See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283239041

Attachment to God, adult attachment, and spiritual pathology: Mediator and

moderator effects

Article  in  Mental Health Religion & Culture · October 2015

DOI: 10.1080/13674676.2015.1090965

CITATIONS READS

5 777

4 authors:

Steven j. Sandage Peter J. Jankowski

Boston University Bethel University (Minnesota)
121 PUBLICATIONS   3,081 CITATIONS    65 PUBLICATIONS   814 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sarah A. Crabtree Maria L. Schweer-Collins

Boston University University of Oregon
17 PUBLICATIONS   80 CITATIONS    21 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Validation of DSI-R (Skowron & Schmitt, 2003) to the Greek speaking population (Greece and Cyprus) View project

Humility, Forgiveness and Relationship Satisfaction among Indian Couples View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steven j. Sandage on 24 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mental Health, Religion & Culture

ISSN: 1367-4676 (Print) 1469-9737 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cmhr20

Attachment to God, adult attachment, and

spiritual pathology: mediator and moderator
effects

Steven J. Sandage, Peter Jankowski, Sarah A. Crabtree & Maria Schweer

To cite this article: Steven J. Sandage, Peter Jankowski, Sarah A. Crabtree & Maria Schweer
(2015): Attachment to God, adult attachment, and spiritual pathology: mediator and
moderator effects, Mental Health, Religion & Culture, DOI: 10.1080/13674676.2015.1090965

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2015.1090965

Published online: 16 Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cmhr20

Download by: [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] Date: 23 November 2015, At: 08:26
 Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2015.1090965

Attachment to God, adult attachment, and spiritual pathology: mediator

and moderator effects
Steven J. Sandagea*, Peter Jankowskib, Sarah A. Crabtreec and Maria Schweerd
a
School of Theology, The Albert and Jessie Danielsen Institute, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA;
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

b
Department of Psychology, Bethel University, St Paul, MN, USA; cDepartment of Family Social Science,
University of Minnesota, Couple and Family Therapy, St Paul, USA; dCounseling Psychology and Human
Services, University of Oregon, Eugene, USA
(Received 11 March 2015; accepted 2 September 2015)

In this exploratory study, we examined moderated mediation models grounded in

psychoanalytic and attachment theory regarding the correspondence between adult
attachment and Divine–human relating in a sample of graduate students in the USA. Results
supported the correspondence hypothesis as positive correlations between adult attachment
dimensions and attachment to God dimensions were observed. An interaction effect was
observed as spiritual grandiosity moderated the indirect effect between insecure adult
attachment and insecure God attachment dimensions through spiritual instability. Results
therefore provided support for the theoretical notion that spiritual dysregulation can function
as a mechanism of the attachment correspondence that varies as a function of spiritual
grandiosity. Findings are discussed in the context of advancing existing theory on implicit
models of attachment correspondence and the nature of the association between spiritual
insecurity and spiritual grandiosity.
Keywords: spirituality; attachment; spiritual instability; spiritual grandiosity; religion

While empirical research has largely focused on operationalising positive or healthy forms of
spirituality, there is a growing literature on forms of spiritual pathology or the ways that relating
to God can exhibit dysfunction or demonstrate associations with negative outcomes (e.g., Ellison,
Fang, Flannelly, & Steckler, 2013; Sandage & Crabtree, 2012; Wagener & Malony, 2006). We use
the term spiritual pathology to refer to “troubled relationships with God” (Ellison et al., 2013,
p. 215). However, whereas others have used the term spiritual struggle to conceptualise troubled
relating to God (e.g., Ellison et al., 2013; Pargament, Murray-Swank, Magyar, & Ano, 2005), we
use the term pathology because our operationalisation of troubled relating has features in common
with clinical disorders (Hall & Edwards, 2002; Hall, Reise, & Haviland, 2007). From an
attachment theory perspective, troubled relating is further defined by experiences of insecure
Divine–human interaction (i.e., felt insecurity; Granqvist, 2005; Granqvist & Kirkpatrick,
2008; Kirkpatrick, 2005). In the current study, we explored two theoretical models of the associ-
ations between adult attachment, attachment to God, and two measures of spiritual pathology

*Corresponding author. Email: ssandage@bu.edu

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

 2 S.J. Sandage et al.

grounded in psychoanalytic and attachment theory – spiritual instability and spiritual grandiosity
(Hall & Edwards, 2002; Hall et al., 2007).

Attachment and spirituality

Spirituality can be defined as ways of relating to God (Shults & Sandage, 2006), and in this
dynamic view spirituality emerges as people construct meaning in response to implicit relational
schemas (i.e., which form a template, internal working model) that are activated while relating to
God and others, which in turn has the potential to modify or reinforce relational schemas (Granq-
vist, Mikulincer, & Shaver, 2010; Hall, Fujikawa, Halcrow, Hill, & Delaney, 2009). As such,
relating to God is thought to be associated with human relational experiences throughout the
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

course of development (e.g., Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2008; Hall & Edwards, 2002; Hall
et al., 2009). Distinct ways of relating to God emerge out of and evolve throughout this develop-
mental process, including intimate communing with God, trusting, questioning/exploration,
anxiety, and avoidance.
Two competing hypotheses have been offered for conceptualising the association between
human attachment relationships and Divine–human attachment – compensation and corre-
spondence (Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2008; Hall et al., 2009; Kirkpatrick, 2005). There is
empirical evidence in support of both hypotheses, though contradictory findings exist as
well; and there remains a need for examination of alternative explanatory models for each
(Hall et al., 2009). The compensation hypothesis suggests that individuals with insecure
human attachment experiences might become motivated to seek out God as a surrogate
attachment figure, often to help regulate distress, whereas the correspondence hypothesis sup-
poses attachment to God experiences correlate positively with attachment experiences in
human relationships. McDonald, Beck, Allison, and Norsworthy (2005), for example, demon-
strated that parent–child attachment paralleled adults’ attachment to God, whereas others have
observed positive associations between adults’ romantic attachments and attachment to God
(Beck & McDonald, 2004; Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992; Rowatt & Kirkpatrick, 2002). In the
current study, we build off (a) of previous research supporting the correspondence between
insecure adult attachment and insecure God attachment, and (b) the research integrating com-
pensation and correspondence perspectives (e.g., Hall et al., 2009). We do so using spiritual
pathology variables (i.e., spiritual instability and spiritual grandiosity) as mediators and mod-
erators of the correspondence between insecure adult attachment and insecure God
attachment.

