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
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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,
All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Creation of an Objective Measure of God Images in Children
Approved by:
^ CP PLdCa^P "(Chair of Committee)
Q \ 7 . t 8 \ \ X Date
Glendon Montfffy, PsyS). (Committee Member) \ E > y z i > \ u
iDate
nmrer Rip octoral Program Director) Date
Abstract
The current study was conducted to facilitate the development and pilot testing of an
objective measure of God images (GI) in children ages 8-12. Developmentally
appropriate items were developed based on literature on GI in children and current adult
measures, as well as the potential influence of parenting on GI. Following administration
to a sample of 79 children, a principle components analysis with varimax rotation was
conducted. The components that emerged reflected trust, value, and acceptance. The
implications and recommendations for future research related to these findings are
discussed.
iii
Acknowledgements
This author wishes to express her gratitude to
Dr. Olson, for her flexibility, patience, encouragement, and thorough approach to
evaluation of content throughout the proposal and evaluation of results.
Dr. Moriarty, whose insight into the research on God image provided supportive
structure to this study that has held up through changes in pace and strategy.
Anna Shirokova, whose statistical efficiency and competency provided critical
movement toward completion of results.
The Gilliam family, who have waited with encouragement, support, and hope to
see this project completed and for an opening to a new chapter in life.
Dr. Mark Gage, for supportive feedback, collaboration, and enthusiastic
appreciation for the value of this study.
Samw'se Bermudez, whose flexibility of attachment and openness to expression
of experience reveal God's active image and infinite hope.
Donna Jean Gilliam (1937-2012), whose unconditional love, strength, and
optimism shaped an image of God, changing generations.
iv
Table of Contents
Abstract iii Acknowledgements iv List of Tables vii List of Figures viii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
Religion and Spirituality 5 The Problem 6
CHAPTER II: Method of Literature Review 11 God Representations: God Image and God Concept 11 Theoretical Influences on Assessment Development 15
Developmental Theory and God Image 15 Attachment and God Image 20 Parenting and God Image 22 Views of God, Self, and God Image 25
Objective Measurement of God Image 26 Studies of Objective Measurement of God Image in Children 28 Direction From Objective Measurement Studies 35 Additional Considerations for Instrument Development 36
Integration and Diversity 36 Ethical Concerns 37
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 39 Development of Scale Concepts 39 Scale Design 41 Survey Construction 42 Expert Review 45 Informed Consent 45 General Demographics and Preface to Survey 46 Specific Demographics 47 Participant Selection and Survey Administration Process 47
CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 51 Descriptions of Participant Data 51 Statistical Results 52
Data Screening and Transformations 53 Principal Component Analysis 55
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION 67 Theoretical Support and Reflections 67
Basis of Exploring GI in Development 67 Basis of Exploring GI in Attachment and the Relational Context 69 Data Support and Reflections 70 Component 1: Trust 71 Component 2: Value 72 Component 3: Acceptance 73 Missing Factors 74
Conclusions 80 References 82 Appendix A: Information Form 91 Appendix B: Informed Consent 92 Appendix C: Preface, Assent, The God Question 95 Appendix D: Survey 96 Appendix E: Item-Scale-Content 100 Appendix F: Items With Content Sources 103 Appendix G: Participation Request Letter 107 Appendix H: Participation Response 109 Appendix I: Parent Announcement/Letter 110
vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Current Studies on Objective Measurement and GI in Children 34 Table 2: Sources of Completed Surveys 47 Table 3: Participants: Number by Age 49 Table 4: Participants: Number by Religious Perspective 50 Table 5: Participation Rates 52 Table 6: Descriptive Statistics and Missing Values 54 Table 7: Eigenvalues and Explained Variance for the Initial Solution (Eight Components) 57 Table 8: Component Loadings for the Initial Eight-Component Solution 60 Table 9: Eigenvalues and Explained Variance for the Rotated Solution (Three Components) 63 Table 10: Component Loadings 65
Religion and spirituality have become significant fields of inquiry with regard to
psychological assessment and outcomes in treatment. Leading researchers and guiding
organizations are bringing the clinical relevance of competency in these areas to light in
mainstream training for psychologists. With major accrediting agencies such as Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations mandating spiritual
assessment in the majority of the hospitals and mental health facilities in the United
States (Hodge, 2006), the need for competency and more thorough investigations of valid
methodology through research is on the rise. The American Psychological Association's
(APA; 1992) Ethical Standards of Psychologists provide guidelines for clinical
competency and give credence to the consideration of religious diversity and the need for
professional tools and competencies in an area in which clinicians have not traditionally
become equipped (Brown, 2007). Inclusion of a V-code (V62.89) in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition (DSM-IV; APA, 1994) to account
for a "religious or spiritual problem" puts these considerations on the map for clinical
attention. Eck (2002) also advocated for professionals to assess, understand, and hold
respect for religious values.
For years, spiritual education and doctrine/teaching programs in religious settings
have utilized an understanding of the processes of spiritual development to produce
1
literature that is relevant to teachers who foster spiritual and religious growth in children.
Although Freud (Dufresne & Richter, 2012) recognized religious ideas and concerns as
having "exercised the strongest possible influence on mankind" (p. 51). Psychology as a
science is in the earlier stages of the scientific recognition of these notions, particularly
with regard to the impact on children within the clinical setting. Development of
measures that enhance our ability to promote competence in these areas may bring clarity
and direction in otherwise cloudy and less-traveled territory.
Religious and spiritual concerns have been emerging for some years with in-depth
implications for clinical inquiry and relevance to the lives of most individuals. Clinicians
and psychotherapists are increasingly being called upon to deal with the spiritual
concerns of their clients (Sperry, 2003). Leading researchers, such as Shafranske and
Maloney (1996), have presented a case for inclusion of religion in the practice of
psychology. Shafranske and Maloney suggested inclusion of religious concerns in
psychological practice to validate the human experience of religion and its relationship to
professional psychology because it defines the relationship between the science and
profession of psychology. According to Hathaway, Scott, and Garver (2004), assessment
of religious and spiritual domains is necessary as the outcomes of these areas are
associated with "many facets of adaptive functioning" (p. 97). However, given the nature
of managed care's influence on time-limited interventions and the responsibility of
psychology professionals to deliver empirically supported practices, the existing
measures for God images (GI) assessment remain most appropriate for a pastoral care
setting, versus a clinical setting, regardless of any potential connections between GI and
clinical presentations.
2
Additionally, objective, time-limited, and developmental^ congruent measures in
children are not well represented as an initiative in literature or practice. As the practice
of clinical psychology has moved into the broader realm of health care, multidisciplinary
approaches and collaboration abound in recent literature and practice. Even neuroscience
is tuning in to the inquiry by conducting endeavors to understand the connection between
God and science known as neurotheology (Ratcliffe, 2006). Medicine, social work,
clerical services, and psychology may be in varying stages of developing competency in
religious and spiritual inquiry in clinical situations. A mutual sharing among related
fields may lend us to best practices for continued development of competencies for
treatment, especially in areas in which expertise is underdeveloped and under-defined.
Regarding religion and spirituality in pediatric medicine and treatment, Koepfer (2000)
stated,
Addressing religion and spiritual issues in therapeutic settings has become increasingly common in many areas of health care. One area that has lagged in this regard is pediatric medicine. There is a prevalent myth that children are not capable of cognitively grasping spiritual or religious ideas and concepts. Furthermore, spirituality has often been disregarded as an active variable in treatment and therapeutic relationships, (p. 188).
Furthermore, Sexson (2004) highlighted a number of issues from a pediatric
psychology perspective, offering guidance related to religious and spiritual assessment in
children and adolescents:
(1) Impact of religion and spirituality on medically and psychologically ill children and adolescents, (2) Evaluation of children in the context of their family with their cultural and religious beliefs, (3)Techniques to talk to children about religion and spirituality, (4) Pediatric psychiatrists' receptivity to spirituality of children and adolescents, and (5) Ethical issues between medical/psychology work and religion and spirituality, (p. 35-47).
3
Part one of Sexson's considerations is consistent with APA's (1994) mandates for
practicing within competency in that clinicians must be aware of spirituality as a valid
domain for assessment of functioning and must operate ethically on the patient's behalf
within bounds of competency.
The aim of this study was to develop a brief, 20- to 30-item objective measure of
GI in children and offer preliminary results information regarding the construct/content
validity of the measure. The purpose of such an instrument would be for use in competent
pastoral care or in clinical settings in which the religious development or spiritual
dispositions of a child would be of concern or relevance to a clinical presentation or as
consistent with a child or family's approach to meaningful growth, wellness, and finding
solutions in life.
