchers want your/your child's decision about participating in this study to be absolutely voluntary. Yet they recognize that participation may pose some inconvenience and use of time. (While no payment or compensation/Minimal cost incentives) will be given for participation, the process of survey completion will take place during scheduled children's sessions CHURCH/SCHOOL in order to reduce the inconvenience associated with participation.

NEW INFORMATION If the researchers find new information during this study that would reasonably change your/your child's decision about participating, then they will give it to you.

92

CONFIDENTIALITY All information obtained about you/your child in this study is strictly confidential unless disclosure is required by law. The results of this study may be used in reports, presentations and publications, but the researcher will not identify you/your child.

WITHDRAWAL PRIVILEGE It is OK for you/your child to say NO. Even if you/your child say YES now, you/your child are free to say NO later, and walk away or withdraw from the study - at any time. Your/your child's decision will not affect your/your child's relationship with Regent University, the researchers for this study, or otherwise cause a loss of benefits to which you/your child might otherwise be entitled.

COMPENSATION FOR ILLNESS AND INJURY If you/your child say YES, then your consent in this document does not waive any of your legal rights. However, in the event of impairing discomfort arising from this study, neither Regent University nor the researchers are able to give you/your child any money, insurance coverage, free medical care, or any other compensation for such injury. In the event that you/your child suffer injury as a result of participation in this research project, you may contact Heather Bermudez, MA, the responsible principal investigator at the following phone number: (918)260-2895, or Dr. Jennifer Ripley, current HSRC chair at (757)352-4296 at Regent University, who will be glad to review the matter with you.

VOLUNTARY CONSENT By signing this form, you/your child are saying several things. You are saying that you have read this form or have had it read to you, that you are satisfied that you understand this form, the research study, and its risks and benefits. The researchers should have answered any questions you/your child may have had about the research. If you have any questions later on, then the researchers should be able to answer them:

Primary Researcher: Heather D. Bermudez, M.A., Doctoral Candidate (918) 260.2895 Faculty Chair: Dr. Lynn A. Olson, Assistant Professor (757) 352.4432 Faculty Co-Chair: Dr. Glendon Moriarty, Associate Professor (757) 352.4341

If at any time you feel pressured to participate, or if you have any questions about your rights or this form, then you should call Dr. Jennifer Ripley, the current HSRC chair, at (757)352-4296.

And importantly, by signing below, you are telling the researcher YES, that you agree to participate in this study. The researcher should give you a copy of this form for your records.

Subject's (Child's) Initials and Date of Birth (00-00-0000) Date

Parent / Legally Authorized Representative's Printed Name & Signature Date

Witness' Printed Name & Signature Date

93

INVESTIGATOR'S STATEMENT

I certify that I have explained to this subject the nature and purpose of this research, including benefits, risks, costs, and any experimental procedures. I have described the rights and protections afforded to human subjects and have done nothing to pressure, coerce, or falsely entice this subject into participating. I am aware of my obligations under state and federal laws, and promise compliance. I have answered the subject's questions and have encouraged him/her to ask additional questions at any time during the course of this study. I have witnessed the above signature(s) on this consent form.

Investigators Printed Name & Signature

94

Appendix C: Preface, Assent, The God Question

The God Survey (To be completed by child)

Before vou complete the Survey:

You are about to complete a survey about your ideas and feelings about God. It will take about 15 minutes to complete and there are 44 questions. If you need help, an adult may read questions out loud to help you understand each question. For each question, you will circle the answer that is best for you. Some people have feelings that they want to talk about when they answer these kinds of questions. Please let your parents know if you would like to talk about your feelings about God. Please sign below to show that you understand the directions for the survey -and- to show that you are volunteering to answer the survey questions. Your Initials:

About God:

People have many different views of God. Some believe that God is a man. Others believe that God is a woman. Some believe that God can be either man or woman. Some believe that God is more than one being. God can be viewed as a person, or a spirit, or part of nature, or as many gods. People may also not believe in God. So when you see the word God in this survey, that means what YOU believe about God.