Borderline spiritual functioning

Borderline personality profiles tend to have negative views of self and others characterised by
high levels of abandonment and engulfment anxiety, or even a simultaneous mix of both
(Gunderson & Lyons-Ruth, 2008). Borderline functioning is increasingly theorised as reflecting
an insecure attachment relational template that makes it difficult for persons to orient themselves
in relationships, particularly when conflict emerges (Critchfield, Levy, Clarkin, & Kernberg,
2008; Minzenberg, Poole, & Vinogradov, 2008). According to Wallin (2007), persons experien-
cing attachment insecurity tend to be deeply immersed in their emotional experiences such that it
is hard to step back and reflect. The internal world consistently overrides the external. Limited
differentiation exists both in terms of gaining internal space from intense emotion and distinguish-
ing self from other (Jankowski & Sandage, 2014a). It is hard for those experiencing insecure
attachment to form any consistent strategy and this can lead to vacillating between relational
distancing and pursuit.
 Mental Health, Religion & Culture 3

Spiritual instability
Spiritual instability is a form of relational spirituality consistent with borderline personality traits
(Hall & Edwards, 2002). Research that conceptualises and explores aetiology and pathology of
borderline personality disorder (BPD) has trended towards an approach called mentalisation
(i.e., the ability to think about one’s own internal state as well as another’s; Fonagy &
Bateman, 2008). Relational templates and capacities for intersubjective mentalisation of self
and other are shaped, in part, by attachment processes (Cozolino, 2006; Fonagy & Bateman,
2008) and insecure attachment experiences inhibit mentalisation (Fonagy & Bateman, 2008).
Individuals with borderline tendencies are likely to form oversimplified and inaccurate views
of others in which emotional instability, mistrust, and fear of abandonment foster inter- and intra-
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

personal dysregulation (Fonagy & Bateman, 2008; Jankowski & Sandage, 2014a; Sandage, Link,
& Jankowski, 2010).
Empirical findings demonstrate that spiritual instability positively loaded onto the same
dimension as anxious God attachment and spiritual disappointment (Hall et al., 2009), and that
spiritual instability correlated positively with the alienation, insecure attachment, and egocentri-
city subscales on the Bell Object Relations Inventory (Hall & Edwards, 2002). Higher levels of
spiritual instability have also demonstrated associations with (a) higher insecure attachment to
God (Jankowski & Sandage, 2014a), (b) increased God attachment avoidance and God attach-
ment anxiety (Beck, 2006), and (c) increased dysregulation and increased mental health symp-
toms (Sandage & Jankowski, 2010, 2013; Sandage et al., 2010). Spiritual instability seems to
activate behaviours which stem from an implicit internal working model of mistrust, fear, disap-
pointment, and alienation which then often provokes greater felt insecurity and emotional dysre-
gulation. In some cases, increases in spiritual instability might occur within an overall spiritual
development process and represent “dark nights” of spiritual experience described by certain
spiritual writers. However, the relational dynamics involved in spiritual instability as measured
in this study (i.e., fear, insecurity, mistrust, shame) tend to preclude spiritual growth until they
are transformed.

Narcissistic spiritual functioning

According to Bowlby (1988), those with a narcissistic personality structure typically experience
attachment avoidance, having learned to focus on emotional self-reliance because seeking support
from caregivers was likely to be rejected. Recent research findings distinguish grandiose from
vulnerable narcissism (Miller, Price, Gentile, Lynam, & Campbell, 2012; Pincus et al., 2009).
Narcissistic grandiosity involves an inflated self-image, entitled attitudes, feelings of superiority
and fantasies of unlimited power, and attachment avoidance. Narcissistic vulnerability, while still
characterised by entitlement and the need for admiration, involves experiences of helplessness,
shame, emptiness, low self-esteem, anxiety, and depression. Vulnerable narcissistic tendencies
show up as hypersensitive reactions to interpersonal offenses and relationships characterised
by anxious attachment experiences (Miller et al., 2012). In contrast, individuals with grandiose
narcissism tend to have more domineering, vindictive, and calculated interpersonal relating.

Spiritual grandiosity
Spiritual grandiosity (Hall & Edwards, 2002) is a way of relating to God that is consistent with the
grandiose form of narcissism (i.e., entitlement, feelings of superiority over others, inflated sense
of self, expedient relations). Spiritual grandiosity has correlated positively with the authority,
exhibitionism, and exploitativeness subscales on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory along
with egocentricity and interpersonal alienation (Hall & Edwards, 2002). Spiritual grandiosity
 4 S.J. Sandage et al.

has also negatively correlated with intercultural competence (Sandage & Harden, 2011) and
change in intercultural competence (Sandage, Li, Jankowski, Frank, & Beilby, 2015). Higher
levels of spiritual grandiosity have also been associated with lower forgivingness (Sandage &
Crabtree, 2012). This body of research suggests spiritual grandiosity is a narcissistic form of rela-
tional spirituality that hinders (a) an appreciation of differences, (b) an ability to connect with
others, and (c) the likelihood of forgiving.
It has been theorised that underneath grandiose narcissism is a “vulnerable self-concept”
(Morf & Rhodewalt, 2001, p. 178) characterised by and susceptible to emotional dysregulation
and shame (Schore, 1994). Kohut (1971) suggested that narcissism can represent a “vertical
split” in the internal structure of the self, someone who seems unaffected and relatively stable
on the surface but this narcissistic façade serves to defend against considerable affective instabil-
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

ity. Similarly, attachment theorists view narcissism as a pattern of avoidance, deactivating the
attachment system to defend against feelings of anxiety, vulnerability, and shame (Wallin, 2007).

