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)

Glendon Montfffy, PsyS). (Committee Member)

nmrer Rip

octoral Program Director)

Q\7.t8 \ \ X
Date

\E>yzi>\u
iDate

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
Acknowledgements
List of Tables
List of Figures
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Religion and Spirituality
The Problem
CHAPTER II: Method of Literature Review
God Representations: God Image and God Concept
Theoretical Influences on Assessment Development
Developmental Theory and God Image
Attachment and God Image
Parenting and God Image
Views of God, Self, and God Image
Objective Measurement of God Image
Studies of Objective Measurement of God Image in Children
Direction From Objective Measurement Studies
Additional Considerations for Instrument Development
Integration and Diversity
Ethical Concerns
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
Development of Scale Concepts
Scale Design
Survey Construction
Expert Review
Informed Consent
General Demographics and Preface to Survey
Specific Demographics
Participant Selection and Survey Administration Process
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS
Descriptions of Participant Data
Statistical Results
Data Screening and Transformations
Principal Component Analysis
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION
Theoretical Support and Reflections
Basis of Exploring GI in Development
Basis of Exploring GI in Attachment and the Relational Context
Data Support and Reflections
Component 1: Trust
Component 2: Value
Component 3: Acceptance
Missing Factors
Recommendations

iii
iv
vii
viii
1
5
6
11
11
15
15
20
22
25
26
28
35
36
36
37
39
39
41
42
45
45
46
47
47
51
51
52
53
55
67
67
67
69
70
71
72
73
74
75

Item Reduction
Instrument
Limitations
Participant Attainment & Settings
Participant Selection/Exclusions
Additional Factors
Conclusions
References
Appendix A: Information Form
Appendix B: Informed Consent
Appendix C: Preface, Assent, The God Question
Appendix D: Survey
Appendix E: Item-Scale-Content
Appendix F: Items With Content Sources
Appendix G: Participation Request Letter
Appendix H: Participation Response
Appendix I: Parent Announcement/Letter

vi

75
76
76
76
78
80
80
82
91
92
95
96
100
103
107
109
110

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

vii

34
47
49
50
52
54
57
60
63
65

List of Figures
Figure 1: Scree plot: Eight-component solution
Figure 2: Scree plot: Three-component solution

viii

58
64

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

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.

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).

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

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.

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.

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;

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

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

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 cognitionthose 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
. . .flexible but firm, maintaining control and discipline but showing some
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, 36item 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, AfricanAmerican 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 parentadolescent 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 fiveitem 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
Kauffold- Children &
Entner
adolescents

No.
218

GI measure*
GIQ, GIS

Constructs
Separation &
Divorce God
Concept

Findings**
NSS

Muller

Adolescent
(females)

100

5F-AC, FDOG

GI Self-Image
Abuse Status

Shakel

Adults (23-83
years)

72

Interview,
BSLS, GAC-B

Parent Death
Experience of
God (Adult)

SS-Race
NSS
Abuse
SS

Dickie

Children (4-11 N= 49
N =9A
years)

Interview
BSRI

GI Parent Image

SS

Hertel &
Donahue

8,000
5th-9th grade
adults (Parents) 10,000

SIS

Parent GI
Parenting Child
GI

SS

Adults (grad
149 GIS, GAC,
Birth Order GI
NSS
LCGS
students)
Adolescents
84 PACI, SEI,
SS
Chartier
GI
th
th
LCGS (5 items) Communication
&
(10 -ll
Self-Esteem
Goehner
grade)
*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.
Peterson

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 membersLynn Olson, PhD, ABPP, and
Glen Moriarty, PsyDtwo 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 #
1

Source type
Unitarian Universalist

Geographic area
Great plains

# of Surveys (n)
24

Unitarian Universalist

Midsouth

Evangelical

Great plains

35

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)
#

Developmental disability*

10

10

13

10

13

11

11

12

13

13+

Unknown

Age (years)

*Needed help with reading and/or comprehension of items.