Assessment of domains related to religious and spiritual issues, through either
measurement or development of a measurement, carries its own unique set of
considerations (Paloutzian & Park, 2005, p. 69). Reliance upon the validity of existing
measures of GI involves understanding validity in convergent, conditional, and content
domains prior to the utilization of information for the purposes of development of a new
instrument (Kendall, Butcher, & Holmbeck, 1999, p. 125). Existing objective GI
measures are designed for an adult population and include, but are not limited to God
Kirkpatrick and Shaver (1990) noted that most traditional Christian views of God
"correspond very closely to the idea of a secure attachment figure" (p. 318). In a study
attempting to understand nuclear family influences on the formation of GI, Hertel and
21
Donahue (1995) reported also that Christian respondents were three times more likely to
endorse measure items that characterized God as loving. Their discussion represents a
parallel to literature on attachment and parenting as they noted findings (within a child
population) representative of "corresponding" GIs relative to parental influence in
childhood. Their suggestions bring recognition to the concept of "horizontal religion" in
stating that "so far as God images are concerned, it is within the family that scholars
should seek the theologically significant interaction" (p. 189).
Parenting and God Image
The GI of a child has its origins in the relational quality and experiences between
child and parent. Freud (1950,1964; Dufresne & Richter, 2012) and Rizzuto's (1970,
1979,1988,1996) contributions as discussed earlier involve ideas from views of the
influence of primal man to more highly developed ideas regarding a child's functioning
in object relations. Regardless of the origins of the development of God and parent/object
representations, consensus exists in the notion that from birth an infant develops a
familiarity and perception of the parent or caregiver. The perception under development
is characteristically dynamic through the individual development of the child and through
the progression of relational experiences between the parent and child (Chartier &
Goehner, 1976; Dickie et al., 1997; Kirkpatrick, 1992,1997). In addition, the perception
being developed is unique to the specific child and parent. Two children in one family
may perceive the same parent differently based on the unique experiences occurring
within the relationship between individual parent and individual child. The common
thread between the GI of siblings in a family, or of children of a similar age from
different families, lies in the certainty of the process-oriented quality of the development
22
of GI (Gerkin, 1994) and the tremendous influence of parenting and the dynamics of the
parent-child relationship upon the GI (Hertel & Donahue, 1995).
As redundantly stated in the discussions of this study, the limited availability of
literature focusing specifically on measurement of GI in children brings difficulty to the
effort of forming conclusions regarding how to measure precise aspects of the nature of
GI in children. The multiplicity of factors contributing to GI reduces the variance of
singular constructs, making them difficult to isolate in content-loaded questions and for
assessment. However, the support for the notion of parental influence as a distinct
component of development of a child's GI does exist in theory (e.g., Freud, Rizzuto,
Klein, and Winnicott) and in current literature (e.g., Hertel & Donahue, 1995;
Kirkpatrick, 1992,1997; McDonald et al., 2005). Rizzuto's (1970,1979,1988,1996)
work also speaks to the connection between parent-child communication and GI, noting
that if caregivers communicate about God to their children while relating themselves in a
caring, loving way, the GI of those children is more likely to emerge with a loving
characterization. Conversely, if caregivers communicating about or presenting God to the
children relate to the child in a manner that is characterized by harshness and cruelty,
then it is more likely that the children will develop a GI or experience of God
characterized by the same negative features. These notions are from the perspective
object relations theory and consistent with correspondence theory.
Baumrind's (1971a) theory supposes four basic styles of parenting: authoritarian,
authoritative, permissive, and neglectful. To date, there is only one explicit literary
connection between Baumrind's theory and GI measurement. Kirkpatrick (2005)
suggested that Baumrind's descriptions of warmth and control are essentially parallel to
23
the loving and controlling constructs in Benson and Spilka's (1973) scales. Hertel and
Donahue (1995) adopted two views of God for their study: God as loving and God as an
authoritarian figure (p. 188). These views of God parallel a portion of Baumrind's theory,
however, there is no reference or discussion of the theoretical connection. A summary of
Baumrind's parenting styles offers the following abbreviated, but thorough, descriptions
of each parenting style:
Authoritative: High Control and High Warmth
. . . f l e x i b l e b u t f i r m , m a i n t a i n i n g c o n t r o l a n d d i s c i p l i n e b u t s h o w i n g s o m e reason and flexibility as well, and communicating expectations but allowing verbal give-and-take. They score as high on demandingness and responsiveness, and have clear expectations for behavior and conduct which they monitor, and their discipline fosters responsibility, cooperation, and self-regulation, their children cope the best, are individuated, mature, resilient, achievement oriented, self-regulated and responsible, and have the highest scores on tests of cognitive competence.
Authoritarian: High Control and Low Warmth
These parents are highly directive, value obedience and are more controlling, show less warmth and nurturance and more distance and aloofness, and discourage discussion and debate. They are high on demandingness but low on responsiveness, maintaining order, communicating expectations, and monitoring the children carefully. Their children have a multitude of problems, and are less individuated and show lower internalization of pro-social values, ego development, and perform more poorly on cognitive tests and see their parents as more restrictive.
Permissive: Low Control and High Warmth
These parents they make fewer demands, and allow the children to regulate themselves for the most part, using little discipline. They are higher on responsiveness but lower on demandingness, requiring little maturity and conventionalism, and avoid confrontation of problematic behavior. The children are less assertive, and less cognitively competent, their children were often smarter but less achievement oriented, showed less self-regulation and social responsibility, and were more likely to use drugs than the previous two. Only children from rejecting and neglecting homes are more likely to use drugs.
Neglectful (and/or Rejecting): Low Control and Low Warmth
24
These parents are low on both demandingness and responsiveness; they do not structure, organize, discipline, attend and supervise... and may actively reject or neglect the children. The children cope the worst, and are the least competent of the four groups. Their children are antisocial, lack self-regulation, have more internalizing and externalizing problems, lower scores on cognitive tests, are more immature and reject their parents as role models. They are most likely to use drugs and alcohol. (Baumrind, 1971)
Views of God, Self, and God Image
As the exploration of contributing factors to the nature of GI has progressed in
recent years, the knowledge of views of self and views of God himself as participatory
factors in the explanation of GI is represented. Benson and Spilka (1973) revealed that
positive self-esteem was related to positive and loving images of God; conversely,
diminished self-esteem was related to images of God as impersonal, rejecting, and
controlling.
In understanding the formation of one's self-concept along with one's views of
God, it is commonly believed that both functions of perception may be influenced by the
dynamics of parent-child relationships. Chartier and Goehner (1976) reported
correlations between positive parental communication and higher self-esteem, as well as
higher self-esteem and positive GI. They states, "A believer's level of self-esteem may
influence his ability to see God as loving and accepting" (p. 227). This finding speaks to
the connectivity between parent-child relational indicators (i.e., communication) and GI.
In another light, the direction of understanding self-esteem or views of self as a
major contributor to GI was offered by Buri and Mueller (1993) in their finding that after
factoring out self-esteem, parental factors were only responsible for 2% of the variance in
GI among college students. Regardless, of the potential overlap of
parents/parenting/parental influence with self-concepts, both constructs are represented in
25
the measure created for this study in order to make further contributions to the
understanding of each feature of GI in children.
Objective Measurement of God Image
Spiritual assessment tools have been few in number in comparison to
psychological assessment tools overall but still available in psychology and related fields.
A number of instruments are noteworthy for their unique contributions and for their use
as the foundation for later development of assessments of GI and spiritual constructs:
Spiritual Assessment Inventory by Hall and Edwards (2002), an adjective rating scale for
perceptions of God by Gorsuch (1968), Concepts of God and Parental Images (Vergote et
Based on the review of literature and considerations upon the influence of GI
development, the measure originally included 44 objective items. However, only the first
34 items of the administered God Survey were included in the principal component
analysis (PCA), which was conducted to determine what underlying structure exists
within these items. The last 10 items of the survey (Items 35-44) were eliminated from
the analysis due to the high percentage of answer omissions on these items and due to the
complex structure of these items. Children in the younger age range frequently evidenced
difficulty responding to the comparative complexity of the last 10 survey items, which
comprise the scale representing children's experience of God as it parallels with
Baumrind's (1971a) four parenting styles. Many children provided ratings for only one
item on each question, perhaps representing the style they most encounter in their
experience of God. Omissions were more frequent on the parenting parallel items than
any other categorized items, which did not require comparative ratings in the responses.
52
Items 1, 3,4,5, 21,28,30, and 33 were written as reverse-scored items for variability of
response patterns. Likert values were transformed in SPSS for each reverse-scored item.
Data Screening and Transformations
Prior to analysis, data were screened for data entry errors, missing values, outliers,
normality, and linearity. The number of items originally contributing to the analysis of
each variable is varied due to omissions from participants' surveys. A total of 14 (0.5%)
data points were missing data out of 2686 data points in the data set, and for each variable
missing values were replaced with the variable mean. See Table 6 for descriptive
statistics and missing values.