The present study

In this exploratory study, we tested models of the correspondence between insecure adult attach-
ment and insecure God attachment among graduate trainees in the helping professions at a Pro-
testant-affiliated university in the USA. A growing body of research suggests attachment security
among helping professionals and trainees is associated with a variety of important factors for
effective counselling and therapy, most notably the capacity to develop and maintain a healthy
working alliance (Marmarosh et al., 2015). In addition, grandiose narcissism has been identified
as a particular risk among spiritual leaders and other helping professionals who may feel pressure
to appear virtuous and altruistic (Cooper-White, 2004). Thus, we wanted to further investigate
attachment dynamics among trainees in the helping professions.
Specifically, we examined the correspondence between insecure adult attachment and inse-
cure God attachment in two moderated mediation models (i.e., a model examining avoidant
attachment correspondence, and then a model examining anxious attachment correspondence)
with spiritual instability as a mediator and spiritual grandiosity as the moderator of the indirect
and direct effects. The indirect and conditional effects tested the theoretical premise that there
is a complex association between borderline functioning and grandiose narcissism, and specifi-
cally that spiritual instability may be a more implicit form of relating to God, whereas spiritual
grandiosity may be a response to the self-dysregulation typical of spiritual instability (Hall
et al., 2009; Kramer, de Roten, Perry, & Despland, 2013). Others have similarly suggested that
the dysregulation characteristic of borderline personality traits may undergird grandiose forms
of narcissism (Kernberg, 1975; Schore, 1994) or that narcissism may defend against the emotional
dysregulation associated with attachment vulnerability (Wallin, 2007).
There is a lack of empirical research examining the theorised association between spiritual
instability and grandiosity, and especially so when examining attachment correspondence. Never-
theless, the mediating role for spiritual instability between insecure adult attachment and insecure
God attachment rests on existing research which demonstrates positive bivariate associations
between instability and insecure attachment to God, emotional dysregulation, and mental
health symptoms (Beck, 2006; Jankowski & Sandage, 2014a; Sandage & Jankowski, 2010,
2013; Sandage et al., 2010). As an indicator of dysregulation we hypothesised a significant
indirect effect through spiritual instability in the adult attachment – God attachment correspon-
dence. The proposed indirect effect is thought to be consistent with prior research documenting
an affect regulation process for adult and God attachment dimensions (e.g., Jankowski &
Sandage, 2011, 2014a).
 Mental Health, Religion & Culture 5
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

Figure 1. Moderated mediation model predicting insecure adult attachment.

The moderating role for spiritual grandiosity is more speculative, given the lack of empirical
research using spiritual grandiosity in general, and the dearth of research examining grandiosity in
conjunction with instability. Nevertheless, the hypothesised interaction effect for spiritual grandi-
osity rests on two empirical findings, that when considered in light of the theorised associations
between instability and grandiosity (Hall et al., 2009; Kernberg, 1975; Kramer et al., 2013;
Schore, 1994; Wallin, 2007) suggests that spiritual grandiosity may moderate the direct and
indirect effects in models examining attachment insecurity and emotional dysregulation. One
such basis for speculating about an interaction is an observed quadratic effect for spiritual grandi-
osity when predicting forgivingness (i.e., capacity for regulating negative affect; Sandage & Crab-
tree, 2012). Spiritual instability was a significant negative predictor in the model along with a
quadratic effect. The quadratic effect indicated that moderate levels of spiritual grandiosity were
associated with highest levels of forgivingness while higher levels of grandiosity were associated
with decreased forgivingness. Another basis for hypothesising a moderating role for grandiosity
rests on the finding that when spiritual grandiosity was included in a model examining meditative
prayer (i.e., secure attachment relating to God) through dispositional gratitude (i.e., appreciative
attitude) to intercultural competence (i.e., noticing difference and adapting behaviour appropri-
ately), the sign of the indirect effect switched from negative to positive, albeit the effect remained
nonsignificant and the model was not a focal point of the study (Jankowski & Sandage, 2014b).
Taken together, however, the results seem to point to a potential moderating role for spiritual grandi-
osity in models examining attachment insecurity and emotional dysregulation.
We therefore hypothesised that two of the paths in the moderated mediation model between
insecure adult attachment and insecure God attachment through spiritual instability would be con-
ditioned by spiritual grandiosity (i.e., a significant interaction effect; see Figure 1). More specifi-
cally, we expected that the indirect effect would strengthen as spiritual grandiosity increased,
supporting the theoretical notion that greater levels of grandiosity correspond to attachment
vulnerability and increased dysregulation. We conducted our analyses by separate dimensions
of insecure adult and God attachment: one moderated mediation model for the avoidant
adult attachment – avoidant God attachment association, and one model for the anxious adult
attachment – anxious God attachment association.

Method
Participants
Participants were 176 masters-level students in helping professions from a Protestant-affiliated
university in the Midwest. They ranged in age from 21 to 64, and the mean age was 33.28
 6 S.J. Sandage et al.

(SD = 10.78). The sample was 56.2% female and 43.8% male. Participants identified as 92.6%
European-American, 2.8% Asian or Asian-American, 2.3% Black-American, 1.1% Hispanic,
and 1.2% other.