49

Table 4
Participants: Number by Religious Perspective (n = 79)
Religious perspective
Protestant

29

Orthodox

Catholic

Agnostic

Jewish

0
23

Unitarian
Atheist

Pagan

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 electionin which case, consent was not
providedor 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
Participants
(n = 132)
6

Percentage of N
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)

Response to
survey
"No"

Response description

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

Item
God & I are close to one another
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
I worry if I am ok with God
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
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
God approves of my decisions

SD

2.52
2.05
2.64
2.20
2.91
1.92
1.99
2.77
1.92
1.73
1.41
2.01
3.82
4.31
4.19
4.25
3.89
4.05
3.90
3.81
4.08
4.30
3.82
4.15
3.68
4.18
4.06
4.69
4.53
4.46
3.48
4.38
4.05
3.60

1.37
1.41
1.59
1.48
1.71
1.45
1.39
1.52
1.42
1.27
.93
1.56
1.57
1.10
1.25
1.20
1.46
1.34
1.44
1.47
1.50
2.51
1.46
1.23
1.61
1.22
1.20
1.00
1.18
1.19
1.44
1.03
1.48
1.13

Missing
N
%
0
.0
0
.0
1
1.3
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
1
1.3
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
1
1.3
0
.0
1
1.3
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
1
1.3
0
.0
0
.0
1
.0
2
2.5
0
.0
1
1.3
0
.0
0
.0
1
1.3
0
.0
0
.0
2
2.5
0
.0
1
1.3
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
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
34

Eigenvalue
10.721*
3.182*
2.109*
1.921*
1.773*
1.362*
1.268*
1.078*
.965
.941
.811
.763
.744
.686
.624
.568
.511
.500
.443
.421
.322
.304
.269
.258
.255
.230
.206
.183
.176
.119
.107
.082
.060
.039

% of variance
31.53
9.36
6.20
5.65
5.21
4.00
3.73
3.17
2.84
2.77
2.39
2.24
2.19
2.02
1.84
1.67
1.50
1.47
1.30
1.24
0.95
0.89
0.79
0.76
0.75
0.68
0.61
0.54
0.52
0.35
0.32
0.24
0.18
0.12

% cumulative
31.53
40.89
47.09
52.74
57.96
61.96
65.69
68.86
71.70
74.47
76.85
79.10
81.29
83.30
85.14
86.81
88.31
89.78
91.09
92.32
93.27
94.17
94.96
95.72
96.47
97.14
97.75
98.29
98.80
99.15
99.47
99.71
99.88
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

God is in control of everything

God protects me from bad things
God is fair to me
God is always there for me
God takes care of most things in my life
God is like a parent to me
God shows me the way I should be
God will listen to me at any time
God is proud of me
God helps me with the things I care about
God helps me feel better when I'm upset
My ideas are important to God
God is far away from me
God is happy with me
God & I are close to one another
God believes I am a good son/ daughter
God thinks that I am good enough
I wonder if God is happy with me
I worry if I am ok with God
It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others
God is not pleased with my school work
I am worried about if God loves me
God thinks I am a failure

1
0.81
-0.79
0.78
-0.77
-0.76
0.75
0.74
0.71
-0.69
-0.68
0.68
-0.67
0.66
-0.64
-0.60
0.50
0.48
0.14
0.00
-0.19
0.30
-0.05
0.08

2
0.17
-0.04
-0.06
-0.11
0.13
0.18
-0.05
-0.02
0.13
-0.03
-0.10
0.10
0.09
0.00
-0.12
-0.15
0.02
0.81
0.81
0.10
0.03
0.52
0.02

60

3
0.03
-0.05
0.11
-0.03
-0.13
0.02
-0.04
-0.02
0.18
-0.35
-0.05
0.11
-0.33
0.24
0.29
0.20
-0.04
0.03
0.09
0.69
0.66
0.61
-0.07