The God Question:

Do you believe in God? (Circle One)

Yes If Yes, turn the page and begin The God Survey No If Jo, Please tell us a little bit about your belief:

If your answer to The God Question is No, your survey is complete and you may turn it in.

-Thank you for your participation

95

Appendix D: Survey

The God Survey

There are no wrong answers!! (-:

Directions: Circle the answer that makes sense to you

1=No 2=Sort-of 3=Usually 4=A Lot

12 3 4 5 1. God & I are close to one another

12 3 4 5 2.1 trust myself more than I trust God

12 3 4 5 3. When I pray, I tell God my feelings

12 3 4 5 4. God takes care of most things in my life

12 3 4 5 5.1 can't do anything without God

12 3 4 5 6.1 don't need to be close to God

12 3 4 5 7.1 worry if I am ok with God

12 3 4 5 8.1 wonder if God is happy with me

12 3 4 5 9. It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others

12 3 4 5 10.1 am afraid that God does not love me when I am in trouble

12 3 4 5 11.1 get mad at God for not answering me

12 3 4 5 12.1 am worried about if God loves

12 3 4 5 13. God is like a parent to me

12 3 4 5 14. God is fair to me

12 3 4 5 15. God is always there for me

12 3 4 5 16. God will listen to me at any time

12 3 4 5 17. God shows me the way I should be

96

1=No 2=Sort-of 3=Usually

12 3 4 5 18. God helps me with the tilings I care about

12 3 4 5 19. God is in control of everything

12 3 4 5 20. God helps me feel better when I am upset

12 3 4 5 21. God is far away from me

12 3 4 5 22. God protects me from bad things

12 3 4 5 23. God thinks that I am good enough

12 3 4 5 24. My ideas are important to God

12 3 4 5 25. God thinks that I look as good as other kids

12 3 4 5 26. God is proud of me

12 3 4 5 27. God is happy with me

12 3 4 5 28. God thinks I am a failure

12 3 4 5 29. God wants me to be myself

12 3 4 5 30. God is not pleased with me

12 3 4 5 31. God thinks what I want is important

12 3 4 5 32. God believes I am a good son/daughter

12 3 4 5 33. God is not pleased with my school work

12 3 4 5 34. God approves of my decisions

97

1=No 2=Sort-of 3=Usually 4=A Lot 5=Yes

35. When I do something wrong, God:

1 2 3 4 5 Helps me change and do it right next time 1 2 3 4 5 Makes sure I do it the right way next time 1 2 3 4 5 Let's me figure out a better way on my own 1 2 3 4 5 Does not notice my mistake

36. When it comes to my school work, God:

1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it right, every time 1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it the best way I know how 1 2 3 4 5 Is not worried about my school work 1 2 3 4 5 Helps me understand and learn

37. When I am worried about something, God:

1 2 3 4 5 Has no idea what I am worried about 1 2 3 4 5 Fixes it and tells me to think about something else 1 2 3 4 5 Helps me find a way to feel better about it 1 2 3 4 5 Cares about it, but I sort it out on my own

38. When I am tired or sleeping, God:

1 2 3 4 5 Watches over me and helps me rest 1 2 3 4 5 Does not know I am tired or sleeping 1 2 3 4 5 Let's me sleep as long as I want 1 2 3 4 5 Makes me sleep

39. When I am having fun, God:

1 2 3 4 5 Doesn't know what I am doing that is so fun 1 2 3 4 5 Is glad that I am having fun when I obey the rules 1 2 3 4 5 Keeps track of what I am doing every second 1 2 3 4 5 Lets me keep having fun

40. When it comes to keeping my room clean, God:

1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it right, every time 1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it the way I know how 1 2 3 4 5 Is not worried about my room 1 2 3 4 5 Helps me understand and learn

98

1=No 2=Sort-of 3=Usually 4=A Lot 5=Yes

41. When I am happy about something, God:

1 2 3 4 5 Doesn't know what I am happy about 1 2 3 4 5 Is happy with me and wants to talk about what makes me happy 1 2 3 4 5 Is glad I'm happy as long as I behave 1 2 3 4 5 Doesn't ask what I am happy about