Measures
Adult attachment
The Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998) is a 36-item
self-report measure of adult romantic relationships along the dimensions of anxiety and avoid-
ance. The anxiety (ECR-AX) subscale assesses abandonment concerns, while the avoidant
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

(ECR-AV) subscale assesses behavioural strategies used to manage emotions. Participants

rated items on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). A sample item on
ECR-AX was “I worry about being abandoned” and on ECR-AV “I feel comfortable depending
on romantic partners”. The ECR has demonstrated validity and achieved internal consistency
scores of α = .91 for the ECR-AX and .94 for the ECR-AV (Brennan et al., 1998). In this
study, the α for ECR-AX was .90 and for ECR-AV was .92.

Relational spirituality
Relational spirituality was assessed using items from two subscales of the Spiritual Assessment
Inventory (SAI), which has demonstrated construct validity (Hall & Edwards, 2002; Hall et al.,
2007). First, spiritual instability was assessed using the nine-item self-report subscale of the SAI
that measures relational traits consistent with BPD. High scores on the spiritual instability
subscale represent self-regulation difficulties and a lack of integration of good and bad
self-objects. Sample items are “There are times when I feel that God is punishing me” and “I
am afraid that God will give up on me”. Participants responded using a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Cronbach’s alpha in this study was .77.
Second, spiritual grandiosity was measured through a five-item scale derived from the seven-
item subscale on the SAI that assesses qualities consistent with narcissistic personality traits, for
example, ‘‘I seem to have a unique ability to influence God through my prayers”. Participants
responded using a scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true). Hall et al. (2007)
acknowledged that some of the items on the spiritual grandiosity subscale can be problematic
and intimated that a measure with fewer items may yield better psychometric properties. We
used five items that achieved practical significance (rs > |.45|), while conducting a factor analysis
of the spiritual grandiosity items in this study sample using structural equation modelling (SEM)
in AMOS 7.0 (Arbuckle, 2006; Brown, 2006). We then calculated reliability coefficient
ρ (Raykov & Shrout, 2002) using SEM (Brown, 2006; Fan, 2003), ρ = .59 (5000 bootstrap BC
95% CI [.45, .68]), construct reliability (CR = .61; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham,
2006), and α = .58.

Attachment to God
Rowatt and Kirkpatrick (2002) developed a self-report measure of persons’ relationship to God
based on the adult attachment dimensions of anxiety and avoidance. Participants rated items
on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). A sample item on the avoidance
subscale (AG-AV) was “God seems to have little or no interest in my personal problems” and
on the anxiety subscale (AG-AX) “God’s reactions to me seem to be inconsistent”. The subscales
demonstrated evidence of construct validity, and demonstrated internal consistency alphas of
 Mental Health, Religion & Culture 7

.92 for AG-AV and .80 for AG-AX, although psychometric concerns were noted (Rowatt & Kirk-
patrick, 2002). In this study, one item on the AG-AV subscale did not achieve practical signifi-
cance (rs < |.40|) and so we used a five-item AG-AV subscale (α = .81, ρ = .80, 5000 bootstrap
BC 95% CI [.71, .86]), and the three-item AG-AX subscale (α = .66, ρ = .67, BC 95% CI [.57,
.74]).

Data analytic procedures

We examined the data for outliers and normality. Univariate skewness was not a problem (i.e.,
skewness index < |3.00|; Kline, 2011), nor was univariate kurtosis (i.e., kurtosis index < |10.00|;
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

Kline, 2011). Multivariate outliers were non-problematic, and multivariate normality was not vio-
lated (i.e., multivariate kurtosis critical ratio < 5.00; Byrne, 2010). We analysed the moderated
mediation models using PROCESS (Hayes, 2013, 2014), which is an SPSS macro for examining
path analysis-based models.

Results
Table 1 contains descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations for the variables used in the ana-
lyses. Bivariate associations offered support for a correspondence between attachment to God
dimensions and adult attachment dimensions. Next we examined age and gender in relation to
each of the variables. Ethnicity was not examined due to the small sample sizes in some of the
groups. Age correlated negatively with spiritual instability (r = −.19, p = .01) and ECR-AX
scores (r = −.29, p = .00). Participants also differed by gender on spiritual instability with
males scoring higher than females (F(1, 174) = 4.44, p = .04; M = 1.90, SD = .60 for males [n =
77], M = 1.71, SD = .51 for females [n = 99]), and ECR-AV scores with males scoring lower
than females (F(1, 174) = 7.53, p = .007; M = 40.84, SD = 18.05 for males [n = 77], M = 48.79,
SD = 19.79 for females [n = 99]). Last, Hall and Edwards (2002) noted that spiritual impression
management (IM) exhibited unique effects with spiritual grandiosity, for example, when control-
ling for IM, the positive correlation between grandiosity and instability increased. We therefore
examined associations between IM and each of the variables. In this study, IM was positively cor-
related with grandiosity (r = .34, p < .001), and negatively correlated with both avoidant God
attachment (r = -.29, p < .001) and anxious God attachment (r = −.27, p < .001). Given these

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlation matrix of God attachment, spiritual instability,
spiritual grandiosity, and adult attachment.
M SD AG-AX AG-AV SAI-I SAI-G ECR-AX ECR-AV
AG-AX 2.71 1.18 – .48*** .25** −.16* .23** .22**
AG-AV 1.73 .75 – .40*** −.14 .26** .27***
SAI-SI 1.79 .56 – .08 .40*** .27***
SAI-SG 1.76 .55 – .003 .12
ECR-AX 50.17 18.32 – .48***
ECR-AV 45.31 19.40 –
Note: N = 176. AG-AX = Attachment to God – Anxiety; AG-AV = Attachment to God – Avoidance; SAI-SI = Spiritual
Assessment Inventory – Spiritual Instability; SAI-SG = Spiritual Assessment Inventory – Spiritual Grandiosity; ECR-AX
= Experiences in Close Relationships – Anxiety; ECR-AV = Experiences in Close Relationships – Avoidance.
*p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001
 8 S.J. Sandage et al.

associations, age, gender, and IM were used as covariates in the tests of the proposed moderated
mediation models.