53
Table 6
Descriptive Statistics and Missing Values
Missing Item M SD N %
God & I are close to one another 2.52 1.37 0 .0 I trust myself more than I trust God 2.05 1.41 0 .0 When I pray, I tell God my feelings 2.64 1.59 1 1.3 God takes care of most things in my life 2.20 1.48 0 .0 I can't do anything without God 2.91 1.71 0 .0 I don't need to be close to God 1.92 1.45 0 .0 I worry if I am ok with God 1.99 1.39 1 1.3 I wonder if God is happy with me 2.77 1.52 0 .0 It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others 1.92 1.42 0 .0 I am afraid that God does not love me when I am in trouble 1.73 1.27 0 .0 I get mad at God for not answering me 1.41 .93 0 .0 I am worried about if God loves me 2.01 1.56 1 1.3 God is like a parent to me 3.82 1.57 0 .0 God is fair to me 4.31 1.10 1 1.3 God is always there for me 4.19 1.25 0 .0 God will listen to me at any time 4.25 1.20 0 .0 God shows me the way I should be 3.89 1.46 0 .0 God helps me with the things I care about 4.05 1.34 0 .0 God is in control of everything 3.90 1.44 1 1.3 God helps me feel better when I am upset 3.81 1.47 0 .0 God is far away from me 4.08 1.50 0 .0 God protects me from bad things 4.30 2.51 1 .0 God thinks that I am good enough 3.82 1.46 2 2.5 My ideas are important to God 4.15 1.23 0 .0 God thinks that I look as good as other kids 3.68 1.61 1 1.3 God is proud of me 4.18 1.22 0 .0 God is happy with me 4.06 1.20 0 .0 God thinks I am a failure 4.69 1.00 1 1.3 God wants me to be myself 4.53 1.18 0 .0 God is not pleased with me 4.46 1.19 0 .0 God thinks what I want is important 3.48 1.44 2 2.5 God believes I am a good son/daughter 4.38 1.03 0 .0 God is not pleased with my school work 4.05 1.48 1 1.3 God approves of my decisions 3.60 1.13 1 1.3
Next, data were examined for multivariate outliers using Mahalanobis distance.
This examination revealed that there were no multivariate outliers in this data set, since
A no cases exceeded % (34) = 65.247 at p = .001. A subsequent examination of normality
54
of all variables revealed that 21 variables had skewness values outside of the acceptable
range of -1 to +1; therefore, transformations were necessary. Various transformations
(square root, logarithm, inverse, reflect and square root, and reflect and logarithm) were
performed, and they yielded distributions of variables that were closer to normal.
Further, assumption of linearity was tested through examinations of scatter plot
matrix and bivariate correlations. Both of these methods indicated that variables had
linear relationships. Most correlations were within the acceptable range of .3-.8, and
scatter plot matrix did not indicate any multicollinearity problems. Therefore, further
analysis was considered acceptable.
Principal Component Analysis
Next, PCA was conducted. Within PCA, sampling adequacy was examined.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .74, well above the required
value of .50, and Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant (%2 (561) = 1419, p < .001),
which indicated that sampling adequacy was acceptable.
Initial eight-component solution. Initially, PCA produced an eight-component
solution, which was evaluated using the following five criteria: eigenvalue-one criterion,
proportion of variance accounted for, scree plot, residuals between observed and
reproduced correlations, and interpretability criterion. According to the eigenvalue-one
criterion, components with eigenvalues greater than one should be retained (Mertler &
Vannatta, 2010). In this solution, eight components with eigenvalues greater than one
needed to be retained. However, reliability of this criterion was considered to be
questionable in this case, because the number of examined variables was over 30, and
because communalities for 19 variables out of 34 variables (55.88%) were below 0.7.
55
Next, proportion of the explained variance was evaluated. This criterion also suggested
that eight components that accounted for 71.70% of total variance needed to be retained
in the model. See Table 7 for more details on the eigenvalues and explained variance
within the initial solution.
56
Table 7
Eigenvalues and Explained Variance for the Initial Solution (Eight Components)
Further, examination of the residuals table indicated that there were 173 (30.0%)
non-redundant residuals with absolute values greater than .05. This large number of
residuals suggested that further iterations could improve the model. Finally, the fifth
criterion of interpretability was evaluated. According to this criterion, substantive
meaning of the retained components needs to be investigated, and their interpretation has
to be conducted in terms of what is already known about the constructs under
58
investigation (Jolliffe, 2002). Theory and previous research related to the concept of GI
in children has strongly suggested the presence of three distinct components within the
first 34 items of the God Survey. Furthermore, the interpretability criterion indicates that
each retained component has to have at least three items with significant loadings on that
component and that the variables that load on a given component should share similar
conceptual meaning (Jolliffe, 2002). However, the initial eight-component solution did
not meet this criterion, only three components had three or more items with heavy
loadings and with simple structure (see Table 8). Therefore, due to the fact that four out
of five criteria were either questionable or suggested that model can be improved, it was
decided that a three-component solution should be investigated.
59
Table 8
Component Loadings for the Initial Eight-Component Solution
Item Component
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 God is in control of everything 0.81 0.17 0.03 0.05 -0.06 0.00 1 o
00
0.04 God protects me from bad things -0.79 -0.04 -0.05 -0.04 -0.14 -0.03 0.14 -0.18 God is fair to me 0.78 -0.06 0.11 0.02 -0.21 0.14 0.03 0.03 God is always there for me -0.77 -0.11 -0.03 -0.08 0.02 -0.19 0.15 -0.02 God takes care of most things in my life -0.76 0.13 -0.13 0.09 -0.18 -0.09 0.08 -0.11 God is like a parent to me 0.75 0.18 0.02 0.06 -0.06 0.19 -0.38 -0.06 God shows me the way I should be 0.74 -0.05 -0.04 0.22 0.15 0.11 -0.15 -0.06 God will listen to me at any time 0.71 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 0.14 0.07 -0.13 0.02 God is proud of me -0.69 0.13 0.18 -0.12 -0.15 -0.33 0.05 0.25 God helps me with the things I care about -0.68 -0.03 -0.35 -0.30 0.05 -0.17 0.05 -0.06 God helps me feel better when I'm upset 0.68 -0.10 -0.05 0.08 -0.13 0.38 -0.20 -0.25 My ideas are important to God -0.67 0.10 0.11 0.08 -0.46 0.16 0.13 0.03 God is far away from me 0.66 0.09 -0.33 0.24 0.04 -0.24 -0.06 -0.11 God is happy with me -0.64 0.00 0.24 -0.28 -0.21 -0.33 -0.09 0.31 God & I are close to one another -0.60 -0.12 0.29 -0.21 -0.14 0.02 -0.16 -0.01 God believes I am a good son/ daughter 0.50 -0.15 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.47 0.15 -0.24 God thinks that I am good enough 0.48 0.02 -0.04 0.15 0.40 0.44 -0.07 -0.25 I wonder if God is happy with me 0.14 0.81 0.03 0.06 -0.15 0.12 0.13 -0.04 I worry if I am ok with God 0.00 0.81 0.09 -0.16 0.05 -0.21 -0.17 -0.02 It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others -0.19 0.10 0.69 -0.07 0.32 -0.16 0.17 0.12 God is not pleased with my school work 0.30 0.03 0.66 -0.12 -0.16 -0.02 -0.01 0.01 I am worried about if God loves me -0.05 0.52 0.61 -0.16 -0.03 0.03 -0.01 -0.22 God thinks I am a failure 0.08 0.02 -0.07 0.85 0.15 0.08 -0.09 0.00
-0.14 0.52 -0.52 0.05 0.14 0.18 God approves of my decisions 0.25 -0.02 -0.11 -0.02 0.05 0.76 0.08 0.19 I can't do anything without God -0.30 0.00 -0.07 0.01 -0.05 0.26 0.81 0.08 I don't need to be close to God -0.45 0.08 0.29 -0.07 0.15 -0.17 0.53 -0.14 God wants me to be myself 0.20 0.25 -0.26 0.37 0.22 0.10 -0.49 0.09 I trust myself more than I trust God -0.32 0.07 0.00 0.25 -0.09 -0.11 0.34 -0.63 When I pray, I tell God my feelings -0.49 0.04 0.27 0.09 0.06 -0.12 0.23 0.57 I am afraid that God does not love me 0.00 -0.42 -0.22 0.17 -0.25 0.17 0.12 0.56
61
Rotated three-component solution. Another PCA was conducted to retain
components with eigenvalues greater than two and to apply the varimax rotation. This
resulted in a three-component solution with the three components explaining over 47% of
the variance. After rotation, the first component accounted for 31.53% of variance, the
second component accounted for 9.36%, and the third component accounted for 6.20% of
variance (see Table 9 and Figure 2 for the details on the three-component solution).
62
Table 9
Eigenvalues and Explained Variance for the Rotated Solution (Three Components)
Even though this varimax rotation did not improve the model fit drastically, it
provided the best defined factor structure and it had the best theoretical fit with previous
research. Moreover, interpretability criterion was improved dramatically: new solution
resulted in three components with 6 to 12 items per component. Eight items were
removed from analysis, because they had complex structure. Complex structure of items
means that their primary loading on one component is less than .4 and they do not have a
difference of at least .2 between their primary loading and other loadings (Jolliffe, 2002).
Thus, a total of 26 items with simple structure were retained. Component loadings for this
final solution are presented in Table 10.
