Religious Research Association, Inc.

Parents, Self, and God: A Test of Competing Theories of Individual-Religion Relationships

Author(s): Bernard Spilka, James Addison and Marguerite Rosensohn
Source: Review of Religious Research, Vol. 16, No. 3, Models, Types, and Definitions (Spring,
1975), pp. 154-165
Published by: Religious Research Association, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3510353 .
Accessed: 25/05/2014 07:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Religious Research Association, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Review of Religious Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Review of ReligiousResearch
Vol. 16: No. 3 (Spring,1975)

PARENTS,SELF,AND GOD: A TESTOF COMPETING

THEORIESOF INDIVIDUAL-RELIGION
RELATIONSHIPS
BernardSpilka JamesAddison Rosensohn
Marguerite
Departmentof Psychology
of Denver
University

Abstract
Four theoriesof the originsof God concepts(Freudian,Adlerian,Social Learn-
ing, and Self-Esteem)were comparedutilizingpartialcorrelationtechniques.The
Ss were 198 Catholicyouthfrom3 parochialschools. Slightlymore supportwas
gainedfor the Adlerianand Self-Esteempositionsthanfor the Freudianand Social
Learning frameworks.Both methodogolicaland theoreticalquestionsare raised
challenging individualistic
such exclusively explanations;and sociocultural
possibilities
are introduced.Serious measurementdifficultiesmeritresearchconsideration before
thislong-standingproblemin thepsychology of religioncan be successfully
resolved.

The originof God conceptshas been therto the deity(Nelson and Jones,
a continuing source of fascination to 1957; Godinand Hallez, 1964; Nelson,
of
psychologists religion. Ever since 1971). Nelson(1971) attempts to ex-
Freud (1938: 1957) postulatedgen- plain theseapparentcontradictions by
of imagesfromone's father reference
eralization to the view of AlfredAdler
to God, researchers have attempted to thatGod conceptsmaybe moreconso-
verify this hypothesis. Where some nantwiththoseof thepreferred parent
scholarstendto affirm the psychoana-thanmoregenerally witheithermother
lyticposition(Vergoteet al., 1969), orfather perse.
they and others (Strunk,1959) do so Current psychologicaltheory and
withcaution,notingthatGod images someresearchsuggests additionalalter-
be
mayonly slightly more paternalthan nativesto the classic of Freud
positions
maternal.One can,however, claimthat and Adler. For example,SocialLearn-
a strongerresearch-founded case has ingTheory(SLT) might implythatGod
been demonstrated for a patterning of imagecouldbe a projection ofthedom-
motherto God similarities thanforfa- inantparentalmodelfora child,which

154

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PARENTS, SELF, AND GOD 155
exceptin rare instanceswouldbe the now be operationally phrasedwiththe
like-sexparent-hencethe motherfor statisticalprocedureof choice being
femalesand fatherformales. But why partialcorrelation.'
only assumethat God perceptsmust The Freudianhypothesis aversthat
exclusively reflect or parallelparental significant God-father correlations will
characteristics? Our individualistically be manifest forbothsexes whencon-
oriented socialordersponsorshighself- founding influences fromselfand moth-
valuation, if not a phenomenal narcis- er are partialled in theanalysis.It
out
sism in whichpersonsregardthem- is also impliedthatsuchfatherto God
selvesas beinglittleless thanGod-like relationships mustbe of substantially
in beingand manner.Or as someone greatermagnitude thanmotherto,God
has put it: "Man createdGod in his associations whenselfand father effects
ownimage." We can thusinvokeself- areremoved.
esteemtheory to implya likepatterning The Adlerianpreferred parentview
of selfand God images.In tworecent leads to the inference thatvariancein
studies(Bensonand Spilka.1973; Spil- preference foroneparentmustbe made
and
ka, Rosensohn, Tener,1973) such independent ofthatfortheotherparent
a viewdidgainsupport. in orderto get a relatively puretestof
Utilizinga statisticalorientation to single preferredparent-Godrelation-
thesequestions,it is possibleto com- ships. In addition, thismayhaveto be
pare the above competing theories.In doneby removing selfand otherparent
addition,this approachleads to the effects foreach parentin turnsince a
formulation of someissuesnotinvolved statistically significantpatternof corre-
in thepreviousresearch.For example, lation coefficients may exist among
thereare morethanhintsin theearlier thesevariables.Note thatpsychoana-
workcitedthatimagesof God correlatelytictheoryconsiders parentpreference
significantlywiththoseof bothparents irrelevant.
and self. This is further confounded Turning to thelikesex modeling pos-
by the observation thatselfviewsare sibilityof SLT, we are saying,regard-
associatedwithparallelevaluativeout- lessofpersonalpreference, malesshould
looks towardsone's parents.In addi- revealnoteworthy fatherto God corre-
tion,preferences existon continuaand lationswhileparallelmother to,God co-
are notof an all-or-none quality or in- efficients
should be evident for females.
dependent of each other. In other Lastly, self-God patterns ought to,be
words,the argument can be advanced similarlyassessablewhen confounding
that fatherto God correspondences elements of parentalevaluationare sta-
cannotbe ascertained unlessself and tisticallypartialledout. In this way
mothercomponents are removedfrom self-esteem theory mayhaveitsposition
the formerrelationships. A like posi- judged.
tioncan be offered forthe assessment To accomplish theabovetests,partial
of self,mother,and preferred parent correlational methods are employed.
possibilities. Unfortunately, these solutions are not
fullyindependent of each other and thus
THEORETICAL PROPOSITIONS
representapproximations to an ideal
The varioustheoretical positionscan state. Probablyof greatermeaningis