Tests of the conditional effects

The proposed conditional effects models were examined using PROCESS (Hayes, 2013,
2014), while controlling for age, gender, and impression management. First, in the model for
attachment avoidance, an overall significant model was observed: F(8, 167) = 9.55, p < .001,
R 2 = .32; along with significant two-way interactions between: (a) spiritual instability and grandi-
osity (B = .40, SE = .18, t = 2.28, p = .02) and (b) adult attachment avoidance and spiritual grandi-
osity (B = −.02, SE = .004, t = -3.49, p = .001). Conditional indirect effects were calculated at a
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

range of values for spiritual grandiosity, using 5000 bootstrap samples. Results revealed that
the indirect effect between adult attachment avoidance and God attachment avoidance through
instability increased in strength as grandiosity increased. More specifically, at a value of 1.00
for grandiosity, the indirect effect was nonsignificant: B = .001, SE = .002, 95% CI (−.001,
.005); at grandiosity = 1.40, the indirect effect was: B = .003, SE = .001, 95% CI (.001, .006);
and at grandiosity = 2.40, the indirect effect was: B = .01, SE = .002, 95% CI (.003, .01).
Conditional direct effects were also calculated at a range of values for grandiosity. Results
indicated that the direct effect was significant at lower levels of spiritual grandiosity and
became nonsignificant at higher levels of grandiosity. Specifically, at grandiosity = 1.22, the
direct effect was: B = .02, SE = .004, t = 4.45, p < .001; at grandiosity = 1.76, the direct effect
was: B = .01, SE = .003, t = 3.18, p = .002; and at grandiosity = 2.31, the direct effect was: B
= .001, SE = .003, t = .17, p = .87. Figure 2 depicts the significant conditional direct and indirect
effects for the attachment avoidance correspondence as a function of spiritual grandiosity. The
results support moderated mediation for the avoidance attachment model.

Figure 2. Depiction of the conditional direct and indirect effects for adult attachment avoidance on God
attachment avoidance as a function of spiritual grandiosity.
Note: The Y axis represents estimated differences in God attachment avoidance, and as such the slopes depict
how much the association between adult attachment avoidance and God attachment avoidance increased as
spiritual grandiosity increased.
 Mental Health, Religion & Culture 9
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

Figure 3. Depiction of the conditional direct and indirect effects for adult attachment anxiety on God
attachment anxiety as a function of spiritual grandiosity.
Note: The Y axis represents estimated differences in God attachment anxiety, and as such the slopes depict
how much the association between adult attachment anxiety and God attachment anxiety increased as spiri-
tual grandiosity increased.

Second, in the model for attachment anxiety, an overall significant model was observed: F(8,
167) = 4.31, p = .0001, R 2 = .17; along with a significant two-way interaction between spiritual
instability and grandiosity (B = .66, SE = .31, t = 2.12, p = .04). Conditional indirect effects
were calculated at a range of values for grandiosity, using 5000 bootstrap samples. Results
revealed that the indirect effect between adult attachment anxiety and God attachment anxiety
through instability was nonsignificant at lower levels of grandiosity but became significant
at higher levels. More specifically, at a value of 1.40 for grandiosity, the indirect effect was non-
significant: B = .001, SE = .003, 95% CI (−.005, .007); at grandiosity = 2.20, the indirect effect
was: B = .008, SE = .003, 95% CI (.002, .02); and at a value of grandiosity = 2.40, the indirect
effect was: B = .01, SE = .004, 95% CI (.003, .02). The direct effect between adult attachment
anxiety and God attachment anxiety was not conditioned by spiritual grandiosity (B = −.01,
SE = .01, t = −1.04, p = .30), nor was the direct effect significant (B = .03, SE = .02, t = 1.54,
p = .13). Figure 3 depicts the nonsignificant conditional direct effect and significant indirect
effect for the attachment anxiety correspondence as a function of spiritual grandiosity. The
results support moderated mediation for the anxious attachment model.

Discussion
We found support for the attachment correspondence hypothesis as avoidant adult attachment
correlated positively with God attachment avoidance, and anxious adult attachment correlated
positively with the anxiety dimension of God attachment. Our findings also offered support for
the theoretical premise that spiritual instability and spiritual grandiosity may interact in
complex ways in the context of insecure attachment relating and specifically the correspondence
 10 S.J. Sandage et al.

between adult and God attachment. We surmised that spiritual grandiosity may represent a defen-
sive response to the self-dysregulation typical of spiritual instability (Hall et al., 2009; Kramer
et al., 2013; see also, Kernberg, 1975; Schore, 1994), and therefore that the mediating effect
for instability would increase as grandiosity increased. We observed a significant conditional
indirect effect in the correspondence between adult attachment avoidance and God attachment
avoidance, and between anxious adult attachment and anxious God attachment. The findings
seem to suggest that affect regulation difficulties associated with insecure human attachment
experiences may be associated with a dysregulated form of spirituality, which in turn may be
associated with increased felt insecurity in one’s relationship with God. This process appeared
stronger at higher levels of spiritual grandiosity, perhaps because of the need to defend against
elevating levels of instability.
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