42. When I do something good, God:

1 2 3 4 5 Is not interested in what I did 1 2 3 4 5 Wants to know exactly how I did it and tells me how to do it better 1 2 3 4 5 Is happy with me and wants to hear about it 1 2 3 4 5 Tells me good job and lets me figure out how to keep it up

43. When I am afraid, God:

1 2 3 4 5 Protects me and let's me know it's ok 1 2 3 4 5 Changes things completely so I'm not scared 1 2 3 4 5 Does not know I'm scared 1 2 3 4 5 Just tells me not to be afraid

44. When I am sick, God:

1 2 3 4 5 Doesn't do anything to make it better 1 2 3 4 5 Takes care of me and helps me feel better 1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to feel better 1 2 3 4 5 Makes me feel better

99

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Appendix E: Item-Scale-Content

Scale Survey Item

Attachment God & I are close to one another (Avoidant) I trust myself more than I trust God

When I pray, I tell God my feelings God takes care of most things in my life I can't do anything without God I don't need to be close to God

Attachment I worry if I am ok with God (Anxious) I wonder if God is happy with me

It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others I am afraid that God does not love me when I am in trouble I get mad at God for not answering me I am worried about if God loves me

Adjectives

Self-Perceptions

God is like a parent to me God is fair to me God is always there for me God will listen to me at any time God shows me the way I should be God helps me with the things I care about God is in control of everything God helps me feel better when I am upset God is far away from me God protects me from bad things

God thinks that I am good enough

My ideas are important to God God thinks that I look as good as other kids God is proud of me God is happy with me God thinks I am a failure God wants me to be myself God is not pleased with me God thinks what I want is important God believes I am a good son/daughter God is not pleased with my school work

100

34

35 35 35 35

36 36 36 36

37 37 37 37

38 38 38 38

39 39 39 39

40 40 40 40

41 41

41 41

God approves of my decisions

Parenting When I do something wrong, God:

C Makes sure I do it the right way next time L Helps me change and do it right next time N Does not notice my mistake P Let's me figure out a better way on my own

When it comes to my school work, God: C Wants me to do it right, every time L Helps me understand and learn N Is not worried about my school work P Wants me to do it the best way I know how

When I am worried about something, God: C Fixes it and tells me to think about something else L Helps me find a way to feel better about it N Has no idea what I am worried about P Cares about it, but I sort it out on my own

When I am tired or sleeping, God: C Makes me sleep L Watches over me and helps me rest N Does not know I am tired or sleeping P Let's me sleep as long as I want

When I am having fun, God: C Keeps track of what I am doing every second L Is glad that I am having fun when I obey the rules N Doesn't know what I am doing that is so fun P Lets me keep having fun

When it comes to keeping my room clean, God: C Wants me to do it right, every time L Helps me understand and learn N Is not worried about my room P Wants me to do it the way I know how

When I am happy about something, God: C Is glad I'm happy as long as I behave L Is happy with me and wants to talk about what makes me

happy N Doesn't know what I am happy about P Doesn't ask what I'm happy about

When I do something good, God: C Wants to know exactly how I did it & tells me how to do it

101

better 42 L Is happy with me and wants to hear about it 42 N Is not interested in what I did 42 P Tells me good job and lets me figure out how to keep it up

When I am afraid, God: 43 C Changes things completely so I'm not scared 43 L Protects me and lets me know it's ok 43 N Does not know I'm scared 43 P Just tells me not to be afraid

When I am sick, God: 44 C Makes me feel better 44 L Takes care of me and helps me feel better 44 N Doesn't do anything to make it better 44 P Wants me to feel better

For Parenting Scale: C: Authoritarian/Controlling L: Authoritative/Loving N: Neglectful P: Permissive

102

Appendix F: Items With Content Sources

God Images in Children Items • Instruments indicated in italics under each heading represent potential sources of

item content • ® indicates reverse scoring

Attachment to God Attachment to God Inventory (Beck & McDonald) (Likert Scale -or- T/F)