Component
4
5
0.05
-0.06
-0.04
-0.14
-0.21
0.02
-0.08
0.02
-0.18
0.09
0.06
-0.06
0.22
0.15
-0.03
0.14
-0.12
-0.15
-0.30
0.05
-0.13
0.08
-0.46
0.08
0.24
0.04
-0.28
-0.21
-0.21
-0.14
0.22
0.25
0.40
0.15
0.06
-0.15
-0.16
0.05
-0.07
0.32
-0.12
-0.16
-0.16
-0.03
0.85
0.15

6
0.00
-0.03
0.14
-0.19
-0.09
0.19
0.11
0.07
-0.33
-0.17
0.38
0.16
-0.24
-0.33
0.02
0.47
0.44
0.12
-0.21
-0.16
-0.02
0.03
0.08

7
1
o
00

Item

0.14
0.03
0.15
0.08
-0.38
-0.15
-0.13
0.05
0.05
-0.20
0.13
-0.06
-0.09
-0.16
0.15
-0.07
0.13
-0.17
0.17
-0.01
-0.01
-0.09

8
0.04
-0.18
0.03
-0.02
-0.11
-0.06
-0.06
0.02
0.25
-0.06
-0.25
0.03
-0.11
0.31
-0.01
-0.24
-0.25
-0.04
-0.02
0.12
0.01
-0.22
0.00

Item

00

2
-0.33
-0.24
0.13
l
I*

1
0.24
0.06
0.43
0.12
0.25
-0.30
-0.45
0.20
-0.32
-0.49
0.00

God is not pleased with me

God thinks that I look as good as other kids
God thinks what I want is important
I get mad at God for not answering me
God approves of my decisions
I can't do anything without God
I don't need to be close to God
God wants me to be myself
I trust myself more than I trust God
When I pray, I tell God my feelings
I am afraid that God does not love me

-0.02
0.00
0.08
0.25
0.07
0.04
-0.42

61

3
-0.17
0.08
-0.17
-0.14
-0.11
-0.07
0.29
-0.26
0.00
0.27
-0.22

Component
5
4
-0.03
0.58
0.68
0.22
0.57
0.00
-0.52
0.52
0.05
-0.02
0.01
-0.05
-0.07
0.15
0.37
0.22
-0.09
0.25
0.09
0.06
0.17
-0.25

6
-0.06
0.22
-0.01
0.05
0.76
0.26
-0.17
0.10
-0.11
-0.12
0.17

7
-0.02
-0.07
0.19
0.14
0.08
0.81
0.53
-0.49
0.34
0.23
0.12

8
-0.18
-0.04
0.20
0.18
0.19
0.08
-0.14
0.09
-0.63
0.57
0.56

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
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
34

Eigenvalue
10.721*
3.182*
2.109*
1.921
1.773
1.362
1.268
1.078
.965
.941
.811
.763
.744
.686
.624
.568
.511
.500
.443
.421
.322
.304
.269
.258
.255
.230
.206
.183
.176
.119
.107
.082
.060
.039

% of variance
31.53
9.36
6.20
5.65
5.21
4.00
3.73
3.17
2.84
2.77
2.39
2.24
2.19
2.02
1.84
1.67
1.50
1.47
1.30
1.24
0.95
0.89
0.79
0.76
0.75
0.68
0.61
0.54
0.52
0.35
0.32
0.24
0.18
0.12

% cumulative
31.53
40.89
47.09
52.74
57.96
61.96
65.69
68.86
71.70
74.47
76.85
79.10
81.29
83.30
85.14
86.81
88.31
89.78
91.09
92.32
93.27
94.17
94.96
95.72
96.47
97.14
97.75
98.29
98.80
99.15
99.47
99.71
99.88
100.00

*Components with eigenvalues > 2 should be retained according to this solution.