64
Table 10
Component Loadings
Component Loading Component 1: Trust
God is like a parent to me -.81 God is in control of everything -.78 God is always there for me .70 I don't need to be close to God .68 God protects me from bad things .68 God is far away from me -.64 God is fair to me -.62 I can't do anything without God .62 God will listen to me at any time -.60 When I pray, I tell God my feelings .51 God wants me to be myself -.44 I trust myself more than I trust God .42
Component 2: Value God believes I am a good son/ daughter .79 God thinks that I am good enough .71 God is happy with me -.69 God thinks that I look as good as other kids .61 God thinks what I want is important .49 God approves of my decisions .45
Component 3: Acceptance I am worried about if God loves me .77 I worry if I am ok with God .65 I am afraid that God does not love me -.60 It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others .58 I get mad at God for not answering me -.54 God is not pleased with me -.51 God is not pleased with my school work .46 I wonder if God is happy with me .44
Component 1: Trust. As can be seen in Table 10, Component 1 has 12 items
with both positive and negative loadings, and it includes items that mainly describe the
adjectives of God and content indicating an avoidant attachment to God. It would be
logical to label this component Trust as the content of the items converge to reflect
varying positions on being able to trust in God. Varying responses to these items may
65
reflect a sense of trust in God or, conversely, a sense of mistrust or a degree of trust in
between these contrasted perceptions. The items in this component reflect common
descriptions of God and content that is indicated to reflect the degree to which one is
avoidant of God or, conversely, securely attached to God.
Component 2: Value. Component 2 has six items with positive and negative
loadings, and these items cover children's perceptions about themselves in relation to
God or their experience of how they believe God perceives them. This component can be
labeled Value. The similarity of content in these items represents beliefs about God's
value of me from the viewpoint or internal experience of the child, (i.e., How much does
God value me? What does God's value about me? How does God value me?). Items in
this component reflect content that children were able to commonly identify with as
being reflective of the interaction between their experience of self and God. This set of
items contains self-focused descriptions that indicate an experience of God's value of the
individual based on the perceptions of the self.
Component 3: Acceptance. Finally, Component 3 has eight items that mainly
deal with a child's worry about whether or not God is pleased with him or her. This
component can be labeled Acceptance, as responses reflect a range experience of God's
acceptance of the self/individual. Items in this component reflect varying degrees of an
attachment to God based on the anxious need to be close to God or a relatively secure
attachment to God that may suggest concern regarding God's acceptance. The child's
concern or perception of whether or not God accepts "me" as I am is the emerging theme
of this component.
66
CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION
The current study is first of its kind, designed to produce a tool to meet the needs
of treatment providers and those seeking help for/with their children in a more
comprehensive approach than the standard of behavioral and functional assessment. If
nothing else is conclusive, this study demonstrates that 100% of those children willing to
respond to questions about their GI have subjective, unique, and individualized responses
to those questions. Not a single active, survey-completing subject backed out with
indications that he or she had no experience of God. Such confirmatory evidence supports
a thorough evaluation of the basis, strengths, and limitations of the current study, as well
as potential recommendations for future initiatives in research involving children and
their images of God.
Theoretical Support and Reflections
Basis of Exploring GI in Development
Early studies on the development of religious and spiritual capacities explored
stage development consistent with the progression of psychological literature overall.
Fowler (1981,1996) suggested stages of faith development. Williams (1971) suggested
the development of a God concept around the age of 6. Nye and Carlson (1984) noted the
parallel between Piaget's model of cognitive development and the linear models
regarding the development of God concepts/images. More contemporary writers (i.e.,
67
Johnson & Boyatzis, 2006) continue to explore the developmental foundations associated
with concepts and images of God. However, some research (Barrett & Keil, 1996; Barrett
& Richert, 2003; Dillon, 2000) has suggested that God concepts emerge earlier in
development than the cognitive mechanisms others have believed are associated with
God concepts. Trust versus mistrust is identified as the first stage in Eric Erikson's theory
of psychosocial stages of development. Themes of trust in God emerge in Component 1
to reflect a connection to a sense of God's presence and reliability that may precede the
ability to articulate relational experiences of trust with cognizance and a well-developed
understanding. In addition, researchers across the timeline of GI research suggest that GI
may develop earlier than cognitive/concept researchers had suggested (e.g., Goldman,
is expected that some subjects may experience at least subtle emotional reactions to
acknowledgement of factors related to their GI.
This potential anxiety was apparent in many parents and children as many
approached the PI with considerable inquiry prior to their decision to participate or
78
decline. The evidenced 47% rate of refusal for participation, however, may not represent
a considerable deviation from typical response rates depending on the approach to data
collection. Others initiated participation, but were provided the opportunity to opt out of
responses to objective items based on a response of "no" to The God Question. There
were no incentives to entice any subjects, nor any consequences or change in regard for
those who did not participate. The process of survey administration was about 12-15
minutes. Those who did not opt to participate were provided with alternative activities by
their teachers/program directors or they were given the opportunity to assist with the
administrative tasks of the process (i.e., handing out/picking up surveys, handing
out/picking up pencils, etc.). Parents and children were continuously urged to understand
that participation was voluntary.
In the group survey administration settings, the ability to reduce omission and
increase potential for comprehension of content and accuracy of responses was limited.
The settings and time frames by which the surveys were administered and completed
were not conducive to thorough scanning of surveys for omissions and corrections, etc.
While volunteers were on hand to assist children with reading/comprehension difficulties
(albeit covertly without undue implications of the child's difficulty around his or her
peers), the classes/services were to proceed as usual, without the PI or the administration
process disrupting the organizational objectives. It is recommended that future survey
administrations be conducted with a more limited age range of 10-12 years to reduce the
potential for limited comprehension of content, as well as limited comprehension of
instructions, thereby reducing the number of missing values in data for analysis. A
79
reduction in the number of omissions would support the validity and reliability of the
statistical results associated with future studies.
Additional Factors
The contextual and situational factors associated with the PI presented additional
limitations of access to subjects. The ability to access enough subjects to reach the
proposed N is a limitation of this study as it was conducted. Liturgical affiliation would
be a key strength in the ability to gain and maintain access to subjects. However,
researchers in traditional and nontraditional courses of study may do best to conduct
similar studies via the resources of practica placements, private practices, and/or
internship placements with a pediatric emphasis.
The Pi's presence in religious contexts with individuals who have beliefs
conflicting with the perspectives of the PI (or the religious values of the education
institution with which the PI is affiliated) may also present a challenge to the ability to
align with program directors of ministries with noncongruent religious/spiritual values.
Personal beliefs and biases of individuals who are affiliated with religious institutions as
staff members were more particularly inquisitive of the personal and spiritual background
of the PI. Brief discussions of the plausibility of generalizing GI between religious
perspectives were common in these situations.
Conclusions
At best, the proposed scales of this instrument provide at least some insight into a
respondent's images of God from a few psychological vectors. At worst, the instrument
provides only some insight. Gibson's (2007) suggestion of the multiplicity associated
with GI allows for exploration of those images in compound contexts across one's
80
individual experiences and perceptions. This instrument was designed to draw on the GI
versus God concepts (Gibson, 2006) in children, across multiple domains of their
subjective experiences of God, themselves, and others.
GI theory is reviewed broadly in other works (e.g., Moriarty & Davis, 2011).
Assessment and treatment-related issues specific to GI and children are just recently
explored (e.g., Olson, Maclin, Moriarty, & Bermudez, 2012). A specific focus on
objective assessment of GI in children rests upon the suggestions from the small group of
studies described in the current literature review and the theoretical precursors of the
emerging literature. Olson et al. (2012) emphasized themes of development and
attachment, which align with the basis of developmentally appropriate content to reflect
attachment specifically, as well as other areas of GI in a dynamic/developmental context
(i.e., self-perceptions, child's internal responses to adjectives of God). Since Harms
(1944) first explored the existence of GI in children through drawings, our curiosity has
kept the search going for data supporting the measure of a relational experience that is
qualitatively beyond measure. From Harms to Olson et al., the phenomenon of GI in
children captures researchers, but despite their best efforts, researchers may never
reciprocate. Scales 1-4 of this GI survey for children barely scratch the surface.
81
References
American Psychological Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4 ed.) Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical standards of psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.
Badenoch, B. (2008). Being a brain-wise therapist: A practical guide to interpersonal neurobiology. New York, NY: Norton.
Barrett, J. (2000, January). Exploring the natural foundations of religion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(1), 29-34.
Barrett, J. (2001). Do children experience God as adults do? Religion in mind: Cognitive perspectives on religious belief, ritual, and experience (pp. 173-190). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Barrett, J. L., & Keil, F. C. (1996). Conceptualizing a non-natural entity: Anthropomorphism in God concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 219-247.
Barrett, J. L., & Richert, R. A. (2003). Anthropomorphism or preparedness? Exploring children's God concepts. Review of Religious Research, 44, 300-312.
Baumrind, D. (1971a). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology Monograph, Part 2(4), 101-103.
Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004, June). Attachment to God: The Attachment to God Inventory, tests of working model correspondence, and an exploration of faith group differences. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 32(2), 92-103.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42,155-162.
Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Rude, S. P. (2003). Spiritual development in childhood and adolescence: Toward a field of inquiry. Applied Developmental Sciene, 7, 205-213.
Benson, P., & Spilka, B. (1973). God image as a function of self-esteem and locus of control. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 12, 294-310.