Avoidance I. God & I are close to one another ®

• My experience with God are very intimate and emotional ® 2.1 trust myself more than I trust God

• I prefer not to depend to much on God 3. When I pray, I tell God my feelings ®

• My prayers to God are very emotional ® 4. God takes care of most things in my life ®

• I am totally dependent upon God for everything in my life ® 5.1 can't do anything without God®

• Without God I couldn't function at all ® 6.1 don't need to be close to God

• Ijust don't feel a deep need to be close to God

Anxious 7.1 worry if I am ok with God

• I worry a lot about my relationship with God 8.1 wonder if God is happy with me

• I often worry about whether God is pleased with me 9. It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others

• I get upset when I feel God helps others but forgets about me 10.1 am afraid that God does not love me when I am in trouble

• I fear God does not accept me when I do wrong II.1 get mad at God for not answering me

• I often feel angry with God for not responding to me 12.1 am worried about if God loves me

• I worry a lot about damaging my relationship with God

103

God Adjective Ratings of God (Gorsuch) GIS - Presence Scale (Lawrence) (Likert Scale -or- T/F)

1. Father God is like a parent to me

2. Fair God is fair to me

3. Faithful God is always there for me

4. Inaccessible God will listen to me at any time ®

5. Guiding God shows me they way I should be

6. Helpful God helps me with the things I care about

7. Controlling God is in control of everything ®

8. Comforting God helps me feel better when I am upset

9. Distant God is far away from me ®

10. Protective God protects me from bad things

Parenting Parallel Loving & Controlling (Benson & Spilka) (Regarding the concern for categorical vs. continuous variables with principle components analysis, we could select the most salient of these items and rearrange them as T/F.)

1. When I do something wrong, God:

A. Helps me change and do it right next time (Loving/Authoritative) B. Makes sure I do it the right way next time (Authoritarian/Controlling) C. Let's me figure out a better way on my own (Permissive) D. Does not notice my mistake (Neglectful)

2. When it comes to my school work, God:

A. Wants me to do it right, every time (Authoritarian/Controlling) B. Wants me to do it the way I know how (Permissive) C. Is not worried about my school work (Neglectful) D. Helps me understand and learn (Authoritative/Loving)

104

3. When I am worried about something, God:

A. Has no idea what I am worried about (Neglectful) B. Fixes it and tells me to think about something else

(Controlling/Authoritarian) C. Helps me find a way to feel better about it (Loving/Authoritative) D. Cares about it, but I sort it out on my own (Permissive)

4. When I am tired or sleeping, God:

A. Watches over me and helps me rest (Loving/Authoritative) B. Does not know I am tired or sleeping (Neglectful) C. Let's me sleep as long as I want (Permissive) D. Makes me sleep (Controlling/Authoritarian) E.

5. When I am having fun, God

A. Doesn't know what I am doing that is so fun (Neglectful) B. Is glad that I am having fun when I obey the rules (Loving/Authoritative) C. Keeps track of what I am doing every second (Authoritarian/Controlling) D. Lets me keep having fun (Permissive)

6. When it comes to keeping my room clean, God:

A Wants me to do it right, every time (Authoritarian/Controlling) E. Wants me to do it the way I know how (Permissive) F. Is not worried about my room (Neglectful) G. Helps me understand and learn (Authoritative/Loving)

7. When I am happy about something, God:

A. Doesn't know what I am happy about (Neglectful) B. Is happy with me and wants to talk about what makes me happy

(Loving/Authoritative) C. (Authoritarian/Controlling) D. Doesn't ask what I am happy about (Permissive)

8. When I accomplish something good, God:

A. Is not interested in what I achieved (Neglectful) B. Wants to know exactly how I did it and tells me how to do it better

(Authoritarian/Controlling) C. Is happy with me and wants to hear about it (Authoritative/Loving) D. Tells me good job and lets me figure out how to keep it up (Permissive)

105

9. When I am afraid, God:

A. Protects me and let's me know it's ok (Loving/Authoritative) B. Changes things completely so I'm not scared (Controlling/Authoritarian) C. Does not know I'm scared (Neglectful) D. Just tells me not to be afraid (Permissive)

