|
Article Excerpt
This study examined ethnic group differences in the emotional experience of God for a college-age population. The researchers collected in-depth demographic data and administered the God Image Scales (GIS) and a series of attachment inventories with a sample of 211 college students. Using three levels of factor analysis, the researchers uncovered significant differences between White and non-White cohorts in their experience of God and in the influence of various factors including religiosity, spirituality, age, and having received psychotherapy. Additional results have implications for the interrelationship of models for the God image, faith development, ethnic identity development, and clinical practice.
The differentiation between the God concept, how a person cognitively or intellectually understands God, and the God image, how a person emotionally experiences God, has received increased attention in recent years. However, research addressing the God image has not considered the effects of ethnic, racial, and cultural differences. Neither has it considered potential developmental dynamics that may be associated with developmental processes. In this light, our purpose was to examine relationships between a broad set of demographic variables including a careful examination of ethnicity and dimensions of the God image among a population of college students. To address cultural issues, we examined variables addressing one's identification as religious and/or spiritual, as well as experiences with psychotherapy and the relationship of these measures with God image factors. In what follows, we review relevant literature addressing the God image, developmental theory, diversity issues, and our research question.
The God Image
The early development of God image theory and research emerged from the work of Rizzuto (1979) who relied upon Freud and object relations theory to develop her initial conception of how early parental relationships (i.e., attachments) influence one's experience of God later in life. Several studies have since supported the connection between attachment and parental relationships with the God image (Brokaw & Edwards, 1994; Hoffman, Jones, Williams, & Dillard, 2004; Tisdale et al., 1997). However, one should carefully distinguish between being influential and being a determinant; many forces influence how the God image develops. For example, initial research by Cheston, Piedmont, Eanes, and Lavin (2003) suggested that the God image changes as a person goes through the process of therapy. Hoffman et al. (2004) found evidence that the God concept, among other factors, influences the God image. This suggests that there is still much to learn about the God image.
Sorenson (2004) and Aron (2004) have each called for reinterpretations of God image theories in light of contemporary psychoanalytic thought. Aron challenged previous psychoanalytic views of the God image suggesting that they undervalued the intersubjective components of religious experience. Though not addressed in Aron's article, one could expand upon this critique to address the rather stagnant understanding of the God image (consistent with object relations theory) as compared with a more fluid understanding of how one experiences. God. This critique is consistent with contemporary psychoanalytic and relational theory. This would suggest an important limitation in current measures and theory. Additionally, if the God image is fluid, it might change routinely across the lifespan necessitating a more complex understanding of this construct.
Developmental Theories
Several theorists have addressed the importance of seeing spirituality, religion, and faith from a developmental perspective (Boone, 2005; Cox, 2005; Fowler, 1981; Nierenberg & Shildon, 2005; Schlesing, 2005). L. Hoffman (2005) extended this argument suggesting a developmental perspective for the God image. Two approaches to faith or spiritual development are particularly relevant for this study. Since we utilized a traditional college age population for our study, we pay particular attention to the developmental stages most commonly associated with the late teens and early twenties.
Cox (2005) used Erikson's (1968, 1980) theory as a basis for devising a paradigm for spiritual development. Consistent with Erikson, different tasks emerge at different stages. A typical college student might best fit in stage 5 (Erkison's Identity v. Inferiority; Cox's Established Personal Belief) or Stage 6 (Erikson's Intimacy v. Isolation; Cox's Interpersonally Shared Belief System). Navigation of these stages is dependent upon successful completion of earlier development tasks, namely the development of security and differentiation. If these have not occurred, the individual's God image will likely be undifferentiated from her or his parents' God image. However, college-age individuals who successfully navigate prior stage tasks will likely face issues of spiritual identity and the role relationships play in their faith.
Fowler's (1981) stages of faith represent one of the most thorough attempts to articulate the stages of faith development. Heavily influenced by Piaget and Kohlberg, Fowler used a large sample of interviews in developing his theory. According to his theory, most college-age students should be in stage 3; many people never go beyond that level. Fowler characterized this stage as reflecting a more traditional and often rigid belief system that tends to depend upon or conform to religious groups or authority Figures. L. Hoffman (2005) proposed that the God concept would remain largely unchallenged in the third stage. Individuals in this stage resist any attempts to examine faith critically, leaving their God image unexplored and undifferentiated. Stage 4, which typically does not begin until young adulthood, is a transitional stage during which individuals explore and rework many of their previously held beliefs. Thus, college students will likely have a more difficult time distinguishing between different emotions connected with the God image, and they may have difficulty drawing distinctions between religious cognition and religious experience.
Diversity Issues
Researchers investigating the God image have not addressed questions of ethnic, racial, or cultural difference. L. Hoffman (2004, 2005) posited initial formulations of how issues of ethnic, gender, and cultural differences might influence an individual's experience of God. Studies addressing these expressions of difference are more common in the academic disciplines of theology, anthropology, and cultural studies. especially as they relate to religious and spiritual experience. In general, these fields have been more open to postmodern and feminist discourse that frequently embraces neglected and disenfranchised voices. The best current source for the development of theory regarding difference and the God image is the work of feminists who have explored the nuances of female religious and spiritual experience (Brock, 1988; Johnson, 1999; McFague, 1993) and female images of God (Grey, 2001; King, 1994; O'Faolain 6c Martines, 1973). However, these approaches typically did not take into consideration distinctions between the God concept and God image, unconscious and conscious processes, or explicit and implicit God images.
Following such feminist explorations, interest emerged within academic theology and cultural theory regarding culture's influence on the experience of God. Notable works have explored slave narratives and spiritual experience (Hopkins, 1996, 2001), Latina perspectives on religious experience (Isasi-Diaz, 2001), and Womanist perspectives on religious and spiritual experience (Baker-Fletcher, 1996,1998).
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of various expressions of diversity on the God image. To that effect, we specifically examined a broad set of demographic variables and their influence on various God image factors, giving special attention to ethnic differences. Specifically, we hypothesized the following:
1. The factor structure for each of the six hypothesized God image factors will be strong;
2. Correlations among the various factors will be high, reflecting the inability of a college-aged sample (Fowler stage 2 or 3) to differentiate their experiences with God; and
3.Significant differences in the relationship between measured demographic inputs and God image factors will emerge between various ethnic cohorts within the overall sample.
Sample
The sample consisted of 211 college students attending three colleges and universities in southern California. Two of the institutions were private Christian liberal arts universities and one was a community college. The ethnic diversity of the community college was strong, reflecting the significant ethnic diversity of Southern California. To obtain an equally diverse sample from the two Christian universities, we collaborated with professors and student affairs professionals who worked with students of color on their respective campuses. Table 1 reviews the demographic breakdown of the sample. Though we did not include denominational differences because of their categorical nature, we note that the sample contained large numbers of individuals identifying themselves as evangelical (n = 97, 46.0%) and Pentecostal (n = 39,18.5%).
TABLE 1 Demographic Breakdown & Coding Population Group N % Coding Ethnicity (Categorical-Non-coded) African American/Black 24 11.4 NA Asian/Asian American 19 9.0 NA European Origin/White 125 59.2 NA Jewish 1 0.5 NA Latino-a/Hispanic 36 17.1 NA Middle Eastern 1 0.5 NA Native American...
|