63

Scree Plot

*3+.
10-

y-r

>

4"

0"
1011 1213141S16 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
God is in control of everything
God is always there for me
I don't need to be close to God
God protects me from bad things
God is far away from me
God is fair to me
I can't do anything without God
God will listen to me at any time
When I pray, I tell God my feelings
God wants me to be myself
I trust myself more than I trust God
Component 2: Value
God believes I am a good son/ daughter
God thinks that I am good enough
God is happy with me
God thinks that I look as good as other kids
God thinks what I want is important
God approves of my decisions
Component 3: Acceptance
I am worried about if God loves me
I worry if I am ok with God
I am afraid that God does not love me
It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others
I get mad at God for not answering me
God is not pleased with me
God is not pleased with my school work
I wonder if God is happy with me

-.81
-.78
.70
.68
.68
-.64
-.62
.62
-.60
.51
-.44
.42
.79
.71
-.69
.61
.49
.45
.77
.65
-.60
.58
-.54
-.51
.46
.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 parentingparallel 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. Wellestablished 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 illusionSigmund
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, 340352.
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: SpringerVerlag.
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, 315334.
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 StifossHanssen, 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.93.5.505522
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:
Faculty Chair:
Faculty Co-Chair:

Heather D. Bermudez, M.A., Doctoral Candidate (918) 260.2895

Dr. Lynn A. Olson, Assistant Professor (757) 352.4432
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
No

If Yes, turn the page and begin The God Survey

IfJo, 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

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

3=Usually

96

4=A Lot

1=No

2=Sort-of

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

3=Usually

97

1=No

2=Sort-of

3=Usually

4=A Lot

35. When I do something wrong, God:

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

Helps me change and do it right next time

Makes sure I do it the right way next time
Let's me figure out a better way on my own
Does not notice my mistake

36. When it comes to my school work, God:

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

Wants me to do it right, every time

Wants me to do it the best way I know how
Is not worried about my school work
Helps me understand and learn

37. When I am worried about something, God:

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

Has no idea what I am worried about

Fixes it and tells me to think about something else
Helps me find a way to feel better about it
Cares about it, but I sort it out on my own

38. When I am tired or sleeping, God:

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

Watches over me and helps me rest

Does not know I am tired or sleeping
Let's me sleep as long as I want
Makes me sleep

39. When I am having fun, God:

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

Doesn't know what I am doing that is so fun

Is glad that I am having fun when I obey the rules
Keeps track of what I am doing every second
Lets me keep having fun

40. When it comes to keeping my room clean, God:

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

Wants me to do it right, every time

Wants me to do it the way I know how
Is not worried about my room
Helps me understand and learn

98

5=Yes

1=No

2=Sort-of

3=Usually

4=A Lot

41. When I am happy about something, God:

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

Doesn't know what I am happy about

Is happy with me and wants to talk about what makes me happy
Is glad I'm happy as long as I behave
Doesn't ask what I am happy about

42. When I do something good, God:

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

Is not interested in what I did

Wants to know exactly how I did it and tells me how to do it better
Is happy with me and wants to hear about it
Tells me good job and lets me figure out how to keep it up

43. When I am afraid, God:

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

Protects me and let's me know it's ok

Changes things completely so I'm not scared
Does not know I'm scared
Just tells me not to be afraid

44. When I am sick, God:

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

Doesn't do anything to make it better

Takes care of me and helps me feel better
Wants me to feel better
Makes me feel better

99

5=Yes

Appendix E: Item-Scale-Content

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Scale

Survey Item

Attachment
(Avoidant)

God & I are close to one another

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
I worry if I am ok with God
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

Attachment
(Anxious)

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Adjectives

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

23

SelfPerceptions

God thinks that I am good enough

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

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

God approves of my decisions

34

Parenting
35
35
35
35

C
L
N
P

36
36
36
36

C
L
N
P

37
37
37
37

C
L
N
P

38
38
38
38

C
L
N
P

39
39
39
39

C
L
N
P

40
40
40
40

C
L
N
P

41
41

C
L

41
41

N
P
C

When I do something wrong, God:

Makes sure I do it the right way next time
Helps me change and do it right next time
Does not notice my mistake
Let's me figure out a better way on my own
When it comes to my school work, God:
Wants me to do it right, every time
Helps me understand and learn
Is not worried about my school work
Wants me to do it the best way I know how
When I am worried about something, God:
Fixes it and tells me to think about something else
Helps me find a way to feel better about it
Has no idea what I am worried about
Cares about it, but I sort it out on my own
When I am tired or sleeping, God:
Makes me sleep
Watches over me and helps me rest
Does not know I am tired or sleeping
Let's me sleep as long as I want
When I am having fun, God:
Keeps track of what I am doing every second
Is glad that I am having fun when I obey the rules
Doesn't know what I am doing that is so fun
Lets me keep having fun
When it comes to keeping my room clean, God:
Wants me to do it right, every time
Helps me understand and learn
Is not worried about my room
Wants me to do it the way I know how
When I am happy about something, God:
Is glad I'm happy as long as I behave
Is happy with me and wants to talk about what makes me
happy
Doesn't know what I am happy about
Doesn't ask what I'm happy about
When I do something good, God:
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.
B.
C.
D.

Helps me change and do it right next time (Loving/Authoritative)

Makes sure I do it the right way next time (Authoritarian/Controlling)
Let's me figure out a better way on my own (Permissive)
Does not notice my mistake (Neglectful)

2. When it comes to my school work, God:

A.
B.
C.
D.

Wants me to do it right, every time (Authoritarian/Controlling)

Wants me to do it the way I know how (Permissive)
Is not worried about my school work (Neglectful)
Helps me understand and learn (Authoritative/Loving)

104

3. When I am worried about something, God:

A.
B.
C.
D.

Has no idea what I am worried about (Neglectful)

Fixes it and tells me to think about something else
(Controlling/Authoritarian)
Helps me find a way to feel better about it (Loving/Authoritative)
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.
B.
C.
D.

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)

6. When it comes to keeping my room clean, God:

A
E.
F.
G.

Wants me to do it right, every time (Authoritarian/Controlling)

Wants me to do it the way I know how (Permissive)
Is not worried about my room (Neglectful)
Helps me understand and learn (Authoritative/Loving)

7. When I am happy about something, God:

A.
B.
C.
D.

Doesn't know what I am happy about (Neglectful)

Is happy with me and wants to talk about what makes me happy
(Loving/Authoritative)
(Authoritarian/Controlling)
Doesn't ask what I am happy about (Permissive)

8. When I accomplish something good, God:

A.
B.
C.
D.

Is not interested in what I achieved (Neglectful)

Wants to know exactly how I did it and tells me how to do it better
(Authoritarian/Controlling)
Is happy with me and wants to hear about it (Authoritative/Loving)
Tells me good job and lets me figure out how to keep it up (Permissive)

105

9. When I am afraid, God:

A.
B.
C.
D.

Protects me and let's me know it's ok (Loving/Authoritative)

Changes things completely so I'm not scared (Controlling/Authoritarian)
Does not know I'm scared (Neglectful)
Just tells me not to be afraid (Permissive)

10. When I am sick, God:

A.
B.
C.
D.

Doesn't do anything to make it better (Neglectful)

Takes care of me and helps me feel better (Loving/Authoritative)
Wants me to feel better (Permissive)
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
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5

2=Sort-of

3=Usually

God & I are close to one another

I get mad at God for not answering me
God is fair to me

When it comes to my school work, God:

111

4=ALot

5=Yes

1
1
1
1

2
2
2
2

3
3
3
3

4
4
4
4

5
5
5
5

Wants me to do it right every time

Wants me to do it the best way I know how
Is not worried about my school work
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