10. When I am sick, God:

A. Doesn't do anything to make it better (Neglectful) B. Takes care of me and helps me feel better (Loving/Authoritative) C. Wants me to feel better (Permissive) D. Makes me feel better (Controlling/Authoritarian)

Self Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale Tennesee Self-Concept Scales (Fitts & Warren) (Iikert Scale -or- T/F)

1. God thinks that I am good enough

2. My ideas are important to God

3. God thinks that I look as good as other kids

4. God is proud of me

5. God is happy with me

6. God thinks I am a failure ®

7. God wants me to be myself

8. God is not pleased with me ®

9. God thinks what I want is important

10. God believes I am a good son/daughter

11. God is not pleased with my school work ®

12. God approves of my decisions

106

Appendix G: Participation Request Letter

God image & Children Study

Date

Children's Pastor/School Administrator/etc.

Dear ,

On the hearts and minds of children's ministries directors and Christian educators everywhere is a

common, often unanswered question: What are children thinking and feeling about God? After 13

years of working in children's ministry, with a child of my own, and now in the midst of my doctoral

dissertation project with Regent University, School of Psychology & Counseling, I still have

questions about this. Fortunately, we are living in a terrific time, when religion and spirituality have

come into recognition in the broader realm of psychological studies and mental health care. The

American Psychological Association has many of the world's leading researchers working to further

our understanding of how religion and spirituality interact as a major domain of human functioning.

One of the key concepts in understanding an individual's sense of wellness in their relationship

with God is known as God Image, or, how one feels about God in their individual experience of

God. One way to further our understanding of God Image is through survey methods. A number of

valid clinical tools exist for use by mental health professionals and clergy alike, but there remains

one problem in this area...none of these instruments were created specifically for children.

Research is lacking in this area, and we have a chance to fix that together.

Over the next couple of months, I will be seeking participants for a research project on the Creation

of an Objective Measure of God Images in Children. My dissertation committee and I are

requesting the participation of local churches in facilitating the opportunity to survey children ages

8-12 years. The survey will include approximately 40-45 questions about God that can be

107

answered in a Likert scale format. Parents' informed consent will be required for each child

participant, along with each child's demographic information. All survey responses and related

information will be protected according to the ethical mandates of the American Psychological

Association, and by HIPAA regulations for privacy practices.

If you have any questions regarding this project prior to completion of the included participation

form, please do not hesitate to contact me. I welcome the opportunity to share information from my

proposal research and manuscript, or to help clarify the process of establishing informed consent

of the participants' parents' and other logistical matters related to participation in this project.

Contact information for my dissertation committee, Lynn Olson, Ph.D., ABPP, and Glen Moriarty,

Psy.D., can be found on the Regent University website, www.reaent.edu. under School of

Psychology & Counseling, Faculty & Staff. Dr. Olson specializes in Child Psychology, and Dr.

Moriarty specializes in studies on Religion and Spirituality, specifically God Image.

Will you help us in opening the door to a better understanding of how children connect emotionally

with God? Your help in this project is of transcendent value for children who will be cared for by

clergy, Christian educators, and mental health professionals in the future. Please complete the

attached form and return it at your earliest convenience - or - feel free to e-mail me at

heatber@regent.edu with the information requested on the form. Please place the words "God

Image Study" in the subject line of any e-mail response. I look forward to the opportunity to partner

with you in this endeavor.

Grace & Peace,

Heather D. Bermudez, M.A. Psy.D. Candidate, Regent University heatber@regent.edu

108

Appendix H: Participation Response

God Image & Children Study

Date:

Heather D. Bermudez, M.A. heatber@reqent.edu

Dear Heather,

We are excited about the opportunity to assist with your project to further our understanding of God

Images in children.

We would like our children, ages 8-12 years at (church/school) to be involved in the project: Creation of an Objective Measure of God Images in Children. We currently have approximately (#) children ages 8-12 years in our children's group who may be able to participate. Please contact us with further details so that we can proceed.