Benson, P. L., Williams, D. L., & Johnson, A. L. (1987). The quicksilver years: The hopes and fears of early adolescence. Search Institute, San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1913). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
82
Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness, and depression. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness of religious ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. In Andreson, J. (2001) Religion in Mindz; Cognitive Perspectives on Religious Belief, Ritual, and Experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J. (2007). Inquiry into the understanding and applications ofDSM-IV category Religious or Spiritual Problem, V-Code 62.89 by American Psychological Association (APA) psychologists. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.
Buri, J. R., & Mueller, R. A. (1993). Psychoanalytic theory and loving God concepts: Parent referencing versus self-referencing. The Journal of Psychology, 127(1), 17-27.
Chartier, M. R., & Goehner, L. A. (1976). A study of the relationship of parent-adolescent communication, self-esteem, and God-image. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 4(3), 227-232.
Coles, R. (1990). The spiritual life of children. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman & Co.
Davis, E. B. (2010). Authenticity, inauthenticity, attachment, and God-image tendencies among adult evangelical Protestant Christians (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA.
Dickie, J. R., Eshleman, A. K., Merasco, D. M., Shepard, A., Wilt, M. V., & Johnson, M. (1997). Parent-child relationships and children's images of God. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(1), 25-43.
Dillon, J. J. (2000). The spiritual child: Appreciating children's transformative effects on adults. Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 13(4), 4-18.
Dufresne, T., & Richter, G. C. (Ed. & Trans). (2012). The future of and illusion—Sigmund Freud. Buffalo, NY: Broadview Press.
Eck, B. E. (2002). An exploration of the therapeutic use of spiritual disciplines in clinical practice. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 21(3), 266-280.
Eshleman, A., Dickie, J., Merasco, D., Shepard, A., & Johnson, M. (1999). Mother God, Father God: Children's perceptions of God's distance. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(2), 139-146.
83
Fitts, W., & Warrant, W. (1996). The Tennessee self-concept scale (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Fowler, J. W. (1996). Faithful change. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press.
Freud, S. (1950). Totem and taboo. New York, NY: Norton. (Original work published 1913)
Freud, S. (1964). The future of an illusion. Oxford, England: Doubleday.
Gattis, J. P. (2002). Developing a web-based scoring program for the God Image Inventory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 62( 10-B), 4833.
Gaultiere, W. (1989). The development and preliminary validation of a measure of God Images. Retrieved from the PsycINFO database.
Gerkin, C. (1994). Projective identification and the image of God: Reflections on object relations theory and the psychology of religion. The treasure of earthen vessels: Explorations in theological anthropology in honor of James N. Lapsley (pp. 52-65). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
Gibson, N. J. S. (2006). The experimental investigation of religious cognition (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Gibson, N. J. S. (2007). Measurement issues in God image research and practice. In G. L. Moriarty & L. Hoffman (Eds.), God image handbook for spiritual counseling and psyschotherapy: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 227-246). Binghampton, NY: Haworth/Routledge Press.
Gillespie, J. (1994). The projective use of mother-and-child drawings: A manual for clinicians. New York, NY: Brunner/Mazel.
Goldman, R. (1964). Religious thinking from childhood to adolescence. London, England: Routledge Kegan & Paul.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1968). The conceptualization of God as seen in adjective ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1, 56-64.
Gorsuch, R. L. & Smith, C.S (1983). Attributions of responsibility to God: An interaction of relgisous Beliefs and outcomes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 22, 340-352.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The adjective check list manual. Mountain View, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
84
Granqvist, P. (1998). Religiousness and perceived childhood attachment: On the question of compensation or correspondence. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37(2), 350-367.
Granqvist, P. (2002, February). Attachment and religiosity in adolescence: Cross-sectional and longitudinal evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Granqvist, P., & Hagekull, B. (1999). Religiousness and perceived childhhod attachment: Profiling socialized correspondence and emotional compensation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 10, 254-273.
Granqvist, P., & Kirpatrick, L.A. (2008). Attachment and religious representations and behavior. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 906-933). New York, NY: Guilford.
Granqvist, P., Ljungdahl, C., & Dickie, J. (2007, March). God is nowhere, God is now here: Attachment activation, security of attachment, and God's perceived closeness among 5-7 year-old children from religious and non-religious homes. Attachment & Human Development, 9(1), 55-71.
Hall, T. W. (2004). Christian spirituality and mental health: A relational spirituality framework for empirical research. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 23, 66-81.
Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (2002). The spiritual assessment inventory: A theistic model and measure for assessing spiritual development. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2), 341-357.
Hall, T. W., Halcrow, S., Hill, P.C., & Delaney, H. (2005, August). Internal working model correspondence in implicit spiritual experiences. Paper presented at the 1131 Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Harms, E. (1944). The development of religious experience in children. The American Journal of Sociology, 50, 112-122.
Hart, T. (2003). The secret spiritual world of children. Makawao, HI: Inner Ocean.
Hart, T. (2006). Spiritual experiences and capacities of children. In E. C. Roehlkepartain, P. E. King, L. Wagener, & P. L. Benson (Eds.), The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 163-177). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hathaway, W. L. (2003). Clinically significant religious impairment. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 6,113-129.
Hathaway, W. L., Scott, S. Y., & Garver, S. A. (2004). Assessing religious/spiritual functioning: A neglected domain in clinical practice? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35(1), 97-104.
Heller, D. (1986). The children's God. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
85
Hertel, B. R., & Donahue, M. J. (1995). Parental influences on God images among children: Testing Durkheim's metaphoric parallelism. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34(2), 186-199.
Hill, P., & Hall, T. (2002, December). Relational schemas in processing one's image of God and self. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 21(4), 365-373.
Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. Jr. (Eds.). (1999). Measures of religiousity (pp. 387-409). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
Hodge, D. (2006, October). A template for spiritual assessment: A review of the JCAHO requirements and guidelines for implementation. Social Work, 51(4), 317-326.
John, O. P. (1990). The "Big Five" factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66-100). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Johnson, C. N., & Boyatzis, C. J. (2006). Cognitive-cultural foundations in spiritual development. In E. C. Roehlkepartain, P. E. King, L. Wagener, & P. L. Benson (Eds.), The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 211-223). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jolliffe, I. T. (2002). Principal component analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Kauffold-Entner, R. (1997, June). Effects of separation and divorce on the junior high age child's concept of God. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.
Kendall, P. C., Butcher, J. N., & Holmbeck, G. N. (1999). Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1992). An attachment-theory approach to the psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 3-28.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). A longitudinal study of changes in religious belief and behavior as a function of individual differences in adult attachment style. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36(2), 207-217.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kirkpatrick, L., & Shaver, P. (1990). Attachment theory and religion: Childhood attachment, religious beliefs, and conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 315-334.
Klein, M. (1948). The psycho-analysis of children. London, England: Hogarth Press.
86
Koepfer, S.R. (2000). Drawing on the spirit: Embracing spirituality in pediatrics and pediatric art therapy. Art Therapy: Journal of the American Art Therapy Association, 17(3), 188-194.
Koppitz, E. (1966). Emotional indicators on human figure drawings of children: A validation study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 22,466-469.
Koppitz, E. (1968). Psychological evaluation of children's human figure drawings. New York, NY: Grune and Stratton.
LaMothe, R. (1998). Sacred objects as vital objects: Transitional objects reconsidered. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 26(2), 159-167.
Lawrence, R. (1991). The God Image Inventory: The development, validation, and standardization of a psychometric instrument for research, pastoral and clinical use in measuring the image of God. Retrieved from the PsycINFO database.
Lawrence, R. (1997). Measuring the image of God: The God Image Inventory and the God Image Scales. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 25(2), 214-226.
Maxon, W. (1996). The development of god image in deaf children: An analysis from an object relations theory perspective. Retrieved from the PsycINFO database.
McDonald, A., Beck, R., Allison, S., & Norsworthy, L. (2005, March). Attachment to God and Parents: Testing the correspondence vs. compensation hypotheses. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24(1), 21-28.
Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2010). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods (4th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak.
Moriarty, G. L. (2006). Pastoral care of depression: Helping clients heal their relationship with God. Binghampton, NY; Haworth/Routledge Press.
Moriarty, G. L., & Davis, E. B. (2011). Client God images: Research, theory, and practice. In K. O'Grady, J. Aten, & E. Worthington (Eds.), Psychology of religion and spirituality for clinicians: Using research in your practice (pp. 131-160). New York, NY: Routledge.
Muller, J. (2005). Image of god and self in abused and non-abused African American and Caucasian adolescent females. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.
Nelson, M. O., & Jones, E. M. (1957). An application of the Q-technique to the study of religious concepts. Psychological Reports, 3, 293-297.
Noffke, J. L., & Hall, T. W. (2007). Attachment psycho therapy and God image, In G. L. Moriarty & L. Hoffman (Eds.), God image handbook for spiritual counseling and psychotherapy; Research, theory, and practice (pp. 57-78). Binghampton, NY: Haworth/Routledge Press.