Our findings are consistent with others reporting a correspondence between human attach-
ment and God attachment. However, perhaps more notable is that our findings confirm ideas
about an implicit level correspondence (Granqvist, 2005; Hall et al., 2009). Hall et al. (2009)
found empirical evidence for two types of implicit level correspondence, one which they
labeled experiential correspondence (i.e., correspondence between “individuals’ implicit, ‘gut-
level’ knowledge of how to be with human attachment figures”, and tacit, habituated relating
to God; p. 241). Relational experiences over the course of development get “encoded in implicit
memory” (Hall et al., 2009, p. 231) and implicit models of relating can, especially for some
individuals, be infused with religious experiences of God throughout the lifecycle. Others
might experience more discontinuity in their encoding of human–Divine relating; having more
direct explicit relational experiences with God after early childhood. As such, attachment relating
might over time reflect both continuity with implicit childhood human relational models and dis-
continuity due to transformative adult and God attachment experiences (Kirkpatrick, 2005).
Because spiritual instability may reflect an implicit relational model (Hall & Edwards, 2002;
Hall et al., 2007), our findings potentially depict a process whereby insecure adult attachment
corresponds to insecure God attachment through more implicit dysregulated relating to God.
Our conditional effects findings offer additional nuanced understanding of the correspon-
dence. Grandiosity can be framed as a narcissistic defense mechanism (i.e., “omnipotence, ideal-
isation, and devaluation”) for underlying borderline functioning (Kramer et al., 2013, p. 9). Hence,
as this more intentional, explicit strategy for managing dysregulation increased, we observed that
the indirect effect through instability increased in the avoidance attachment model (i.e., nonsigni-
ficant at lowest level of grandiosity and becoming significant and increasing in size as grandiosity
increased). Similarly, in the anxious attachment correspondence, the indirect effect only occurred
at higher levels of grandiosity and became stronger as grandiosity increased. Since elevated levels
of spiritual instability imply lowered mentalisation (i.e., lowered self-awareness and an inability to
understand self and others’ emotional and cognitive states), increased defenses seem to be needed
to manage the attachment insecurity. This interpretation expands existing efforts to integrate cor-
respondence and compensatory models of attachment (Hall et al., 2009).
It is difficult to discern whether grandiosity represents a functional or dysfunctional response
to dysregulation. Grandiosity can depict a response to dysregulation that exhibits a positive view
of self and “adaptive self-enhancement” (Ackerman et al., 2011, p. 68) or a defense against dys-
regulation that is more exploitative, authoritarian and representative of a “temporar[y] upregulat
[ion in] self-esteem” (Kramer et al., 2013, p. 10). Regardless of whether grandiosity can be func-
tional or dysfunctional, grandiosity in all likelihood seems best viewed as a fragile or vulnerable
self-soothing and interpersonal coping strategy in compensatory response to dysregulating attach-
ment experiences. The latter is consistent with the motivational correspondence model proposed
and observed by Hall et al. (2009; i.e., “individuals’ motivation for affect regulation corresponds
to their internal working” or implicit relational models, p. 233).
 Mental Health, Religion & Culture 11

As Hall et al. (2009) noted “insecure individuals tend to use their relationship with God and
religiousness for interactive affect regulation” (p. 233). This utilitarian use of spirituality is con-
sistent with findings that suggest narcissistic individuals possess little self-awareness and believe
that others exist to meet their needs (Simpson, Newman, & Fuqua, 2008). Both spiritual grandi-
osity and instability loaded positively on a dimension labeled “instrumental relationship with
God” which was defined as a “utilitarian approach to gaining both intrapersonal and interpersonal
security and connection with God and others … reflect[ing] an intrapsychic avoidance of divine
rejection” (Simpson et al., 2008, pp. 130–131). It may be that the motivation to find comfort in
relationship with God (i.e., motivational correspondence) represents a circular process whereby
greater emotional and spiritual insecurity (i.e., dysregulation) are met with spiritual responses
to connect with God (i.e., God as safe haven, serving an affect regulating function); however,
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

the repertoire of responses is constrained by an implicit internal working model of mistrust,

fear, disappointment, and alienation, thereby preventing the individual from finding the reassur-
ance she or he needs and is seeking; which only serves to then foster increased emotional and
spiritual insecurity and dysregulation.

Limitations and future directions

The sample was primarily European-American, comprising graduate students at a Protestant
university. Research involving more diverse samples and samples with higher levels of overall
distress in clinical contexts is needed. We also recognise that our study was cross-sectional and
correlational, and so our interpretations are offered tentatively and with the recognition that
alternative explanations may be equally as compelling and consistent with the data. And yet,
we attempted to order our constructs in a manner consistent with research and theorising on
attachment correspondence. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that alternative models could be con-
ceptualised, especially given the conceptual “controversy” surrounding both attachment in
general (Burnette, Taylor, Worthington, & Forsyth, 2007, p. 1586) and the correspondence
between human attachment and Divine–human attachment specifically (Hall et al., 2009). Longi-
tudinal designs are needed to clarify the temporal sequence among variables and experimental
designs are needed to more clearly depict the process among variables. Both designs offer
increased internal validity over that of cross-sectional correlational designs.
Our ordering of the variables is grounded in our view of attachment as a dynamic interplay of
trait and “state-level (contextual) attachment” (Bell, 2009, p. 192; Rowatt & Kirkpatrick, 2002),
with trait attachment referring to an individual’s “enduring working model of relationships” (Bell,
2009, p .192) and state attachment referring to emotion regulation and the relational experience of
“felt security” (Granqvist & Hagekull, 2000, p. 122). We think of this interplay as an integration
of a psychodynamic thread in the attachment literature and a phenomenological thread, with the
latter more prominent perhaps in clinical applications of attachment (e.g., emotion-focused couple
therapy; Greenberg & Goldman, 2008; Johnson, 2002). Conceptually the adult – God attachment
correspondence is bidirectional, and yet, we ordered adult attachment as preceding God attach-
ment in our models because of the developmental initiation of internal working models in
human relationships (Hall et al., 2009). Future research might examine a non-recursive model,
and maybe do so longitudinally, which might better capture the theorised reciprocity between
human and Divine–human attachments over time.
Future research should also consider exploring the attachment compensation hypothesis (i.e.,
secure God attachment experiences can foster more secure adult attachment relationships; Kirk-
patrick, 1998; Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992). God can function as an attachment figure, correcting
for the influence of insecure attachment experiences on the construction of internal working
models formed earlier in an individual’s development (Hall et al., 2009). As Kirkpatrick and
 12 S.J. Sandage et al.

