|
Article Excerpt
The Attachment to God Inventory (AGI) and Religious Coping Activities Scale (RCAS) were given to 159 church-going adults. A median split using AGI Avoidance and Anxiety scales divided participants into Secure (24.46%), Dismissing (20.14%), Preoccupied (25.18%), and Fearful (30.22%) styles. These four groups were analyzed in relation to the six scales of the RCAS. Results indicated that Secure and Preoccupied used more Christian activities and ideas in coping. Secure also scored higher on religious avoidance, turning to religion to avoid problems. Dismissing focused more on good works and also avoided any sense of pleading. Fearful showed greater anger and doubt toward God. The only scale that failed to show a difference was the scale which represents the notion of using the church and pastor as a means of support. One can see that religious adults have differing attachment styles and vary in their use of religion to cope with life experiences.
**********
Attachment theory has become one of the most widely researched topics in psychology over the past several years as can be seen in the number of edited books devoted to the topic (e.g., Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Simpson & Rholes, 1998). Although Kirkpatrick (1999) warned of the danger in extending the construct beyond its original context, parent and child relationships, he and others (Beck, 2006; Beck & McDonald, 2004; Cicirelli, 2004) have used it in the context of religious functioning. The present research is concerned with the relationship between attachment to God and the use of religion as a means of coping with life.
Attachment is a central concept in the developmental model of behavior. Attachment grows out of the young child's attempt to attain or maintain "proximity to some other clearly identified individual who is conceived as better able to cope with the world" (Bowlby, 1988, p. 27). Comfort is obtained, and fear is reduced by this association. Bowlby's work, along with Mary Ainsworth's (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1971) and many others (Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Main & Solomon, 1990), led to the classification of attachment styles in infants and adults. The names for the three or four attachment styles have varied from researcher to researcher. Secure and insecure, of course, are the basic divisions with insecure/avoidant and insecure/ambivalent comprising the initial three styles (Holmes, 1993, p. 105). The present research followed the four styles articulated by Bartholomew (1990) and Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998): Secure, Preoccupied (Anxious/Ambivalent), Dismissing (Avoidant), and Fearful (Disoriented/Disorganized).
The securely attached individual is confident that the caregiver or attachment figure is consistently responsive and available. As a result, the individual feels safer in exploring the world with that figure present. Generally, this is the result of the attachment figure or parent being sensitive to the child's needs and responsive when the child seeks protection or comfort (Karen, 1998; Solomon & George, 1999).
Preoccupied (insecure/anxious/ambivalent) attachment is characterized by the individual's uncertainty- that the parent will be responsive or available when needed. This child experiences frequent inconsistency in the parent's availability and often is exposed to threats of abandonment from the parent. This type of attachment leads the individual to be clingy and experience a constant state of anxiety about separation from the attachment figure as well as anxiety about exploring the surrounding world (Karen, 1998; Solomon & George, 1999).
The dismissing (insecure/avoidant) attachment is characterized by the individual's expectancy that the parent or caregiver will be consistently unresponsive and unavailable. The individual usually attempts to become self-reliant and live independently without relying on others for love and support (Karen, 1998; Solomon & George, 1999).
Lastly, a fourth fearful attachment style, as described by Main and Solomon (1990), belongs to the individual who exhibits a disorganized/disoriented attachment to the parent or caregiver. There is a lack of coherence in the individual's strategy toward attachment. It is as though the individual is fearful of the caregiver and is unable to determine how to approach the caregiver for comfort (Cassidy & Shaver, 1999; Solomon & George, 1999).
Ainsworth and Bowlby studied attachment in the early days of life, and more recent research has shown it to have utility in describing one's relationship to God (Kirkpatrick, 1998, 1999; Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1990). Rather than attachment to an object present in a material sense, attachment here is symbolic. Symbolic attachment most accurately describes the relationship between the individual and the unseen caregiver. Attachment is directed toward a deity or other unseen entity (Cicirelli, 2004). The attachment to God can be considered an attachment just as real as an attachment to any physical or personal object. Even Darwin noted that" ... the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward conviction and feelings which are experienced by most persons" (Gardner, 1999, p. 13). William James (1902) put these inner feelings into words in many places in his book, The Variety of Religious Experiences. The source of adult attachments can be considered the natural longing of human beings for God, or the source can be viewed as a projection of the attachment to early childhood caregivers. Both of these ideas are based on unproven assumptions, which is the way all human cognition begins. As Miner (2007) states, "We relate to others because we are capable of relating to God by being made in the image of God: we do not just develop an ability to relate to God because we relate to humanity, or to carers" (p....
|