87
Nye, W., & Carlson, J. (1984, September). The development of the concept of God in children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 145(1), 137-142.
Olson, L., Maclin, V., Moriarty, G., & Bermudez, H. (2012). God images. In D. F. Walker & W. L. Hathaway, Spiritual interventions in child and adolescent psychotherapy (Chapter 9). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Paloutzian, R. F., & Park, C. L. (2005). Handbook of the psychology of religion and spirituality. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Pargament, K. (1999). The psychology of religion and spirituality? Response to Stifoss-Hanssen, Emmons and Crumpler. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(1), 35-43.
Pate, R., & Nichols, W. (1971, January). A scoring guide for the Koppitz system of evaluating children's human figure drawings. Psychology in the Schools, 5(1), 55-56.
Peterson, D. (1999, January). The relationship of birth order to religious experience and object relations functioning. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.
Rackley, B. (2007). God image and early maladaptive schemas: A correlational study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (Publication No. AAT 3280069)
Ratcliffe, M. (2006). Neurotheology: A science of what? In Where God and Science meet: How brain and evolutionary studies alter our understanding of religion (Vol. 2): The neurology of religious experience (pp. 81-104). Westport, CT: Praeger/Greenwood Publishing Group.
Richert, R., & Barrett, J. (2005). RESEARCH: Do you see what I see? Young children's assumptions about God's perceptual abilities. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15(4), 283-295.
Rizzuto, A. M. (1970). Critique of the contemporary literature in the scientific study of religion. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, New York, NY.
Rizzuto, A. (1979). The birth of the living God: A psychoanalytic study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rizzuto, A. (1988). The father and the child's representation of God: A developmental approach. In S. H. Cath (Ed.), Father and child: Developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 357-381). Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Rizzuto, A. (1996). Psychoanalytic treatment and the religious person. In J. W. Jacobson (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 409-431). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
88
Roehlkepartain, E., Benson, P., King, P., & Wagener, L. (2006). The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scott, D. (2003). Spirituality in child and youth care: Considering spiritual development and "relational consciousness." Child & Youth Care Forum, 32(2), 117-131.
Seitz, J. (2001, October). A cognitive-perceptual analysis of projective tests used with children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 93(2), 505-522. doi:10.2466/PMS.93.5.505-522
Sexson, S. (2004, January). Religious and spiritual assessment of the child and adolescent. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 13(1), 35-47.
Shakel, S. (2001, May). The effects of parental death during childhood on adult experience of God. Retrieved from PsycINFO database.
Shafranske, E. (1992). Religion and mental health in early life. In J. F. Schumaker (Ed.), Religion and mental health (pp. 163-176). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Shafranske, E., & Maloney, H. (1996). Religion and the clinical practice of psychology: A case for inclusion. Religion and the clinical practice ofpsychology (pp. 561-586). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to shape who we are. New York, NY: Guilford.
Solomon, S. (1978). Knowing your child through his handwriting and drawings. Oxford, England: Crown.
Spero, M. H. (1992). Religious objects as psychological structures: A critical integration of object relations theory, psychotherapy, and Judaism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sperry, L. (2003). Integrating spiritual direction functions in the practice of psychotherapy. Journal of Psychology and Theology 31(1), 3-13.
Tamminen, K. (1991). Religious development in childhood and youth: An empirical study. Annales Academiae Scientiarum.
Tamminen, K. (1994). Religious experiences in childhood and adolescence: A viewpoint of religious development between the ages of 7 and 20. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 4(2), 61-85.
Tamminen, K., & Nurmi, K. (1995). Developmental theories and religious experience. In Handbook of religious experience (pp. 269-311). Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
89
Tan, S. Y. (2003). Integrating spiritual direction into psychotherapy: Ethical issues and guidelines. Journal of Psychology and Theology 31(1), 14-23.
Vergote, A., Tamayo, A., Pasquali, L., Bonami, M., Pattyn, M-N., & Custer, A. (1969). Concept of God and parental images. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 8(1), 79-87.
Wilber, K. (1996). The atman project: A transpersonal view of human development. Wheaton, IL: Quest.
Williams, R. (1971, January). A theory of God-concept readiness: From the Piagetian theories of child artificialism and the origin of religious feeling in children. Religious Education, 66(1), 62-66.
Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 26,137-143.
90
Appendix A: Information Form
The God Survey Information Form
(To be completed by Parent/Guardian)
Child's Initials:
Chid's Date of Birth (00/00/0000 Format):
Religious & Spiritual Perspective:
(Please check all that apply to you/your child. If more than one response, please indicate the primary perspective
influencing your family/child's perspective)
Agnostic Atheist Catholic Jewish Orthodox Pagan Protestant Unitarian Universalist Other
Does your child have any reading or cognitive difficulties that will require assistance for completion,
or prohibit them from being able to complete the survey? (Circle One) YES NO
If YES, please describe briefly:
TeacherA/olunteers will provide oral presentation of items for class to assist children in earlier stages of reading
abilities-
91
Appendix B: Informed Consent
INFORMED CONSENT The God Survey - CHURCH/SCHOOL
PROJECT TITLE: Creation of an Objective Measure of God Images in Children
INTRODUCTION The purposes of this form are to give you information that may affect your decision whether to say YES or NO to participation in this research, and to record the consent of those who say YES to participate in the study: Creation of an Objective Measure of God Images in Children at CHURCH/SCHOOL on DATE/TIME.
RESEARCHERS All reasearchers for this study are affiliated with Regent University, School of Psychology and Counseling Primary Researcher: Heather D. Bermudez, M.A., Doctoral Candidate Faculty Chair: Dr. Lynn A. Olson, Assistant Professor Faculty Co-Chair: Dr. Glendon Moriarty, Associate Professor
DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH STUDY Several studies have been conducted looking into the subject of survey methods of assessment of God Image in adults. None of them have addressed the development of a brief survey method for assessment of God Image in children.
If you decide to participate, then you/your child will join a study involving research of children's emotional experiences and views of God. If you say YES, then your child's participation will last for about 25-30 minutes at All Souls Unitarian Church. Approximately 150 children will be participating in this study.
EXCLUSIONARY CRITERIA You should have completed a brief information form. To the best of your knowledge, you/your child should not have impairing cognitive or reading disabilities that would keep you from participating in this study. For children in earlier stages of reading ability, the Primary Researcher: Heather Bermudez, and CHURCH/SCHOOL teaching staff/volunteers will be available to assist with reading items and/or read items aloud for children who wish to participate.
RISKS AND BENEFITS RISKS: If you/your child decide to participate in this study, then you/your child may face a risk of emotional discomfort related to their individual views of God. The researcher tried to reduce these risks by creating brief survey items. As with any research, there is some possibility that you/your child may be subject to risks that have not yet been identified.
BENEFITS: The main benefit to you/your child for participating in this study is spiritual enrichment and enhanced awareness of one's perceptions of God.
COSTS AND PAYMENTS The researchers want your/your child's decision about participating in this study to be absolutely voluntary. Yet they recognize that participation may pose some inconvenience and use of time. (While no payment or compensation/Minimal cost incentives) will be given for participation, the process of survey completion will take place during scheduled children's sessions CHURCH/SCHOOL in order to reduce the inconvenience associated with participation.
NEW INFORMATION If the researchers find new information during this study that would reasonably change your/your child's decision about participating, then they will give it to you.
92
CONFIDENTIALITY All information obtained about you/your child in this study is strictly confidential unless disclosure is required by law. The results of this study may be used in reports, presentations and publications, but the researcher will not identify you/your child.
WITHDRAWAL PRIVILEGE It is OK for you/your child to say NO. Even if you/your child say YES now, you/your child are free to say NO later, and walk away or withdraw from the study - at any time. Your/your child's decision will not affect your/your child's relationship with Regent University, the researchers for this study, or otherwise cause a loss of benefits to which you/your child might otherwise be entitled.
COMPENSATION FOR ILLNESS AND INJURY If you/your child say YES, then your consent in this document does not waive any of your legal rights. However, in the event of impairing discomfort arising from this study, neither Regent University nor the researchers are able to give you/your child any money, insurance coverage, free medical care, or any other compensation for such injury. In the event that you/your child suffer injury as a result of participation in this research project, you may contact Heather Bermudez, MA, the responsible principal investigator at the following phone number: (918)260-2895, or Dr. Jennifer Ripley, current HSRC chair at (757)352-4296 at Regent University, who will be glad to review the matter with you.
VOLUNTARY CONSENT By signing this form, you/your child are saying several things. You are saying that you have read this form or have had it read to you, that you are satisfied that you understand this form, the research study, and its risks and benefits. The researchers should have answered any questions you/your child may have had about the research. If you have any questions later on, then the researchers should be able to answer them:
Primary Researcher: Heather D. Bermudez, M.A., Doctoral Candidate (918) 260.2895 Faculty Chair: Dr. Lynn A. Olson, Assistant Professor (757) 352.4432 Faculty Co-Chair: Dr. Glendon Moriarty, Associate Professor (757) 352.4341
If at any time you feel pressured to participate, or if you have any questions about your rights or this form, then you should call Dr. Jennifer Ripley, the current HSRC chair, at (757)352-4296.