Shaver (1992) proposed “learning to experience a secure attachment relationship with God may
have enabled some people to subsequently develop more secure and stable relationships with
other people” (p. 273). Last, future research might go beyond the use of self-report data and con-
sider triangulating observational or interview methods along with self-report measures, and/or
include peer assessments of participants’ troubled relating to God.

Conclusion
In this exploratory study, we examined moderated mediation models grounded in the correspondence
between adult and Divine–human attachment relating. Results supported the correspondence hypoth-
esis as positive correlations between adult attachment and God attachment dimensions were
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

observed. We also found (a) that spiritual instability mediated the association between insecure
adult attachment and insecure attachment to God, along both avoidance and anxiety dimensions,
and (b) that the mediating effect was moderated, as spiritual instability and spiritual grandiosity
interacted, changing the positive indirect effect from nonsignificant to significant and strengthening
the positive indirect effect as grandiosity increased, in each of the attachment models. Our findings
therefore supported the theoretical premise that spiritual instability, characterised by borderline
tendencies, and spiritual grandiosity, defined by narcissistic traits, would interact in complex ways,
and in doing so, offer an initial, tentative account for attachment correspondence.

Acknowledgements
This project was supported by a grant from the Fetzer Institute (#2266).

References
Ackerman, R., Witt, E., Donnellan, M., Trzesniewski, K., Robins, R., & Kashy, D. (2011). What does the
Narcissistic Personality Inventory really measure? Assessment, 18(1), 67–87. doi:10.1177/107319111
0382845
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos 7.0 user’s guide. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.
Beck, R. (2006). Communion and complaint: Attachment, object-relations, and triangular love perspectives
on relationship with God. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 34, 43–52.
Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The Attachment to God Inventory, tests of working
model correspondence, and an exploration of faith group differences. Journal of Psychology and
Theology, 32, 92–103.
Bell, D. C. (2009). Attachment without fear. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 1(4), 177–197. doi:10.
1111/j.1756-2589.2009.00025.x
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An inte-
grative overview. In J. A.Simpson, & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships
(pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford.
Burnette, J. L., Taylor, K., Worthington, E.L.Jr., & Forsyth, D. R. (2007). Attachment and trait forgivingness:
The mediating role of angry rumination. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1585–1596. doi: 10.
1016/j.paid.2006.10.033
Byrne, B. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cooper-White, P. (2004). Shared wisdom: Use of the self in pastoral care and counseling. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress.
Cozolino, L. (2006). The neuroscience of human relationships: Attachment and the developing social brain.
New York, NY: WW Norton and Company.
Critchfield, K. L., Levy, K. N., Clarkin, J. F., & Kernberg, O. F. (2008). The relational context of aggression
in borderline personality disorder: Using adult attachment style to predict forms of hostility. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 64(1), 67–82. doi:10.1002/jclp.20434
 Mental Health, Religion & Culture 13

Ellison, C. G., Fang, Q., Flannelly, K. J., & Steckler, R. A. (2013). Spiritual struggles and mental health:
Exploring the moderating effects of religious identity. International Journal for the Psychology of
Religion, 23(3), 214–229. doi:10.1080/10508619.2012.759868
Fan, X. (2003). Using commonly available software for bootstrapping in both substantive and measurement
analyses. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(1), 24–50. doi:10.1177/0013164402239315
Fonagy, P., & Bateman, A. (2008). The development of borderline personality disorder – A mentalizing
model. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22(1), 4–21. doi:10.1521/pedi.2008.22.1.4
Granqvist, P. (2005). Building a bridge between attachment and religious coping: Tests of moderators and
mediators. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 8(1), 35–47. doi:10.1080/13674670410001666598
Granqvist, P., & Hagekull, B. (2000). Religiosity, adult attachment, and why “singles” are more religious.
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 10(2), 111–123. doi:10.1207/S1532758
2IJPR1002_04
Granqvist, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2008). Attachment and religious representations and behavior. In J.
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