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 156 REVIEW OF RELIGIOUS RESEARCH
the elaboration of a methodof theory Tests
comparison notpreviously employed in An extensive testbattery was devel-
empirical researchin thepsychology of oped to assessfirsta varietyof demo-
religion.Also of note is evidencethat graphicitems(e.g., sex, age, religious
self,mother, father,and God concep- affiliation, socioeconomic status,paren-
tualizations are all interrelated,a findingtal and familycharacteristics). To as-
nottobe takenlightly. sess parent,self,and God images,a
Sincecorrelational methodsare being 12-itemsemanticdifferential was con-
employed here with theories that imply structed. This a
provided positive-neg-
causation, itis necessary to statethatwe ativeevaluative scaleforself,father, and
are notattempting an empirical demon- mother.An essentially identicalinstru-
strationofcausalhypotheses. Inferencesmentwas utilizedfor obtainingGod
are confinedsolelyto the questionof percepts.Thesedevicesdealtwithtwo
covariation inthepresent data. majordimensions whichseemcentralto
METHOD both parent and God images,namely,
Subjects affectionand discipline(or morespe-
The Ss consisted of 198 Catholichigh cifically here definedas "loving"and
school youthfrom 3 parochialhigh "controlling").In previousworkthese
schoolsin theDenverarea. Therewere scaleswereshownto havegoodinternal
116 males and 82 females,withmean consistency reliability(BensonandSpil-
agesof 16.1 and 16.3 yearsrespectively.ka, 1973). In addition, self-esteemwas
All werejuniorsor seniors.The choice furtherjudgedby means of a 23-item
of CatholicSs was premised on thede- versionof theCoopersmith SelfEsteem
sireto miniimize boththeological varia- Inventory (Coopersmith, 1967). These
tion and degreeof religiouscommit- items correlate .78 with the remaining
ment,bothof whichmightconceivably27 itemsofthetotalscale. Generalat-
influencefindings. It is alsopossiblethat, titudestowardmotherand fatherwere
ifSs arenotidentified reasonably strong- also approachedby utilizingthe Atti-
lywitha traditional spiritualframework,tudes towardParentsScales of Itkin
thehypothesized relationships might not (1952). Excellent evidenceofreliability
exist.This criticism does seem appro, and validityfor these instruments is
priateto someof thepreviousresearch available(ShawandWright, 1967).
in thisarea (Nelson,1971; Vergoteet For a morecompleteperspective on
al., 1969). On the average the Ss as- God concepts, a number of the Adjec-
sessedherespend3 hourspermonthin tiveratingof God scalesconstructed by
churchand religiousactivities.On a Gorsuch(1968) wereemployed. These
9-pointscale of personalperception of deal withthefollowing imagepatterns:
the importance of religion, theseyouth traditionalChristian,kindliness,om-
providea meanof6.3; anda similar rat- ni-ness,deisticnessand wrathfulness.2
ing of 6.3 obtains for the degree be- All of the above instruments
of weread-
liefin God on a 7-pointscale.In other ministered to the Ss in groupsettings
words,virtually everystudentmarked and excellent cooperation was secured.
theextreme endofthelatterscale aver-
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ringthe strongestpossible beliefin
God. All variables were firstintercorrelat-