We are unable to assist you with your project at this time.

Sincerely,

(Your name, position, and contact information)

109

Appendix I: Parent Announcement/Letter

God Image & Children

CHURCH/SCHOOL

Dear Parents,

The CHURCH/SCHOOL has been asked to participate in a study to gain a deeper understanding

of children's perception of God or their "God Image." Children from many other faiths will also

participate in this study, so I am excited that our children's views will be included in the whole. In

addition, All Souls will receive the anonymous results of the survey of our children which I will be

happy to share with you. I have read the complete survey and found nothing distressful or

uncomfortable about any of the questions. Please read on to understand the process in which we

are asking your children to participate.

Sincerely, NAME. POSITION CHURCH/SCHOOL

God Image is a broad term that is used to describe one's subjective and emotional experiences of

God. God Image is also one of the key concepts in understanding an individual's sense of wellness

in their relationship with God. One way to further our understanding of God Image is through

survey methods. A number of valid survey tools exist for use by mental health professionals and

clergy alike, but there remains one problem in this area...none of these instruments were created

specifically for children. Research is lacking in this area, and we have a chance to fix that together.

The Children's Religious Education Department at CHURCH/SCHOOL has agreed to participate in

a research project entitled, "Creation of an Objective Measure of God Image in Children." The

110

researcher is Heather Bermudez, M.A., who is completing her dissertation for the PsyD program in

clinical psychology at Regent University.

Children from CHURCH/SCHOOL between the ages of 8-12 years will be given the opportunity to

complete a survey entitled, "The God Survey" with questions related to their personal views of God

during the DATE/TIME. (Children within one year of these ages who are in the same classroom will

also have the opportunity to respond to the survey). An introductory statement on the survey will

provide options for children to respond based on their subjective views. Survey items will be

answered in a Likert Scale format. The introductory statements and a few of the items from The

God Survey are as follows:

About Gocf:

People have many different views of God. Some believe that God is a man. Others believe that God is a

woman. Some believe that God can be either man or woman. Some believe that God is more than one

being. God can be viewed as a person, or a spirit, as part of nature, or as many gods. People may also not

believe in God. So when you see the word God in this survey, that means what YOU believe about God.

The God Question:

Do you believe in God? (Circle One)

Yes If Yes, turn the page and begin The God Survey

No If No, Please tell us a little bit about your belief:

If your answer to The God Question is No, your survey is complete and you may turn it in.

-Thank you for your participation

Sample Survey Items:

1=No 2=Sort-of 3=Usually 4=ALot 5=Yes

1 2 3 4 5 God & I are close to one another 1 2 3 4 5 I get mad at God for not answering me 1 2 3 4 5 God is fair to me

When it comes to my school work, God:

111

1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it right every time 1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it the best way I know how 1 2 3 4 5 Is not worried about my school work 1 2 3 4 5 Helps me understand and learn

If your child would like to participate and if you are in favor of their participation, please be prepared

to read and complete a brief informed consent form on DATE/TIME, prior to your child's entry to

their classroom. No child will be able to participate without parental consent. Children who wish to

participate will also provide their signature next to yours as an indication of their own "assent" or

willingness to participate.

Research with human participants regarding psychological, emotional, and spiritual matters may

involve potential risk of discomfort for some individuals. This study presents limited (if any) risk to

children who wish to participate. However, teachers and parents may wish to follow this survey

experience with an open, non-invasive conversation with children regarding anything they may

wish to share regarding their feelings and views about God. Please feel free to contact a member

of CHURCH/SCHOOL staff regarding specific questions on how to talk with your child about their

God Image.

Will you help us in opening the door to a better understanding of how children connect emotionally

with God? Your help in this project is of transcendent value for children who will be cared for by

clergy, religious educators, and mental health professionals in the future. We want to thank you in

advance for encouraging your children to participate in completion of "The God Survey" on DATE.

We hope it will be an enriching experience for all children who have the opportunity to participate.

Sincerely,

Heather D. Bermudez, M.A. Psy.D. Candidate, Regent University

112