Cassidy & P.R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications
(2nd ed.) (pp. 906–933). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Granqvist, P., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). Religion as attachment: Normative processes and indi-
vidual differences. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 49–59. doi:10.1177/
1088868309348618
Greenberg, L. S., & Goldman, R. N. (2008). Emotion-focused couples therapy: The dynamics of emotion,
love, and power. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gunderson, J. G., & Lyons-Ruth, K. (2008). BPD’s interpersonal hypersensitivity phenotype: A gene-
environment-developmental model. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22(1), 22–41. doi:10.1521/
pedi.2008.22.1.22
Hair, Jr., J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. E. (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. doi:10.
1111/1468-5906.00121
Hall, T. W., Fujikawa, A., Halcrow, S. R., Hill, P. C., & Delaney, H. (2009). Attachment to God and implicit
spirituality: Clarifying correspondence and compensation models. Journal of Psychology & Theology,
37, 227–244.
Hall, T. W., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2007). An item response theory analysis of the
Spiritual Assessment Inventory. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17(2),
157–178. doi:10.1080/10508610701244197
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-
based approach. New York, NY: Guilford.
Hayes, A. F. (2014). PROCESS SPSS Macro. [Computer Software version 2.13]. Retrieved from http://
www.processmacro.org/download.html.
Jankowski, P. J., & Sandage, S. J. (2011). Meditative prayer, hope, adult attachment, and forgiveness: A
proposed model. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3(2), 115–131. doi: 10.1037/a0021601
Jankowski, P. J., & Sandage, S. J. (2014a). Attachment to God and dispositional humility: Indirect effect and
conditional effects models. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 42, 70–82. doi:10.1007/s10591-015-
9359-1
Jankowski, P. J., & Sandage, S. J. (2014b). Meditative prayer, gratitude, and intercultural competence:
Empirical test of a differentiation-based model. Mindfulness, 5, 360–372. doi:10.1007/s12671-012-
0189-z
Johnson, S. M. (2002). Emotionally focused couple therapy with trauma survivors: Strengthening attach-
ment bonds. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kernberg, O. F. (1975). Borderline conditions and pathological narcissism. New York, NY: Jason Aronson.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1998). God as a substitute attachment figure: A longitudinal study of adult attachment
style and religious change in college students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(9),
961–973. doi: 10.1177/0146167298249004
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion. New York, NY: Guilford.
Kirkpatrick, L.A., & Shaver, P.R. (1992). An attachment-theoretical approach to romantic love and religious
belief. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 266–275. doi:10.1177/0146167292183002
Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York, NY: International Universities Press.
 14 S.J. Sandage et al.

Kramer, U., de Roten, Y., Perry, C. J., & Despland, J. (2013). Beyond splitting: Observer-rated defense
mechanisms in borderline personality disorder. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 30(1), 3–15. doi: 10.
1037/a0029463
Marmarosh, C. L., Schmidt, E., Pembleton, J., Rotbart, E., Muzyk, N., Liner, A., … Salmen, K. (2015).
Novice therapist attachment and perceived ruptures and repairs: A pilot study. Psychotherapy, 52(1),
140–144. doi:10.1037/a0036129
McDonald, A., Beck, R., Allison, S., & Norsworthy, L. (2005). Attachment to God and parents: Testing the
correspondence vs. compensation hypotheses. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 21–28.
Miller, J. D., Price, J., Gentile, B., Lynam, D. R., & Campbell, W. (2012). Grandiose and vulnerable narcis-
sism from the perspective of the interpersonal circumplex. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(4),
507–512. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.026
Minzenberg, M. J., Poole, J. H., & Vinogradov, S. (2008). A neurocognitive model of borderline personality
disorder: Effects of childhood sexual abuse and relationship to adult social attachment disturbance.
Downloaded by [Boston University], [Steven Sandage] at 08:26 23 November 2015

Development and Psychopathology, 20(01), 341–368. doi:10.1017/S0954579408000163

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory
processing model. Psychological Inquiry, 12(4), 177–196. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1204_1
Pargament, K. I., Murray-Swank, N., Magyar, G. M., & Ano, G. G. (2005). Spiritual struggle: A phenom-
enon of interest to psychology and religion. In W. R. Miller & H. D. Delaney (Eds.), Judeo-Christian
perspectives on psychology: Human nature, motivation, and change (pp. 245–268). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Pincus, A. L., Ansell, E. B., Pimentel, C. A., Cain, N. M., Wright, A. C., & Levy, K. N. (2009). Initial con-
struction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21(3),
365–379. doi:10.1037/a0016530
Raykov, T., & Shrout, P. E. (2002). Reliability of scales with general structure: Point and interval estimation
using a structural equation modeling approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 195–212. doi:10.
1207/S15328007SEM0902_3
Rowatt, W. C., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2002). Two dimensions of attachment to God and their relation to affect,
religiosity, and personality constructs. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(4), 637–651.
doi:10.1111/1468–5906.00143
Sandage, S. J., & Crabtree, S. (2012). Spiritual pathology and religious coping as predictors of forgiveness.
Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15(7), 689–707. doi:10.1080/13674676.2011.613806
Sandage, S. J., & Harden, M. G. (2011). Relational spirituality, differentiation of self, and virtue as predictors
of intercultural development. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 14(8), 819–838. doi:10.1080/
13674676.2010.527932
Sandage, S. J., & Jankowski, P. J. (2010). Forgiveness, spiritual instability, mental health symptoms, and
well-being: Mediator effects of differentiation of self. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2(3),
168–180. doi: 10.1037/a0019124
Sandage, S. J., & Jankowski, P. J. (2013). Spirituality, social justice, and intercultural competence: Mediator
effects for differentiation of self. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 37(3), 366–374.
doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2012.11.003
Sandage, S. J., Li, J., Jankowski, P.J., Frank, C., & Beilby, M. (2015). Spiritual predictors of change in inter-
cultural competence in a multicultural counseling course. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 34,
168–178.
Sandage, S. J., Link, D. C., & Jankowski, P. J. (2010). Quest and spiritual development moderated by spiri-
tual transformation. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 38, 15–31.
Schore, A. N. (1994). Affect regulation and the origin of the self: The neurobiology of emotional develop-
ment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum and Associates.
Shults, F. L., & Sandage, S. J. (2006). Transforming spirituality: Integrating theology and psychology. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
Simpson, D. B., Newman, J. L., & Fuqua, D. R. (2008). Understanding the role of relational factors in
Christian spirituality. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 36, 124–134.
Wagener, L. M., & Malony, H. N. (2006). Spiritual and religious pathology in childhood and adolescence. In
E. C. Roehlkepartain, P. E. King, L. Wagener, & P. L. Benson (Eds.), The handbook of spiritual devel-
opment in childhood and adolescence (pp. 137–149). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Wallin, D. J. (2007). Attachment in psychotherapy. New York, NY: Guilford.

View publication stats