And importantly, by signing below, you are telling the researcher YES, that you agree to participate in this study. The researcher should give you a copy of this form for your records.
Subject's (Child's) Initials and Date of Birth (00-00-0000) Date
Parent / Legally Authorized Representative's Printed Name & Signature Date
Witness' Printed Name & Signature Date
93
INVESTIGATOR'S STATEMENT
I certify that I have explained to this subject the nature and purpose of this research, including benefits, risks, costs, and any experimental procedures. I have described the rights and protections afforded to human subjects and have done nothing to pressure, coerce, or falsely entice this subject into participating. I am aware of my obligations under state and federal laws, and promise compliance. I have answered the subject's questions and have encouraged him/her to ask additional questions at any time during the course of this study. I have witnessed the above signature(s) on this consent form.
Investigators Printed Name & Signature
94
Appendix C: Preface, Assent, The God Question
The God Survey (To be completed by child)
Before vou complete the Survey:
You are about to complete a survey about your ideas and feelings about God. It will take about 15 minutes to complete and there are 44 questions. If you need help, an adult may read questions out loud to help you understand each question. For each question, you will circle the answer that is best for you. Some people have feelings that they want to talk about when they answer these kinds of questions. Please let your parents know if you would like to talk about your feelings about God. Please sign below to show that you understand the directions for the survey -and- to show that you are volunteering to answer the survey questions. Your Initials:
About God:
People have many different views of God. Some believe that God is a man. Others believe that God is a woman. Some believe that God can be either man or woman. Some believe that God is more than one being. God can be viewed as a person, or a spirit, or part of nature, or as many gods. People may also not believe in God. So when you see the word God in this survey, that means what YOU believe about God.
The God Question:
Do you believe in God? (Circle One)
Yes If Yes, turn the page and begin The God Survey No If Jo, Please tell us a little bit about your belief:
If your answer to The God Question is No, your survey is complete and you may turn it in.
-Thank you for your participation
95
Appendix D: Survey
The God Survey
There are no wrong answers!! (-:
Directions: Circle the answer that makes sense to you
1=No 2=Sort-of 3=Usually 4=A Lot
12 3 4 5 1. God & I are close to one another
12 3 4 5 2.1 trust myself more than I trust God
12 3 4 5 3. When I pray, I tell God my feelings
12 3 4 5 4. God takes care of most things in my life
12 3 4 5 5.1 can't do anything without God
12 3 4 5 6.1 don't need to be close to God
12 3 4 5 7.1 worry if I am ok with God
12 3 4 5 8.1 wonder if God is happy with me
12 3 4 5 9. It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others
12 3 4 5 10.1 am afraid that God does not love me when I am in trouble
12 3 4 5 11.1 get mad at God for not answering me
12 3 4 5 12.1 am worried about if God loves
12 3 4 5 13. God is like a parent to me
12 3 4 5 14. God is fair to me
12 3 4 5 15. God is always there for me
12 3 4 5 16. God will listen to me at any time
12 3 4 5 17. God shows me the way I should be
96
1=No 2=Sort-of 3=Usually
12 3 4 5 18. God helps me with the tilings I care about
12 3 4 5 19. God is in control of everything
12 3 4 5 20. God helps me feel better when I am upset
12 3 4 5 21. God is far away from me
12 3 4 5 22. God protects me from bad things
12 3 4 5 23. God thinks that I am good enough
12 3 4 5 24. My ideas are important to God
12 3 4 5 25. God thinks that I look as good as other kids
12 3 4 5 26. God is proud of me
12 3 4 5 27. God is happy with me
12 3 4 5 28. God thinks I am a failure
12 3 4 5 29. God wants me to be myself
12 3 4 5 30. God is not pleased with me
12 3 4 5 31. God thinks what I want is important
12 3 4 5 32. God believes I am a good son/daughter
12 3 4 5 33. God is not pleased with my school work
12 3 4 5 34. God approves of my decisions
97
1=No 2=Sort-of 3=Usually 4=A Lot 5=Yes
35. When I do something wrong, God:
1 2 3 4 5 Helps me change and do it right next time 1 2 3 4 5 Makes sure I do it the right way next time 1 2 3 4 5 Let's me figure out a better way on my own 1 2 3 4 5 Does not notice my mistake
36. When it comes to my school work, God:
1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it right, every time 1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it the best way I know how 1 2 3 4 5 Is not worried about my school work 1 2 3 4 5 Helps me understand and learn
37. When I am worried about something, God:
1 2 3 4 5 Has no idea what I am worried about 1 2 3 4 5 Fixes it and tells me to think about something else 1 2 3 4 5 Helps me find a way to feel better about it 1 2 3 4 5 Cares about it, but I sort it out on my own
38. When I am tired or sleeping, God:
1 2 3 4 5 Watches over me and helps me rest 1 2 3 4 5 Does not know I am tired or sleeping 1 2 3 4 5 Let's me sleep as long as I want 1 2 3 4 5 Makes me sleep
39. When I am having fun, God:
1 2 3 4 5 Doesn't know what I am doing that is so fun 1 2 3 4 5 Is glad that I am having fun when I obey the rules 1 2 3 4 5 Keeps track of what I am doing every second 1 2 3 4 5 Lets me keep having fun
40. When it comes to keeping my room clean, God:
1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it right, every time 1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it the way I know how 1 2 3 4 5 Is not worried about my room 1 2 3 4 5 Helps me understand and learn
98
1=No 2=Sort-of 3=Usually 4=A Lot 5=Yes
41. When I am happy about something, God:
1 2 3 4 5 Doesn't know what I am happy about 1 2 3 4 5 Is happy with me and wants to talk about what makes me happy 1 2 3 4 5 Is glad I'm happy as long as I behave 1 2 3 4 5 Doesn't ask what I am happy about
42. When I do something good, God:
1 2 3 4 5 Is not interested in what I did 1 2 3 4 5 Wants to know exactly how I did it and tells me how to do it better 1 2 3 4 5 Is happy with me and wants to hear about it 1 2 3 4 5 Tells me good job and lets me figure out how to keep it up
43. When I am afraid, God:
1 2 3 4 5 Protects me and let's me know it's ok 1 2 3 4 5 Changes things completely so I'm not scared 1 2 3 4 5 Does not know I'm scared 1 2 3 4 5 Just tells me not to be afraid
44. When I am sick, God:
1 2 3 4 5 Doesn't do anything to make it better 1 2 3 4 5 Takes care of me and helps me feel better 1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to feel better 1 2 3 4 5 Makes me feel better
99
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33
Appendix E: Item-Scale-Content
Scale Survey Item
Attachment God & I are close to one another (Avoidant) I trust myself more than I trust God
When I pray, I tell God my feelings God takes care of most things in my life I can't do anything without God I don't need to be close to God
Attachment I worry if I am ok with God (Anxious) I wonder if God is happy with me
It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others I am afraid that God does not love me when I am in trouble I get mad at God for not answering me I am worried about if God loves me
Adjectives
Self-Perceptions
God is like a parent to me God is fair to me God is always there for me God will listen to me at any time God shows me the way I should be God helps me with the things I care about God is in control of everything God helps me feel better when I am upset God is far away from me God protects me from bad things
God thinks that I am good enough
My ideas are important to God God thinks that I look as good as other kids God is proud of me God is happy with me God thinks I am a failure God wants me to be myself God is not pleased with me God thinks what I want is important God believes I am a good son/daughter God is not pleased with my school work
100
34
35 35 35 35
36 36 36 36
37 37 37 37
38 38 38 38
39 39 39 39
40 40 40 40
41 41
41 41
God approves of my decisions
Parenting When I do something wrong, God:
C Makes sure I do it the right way next time L Helps me change and do it right next time N Does not notice my mistake P Let's me figure out a better way on my own
When it comes to my school work, God: C Wants me to do it right, every time L Helps me understand and learn N Is not worried about my school work P Wants me to do it the best way I know how
When I am worried about something, God: C Fixes it and tells me to think about something else L Helps me find a way to feel better about it N Has no idea what I am worried about P Cares about it, but I sort it out on my own
When I am tired or sleeping, God: C Makes me sleep L Watches over me and helps me rest N Does not know I am tired or sleeping P Let's me sleep as long as I want
When I am having fun, God: C Keeps track of what I am doing every second L Is glad that I am having fun when I obey the rules N Doesn't know what I am doing that is so fun P Lets me keep having fun
When it comes to keeping my room clean, God: C Wants me to do it right, every time L Helps me understand and learn N Is not worried about my room P Wants me to do it the way I know how
When I am happy about something, God: C Is glad I'm happy as long as I behave L Is happy with me and wants to talk about what makes me
happy N Doesn't know what I am happy about P Doesn't ask what I'm happy about
When I do something good, God: C Wants to know exactly how I did it & tells me how to do it
101
better 42 L Is happy with me and wants to hear about it 42 N Is not interested in what I did 42 P Tells me good job and lets me figure out how to keep it up
When I am afraid, God: 43 C Changes things completely so I'm not scared 43 L Protects me and lets me know it's ok 43 N Does not know I'm scared 43 P Just tells me not to be afraid
When I am sick, God: 44 C Makes me feel better 44 L Takes care of me and helps me feel better 44 N Doesn't do anything to make it better 44 P Wants me to feel better
God Images in Children Items • Instruments indicated in italics under each heading represent potential sources of
item content • ® indicates reverse scoring
Attachment to God Attachment to God Inventory (Beck & McDonald) (Likert Scale -or- T/F)
Avoidance I. God & I are close to one another ®
• My experience with God are very intimate and emotional ® 2.1 trust myself more than I trust God
• I prefer not to depend to much on God 3. When I pray, I tell God my feelings ®
• My prayers to God are very emotional ® 4. God takes care of most things in my life ®
• I am totally dependent upon God for everything in my life ® 5.1 can't do anything without God®
• Without God I couldn't function at all ® 6.1 don't need to be close to God
• Ijust don't feel a deep need to be close to God
Anxious 7.1 worry if I am ok with God
• I worry a lot about my relationship with God 8.1 wonder if God is happy with me
• I often worry about whether God is pleased with me 9. It's not fair when God forgets me and helps others
• I get upset when I feel God helps others but forgets about me 10.1 am afraid that God does not love me when I am in trouble
• I fear God does not accept me when I do wrong II.1 get mad at God for not answering me
• I often feel angry with God for not responding to me 12.1 am worried about if God loves me
• I worry a lot about damaging my relationship with God
103
God Adjective Ratings of God (Gorsuch) GIS - Presence Scale (Lawrence) (Likert Scale -or- T/F)
1. Father God is like a parent to me
2. Fair God is fair to me
3. Faithful God is always there for me
4. Inaccessible God will listen to me at any time ®
5. Guiding God shows me they way I should be
6. Helpful God helps me with the things I care about
7. Controlling God is in control of everything ®
8. Comforting God helps me feel better when I am upset
9. Distant God is far away from me ®
10. Protective God protects me from bad things
Parenting Parallel Loving & Controlling (Benson & Spilka) (Regarding the concern for categorical vs. continuous variables with principle components analysis, we could select the most salient of these items and rearrange them as T/F.)
1. When I do something wrong, God:
A. Helps me change and do it right next time (Loving/Authoritative) B. Makes sure I do it the right way next time (Authoritarian/Controlling) C. Let's me figure out a better way on my own (Permissive) D. Does not notice my mistake (Neglectful)
2. When it comes to my school work, God:
A. Wants me to do it right, every time (Authoritarian/Controlling) B. Wants me to do it the way I know how (Permissive) C. Is not worried about my school work (Neglectful) D. Helps me understand and learn (Authoritative/Loving)
104
3. When I am worried about something, God:
A. Has no idea what I am worried about (Neglectful) B. Fixes it and tells me to think about something else
(Controlling/Authoritarian) C. Helps me find a way to feel better about it (Loving/Authoritative) D. Cares about it, but I sort it out on my own (Permissive)
4. When I am tired or sleeping, God:
A. Watches over me and helps me rest (Loving/Authoritative) B. Does not know I am tired or sleeping (Neglectful) C. Let's me sleep as long as I want (Permissive) D. Makes me sleep (Controlling/Authoritarian) E.
5. When I am having fun, God
A. Doesn't know what I am doing that is so fun (Neglectful) B. Is glad that I am having fun when I obey the rules (Loving/Authoritative) C. Keeps track of what I am doing every second (Authoritarian/Controlling) D. Lets me keep having fun (Permissive)
6. When it comes to keeping my room clean, God:
A Wants me to do it right, every time (Authoritarian/Controlling) E. Wants me to do it the way I know how (Permissive) F. Is not worried about my room (Neglectful) G. Helps me understand and learn (Authoritative/Loving)
7. When I am happy about something, God:
A. Doesn't know what I am happy about (Neglectful) B. Is happy with me and wants to talk about what makes me happy
(Loving/Authoritative) C. (Authoritarian/Controlling) D. Doesn't ask what I am happy about (Permissive)
8. When I accomplish something good, God:
A. Is not interested in what I achieved (Neglectful) B. Wants to know exactly how I did it and tells me how to do it better
(Authoritarian/Controlling) C. Is happy with me and wants to hear about it (Authoritative/Loving) D. Tells me good job and lets me figure out how to keep it up (Permissive)
105
9. When I am afraid, God:
A. Protects me and let's me know it's ok (Loving/Authoritative) B. Changes things completely so I'm not scared (Controlling/Authoritarian) C. Does not know I'm scared (Neglectful) D. Just tells me not to be afraid (Permissive)
10. When I am sick, God:
A. Doesn't do anything to make it better (Neglectful) B. Takes care of me and helps me feel better (Loving/Authoritative) C. Wants me to feel better (Permissive) D. Makes me feel better (Controlling/Authoritarian)
We are excited about the opportunity to assist with your project to further our understanding of God
Images in children.
We would like our children, ages 8-12 years at (church/school) to be involved in the project: Creation of an Objective Measure of God Images in Children. We currently have approximately (#) children ages 8-12 years in our children's group who may be able to participate. Please contact us with further details so that we can proceed.
We are unable to assist you with your project at this time.
Sincerely,
(Your name, position, and contact information)
109
Appendix I: Parent Announcement/Letter
God Image & Children
CHURCH/SCHOOL
Dear Parents,
The CHURCH/SCHOOL has been asked to participate in a study to gain a deeper understanding
of children's perception of God or their "God Image." Children from many other faiths will also
participate in this study, so I am excited that our children's views will be included in the whole. In
addition, All Souls will receive the anonymous results of the survey of our children which I will be
happy to share with you. I have read the complete survey and found nothing distressful or
uncomfortable about any of the questions. Please read on to understand the process in which we
are asking your children to participate.
Sincerely, NAME. POSITION CHURCH/SCHOOL
God Image is a broad term that is used to describe one's subjective and emotional experiences of
God. God Image is also one of the key concepts in understanding an individual's sense of wellness
in their relationship with God. One way to further our understanding of God Image is through
survey methods. A number of valid survey tools exist for use by mental health professionals and
clergy alike, but there remains one problem in this area...none of these instruments were created
specifically for children. Research is lacking in this area, and we have a chance to fix that together.
The Children's Religious Education Department at CHURCH/SCHOOL has agreed to participate in
a research project entitled, "Creation of an Objective Measure of God Image in Children." The
110
researcher is Heather Bermudez, M.A., who is completing her dissertation for the PsyD program in
clinical psychology at Regent University.
Children from CHURCH/SCHOOL between the ages of 8-12 years will be given the opportunity to
complete a survey entitled, "The God Survey" with questions related to their personal views of God
during the DATE/TIME. (Children within one year of these ages who are in the same classroom will
also have the opportunity to respond to the survey). An introductory statement on the survey will
provide options for children to respond based on their subjective views. Survey items will be
answered in a Likert Scale format. The introductory statements and a few of the items from The
God Survey are as follows:
About Gocf:
People have many different views of God. Some believe that God is a man. Others believe that God is a
woman. Some believe that God can be either man or woman. Some believe that God is more than one
being. God can be viewed as a person, or a spirit, as part of nature, or as many gods. People may also not
believe in God. So when you see the word God in this survey, that means what YOU believe about God.
The God Question:
Do you believe in God? (Circle One)
Yes If Yes, turn the page and begin The God Survey
No If No, Please tell us a little bit about your belief:
If your answer to The God Question is No, your survey is complete and you may turn it in.
-Thank you for your participation
Sample Survey Items:
1=No 2=Sort-of 3=Usually 4=ALot 5=Yes
1 2 3 4 5 God & I are close to one another 1 2 3 4 5 I get mad at God for not answering me 1 2 3 4 5 God is fair to me
When it comes to my school work, God:
111
1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it right every time 1 2 3 4 5 Wants me to do it the best way I know how 1 2 3 4 5 Is not worried about my school work 1 2 3 4 5 Helps me understand and learn
If your child would like to participate and if you are in favor of their participation, please be prepared
to read and complete a brief informed consent form on DATE/TIME, prior to your child's entry to
their classroom. No child will be able to participate without parental consent. Children who wish to
participate will also provide their signature next to yours as an indication of their own "assent" or
willingness to participate.
Research with human participants regarding psychological, emotional, and spiritual matters may
involve potential risk of discomfort for some individuals. This study presents limited (if any) risk to
children who wish to participate. However, teachers and parents may wish to follow this survey
experience with an open, non-invasive conversation with children regarding anything they may
wish to share regarding their feelings and views about God. Please feel free to contact a member
of CHURCH/SCHOOL staff regarding specific questions on how to talk with your child about their
God Image.
Will you help us in opening the door to a better understanding of how children connect emotionally
with God? Your help in this project is of transcendent value for children who will be cared for by
clergy, religious educators, and mental health professionals in the future. We want to thank you in
advance for encouraging your children to participate in completion of "The God Survey" on DATE.
We hope it will be an enriching experience for all children who have the opportunity to participate.
Sincerely,
Heather D. Bermudez, M.A. Psy.D. Candidate, Regent University