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PARENTS, SELF, AND GOD 157
EXHIBIT 1 ceptsforthemales,thisnumber increas-
VARIABLE CODES FOR es to 27 forthe females. In general,
ACCOMPANYING TABLES
considerably moresignificant r's obtain
Var. No. Variable withPossibleAbbreviation among all of the variables for the fe-
1 Closenessto Mother males than the males, questioning the
2 Closenessto Father of
appropriateness combining the sexes
3 "Be like" mother inworkofthistype.
4 "Be like" father
5 LovingSelfsemanticdifferential Turningnow to consideration of the
6 Controlling selfsemanticdifferential
7 LovingMothersemanticdifferential varioushypotheses, theresearchers first
8 ControllingMothersemanticdifferentialexaminethe pointat whichtheystart
9 LovingFathersemanticdifferential
10 Controlling Fathersemanticdifferential these analyses. Here the researchis
S11 LovingGod semanticdifferential concerned withtherelationships between
12 Controlling God semanticdifferential
13 Wrathful God image(W) God percepts and the self and parent
14 TraditionalChristian God image(TC) measures forthesexesseparately. Rath-
15 KindlinessGod Image (K)
16 Omni-ness God Image (0) er thanpresent the data at each stage of
17 DeisticnessGod Image (D) the analysis,onlyinitialand finalcor-
18 Coopersmith Self EsteemInventory (SEI) relation
19 ItkinMotherscale matrices willbe presented and
20 ItkinFatherscale discussed.

The FreudianPosition
ed for the totalsampleand thenfor
males and femalesseparately. Since Table 2 providesthepertinent data
the hypotheses formulated and tested to assess this of
hypothesis generaliza-
heredealwiththesexesseparately, pres- tion of father to God images. One can
entation anddiscussion willbe restricted see in the initial matrices thata single
to data forthe sexesonlyand not for significant correlation obtains between
thetotalgroup. father and God percepts for thefemales
Variable codes apear in Exhibit1 while three exist for the males. The
and Table 1 providesthe matricesof latter show positiverelationships be-
significantcorrelations(p< or =.05 lev- tween of a
images lovingfather,loving a
el) forthe males and females.It is abun- God (.34). and a traditional Christian
dantlyevidentthata ratherconsistent God A
(.24) concept. loving God also
and pervasivepatternof meaningfultiestoperceptions ofone'sfather as con-
relationshipsdoes obtain the
among par- trolling (.19). When all selfand moth-
ent and selfmeasuresfor both sexes. er variablesare partialledout, only
Positiveself-perceptionstendto be affili-the lovingfatherand lovingGod asso-
atedwithsimilarviewsof bothmother ciation,though reduced,stillattainssta-
and father.Preferences forone parent tistical significance atthe.05 level(.23).
are also paralleledby a likeviewof the The originalfemalecorrelation between
otherparent. In sum,thenecessity of controlling father and an omni-ness God
partialling out self and parentimages image is stillfound in the finalmatrix,
fromrelationships withGod concepts butnothing elseappears.
would appearto be supported. Where A more valid assessment oftheFreud-
only10 of the selfand parent variables ian position must be premisedon the
correlate with
significantly the God con- hypothesisthat, when all confounding

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TABLE1
SIGNIFICANTCORRELATIONSAMONG
PARENT,SELF, ANDGOD VARIABL
FOR MALES(N=116; ABOVEDIAGONAL)ANDFEMALES(N=82; BELOWDIAG

VARIABLEI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1 45 64 25 24 59 21 30 25
2 44 30 56 25 35 77 -32 24
3 67b 32 28 44 -19
4 27 72 42 19 56
5 35 25 30 -26 29 30 33 27
6 -23 19
7 74 28 57 27 -23 39 24
8 -44 .32 -45 37 24
9 34 73 25 70 24 33 -39 34 23
10 24 -47 -19
11 38 26 41 32 -21 -21 28 36
12 -24 26 -25
13 23 -33
14 33 37 39 -25 42 -39 66
15 26 31 68
16 25 28 38 24 27 60 52
17 -27 -28 -52 45 -32 -42
18 42 27 36 40 33 24 31 23 30
19 78 30 63 22 30 78 -45 28 33 35 26
20 29 80 24 75 23 82 -37 22

Decimal points omitted; Significance at .05 level .

a 8, r01 .24 for males br r
05= = 22; = .28 for females

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PARENTS, SELF, AND GOD 159
TABLE 2
CORRELATIONMATRICESBY SEXESFOR ASSESSMENTOF THE
FREUDIANFATHERTO GOD HYPOTHESIS
Males (N =116) Females (N=82)
Matrixl
God Concepts God Concepts

Initialmatrix L C W TC K O D L C W TC K O D
LovingFather 34t 04 -15 23* 14 03 -04 13 09 12 10 04 02 02
ControllingFather -19* 10 -02 -12 -02 01 15 -06 14 -07 12 10 23* -03
Final matrix2
LovingFather 23* 13 -04 17 16 06 00 -06 09 14 -07 -08 -14 21
ControllingFather -12 00 -08 -09 01 05 15 -04 17 -07 19 15 30tf-08
Final matrix3
LovingMother 07 -17 -04 -12 -15 -07 -12 27* 06 00 29t 15 33t -27*
ControllingMother -13 19 08 02 -07 -13 -02 -08 04 -04 -28* 14 -22 04

1Decimalpointsomitted.
2Threeselfand 3 parentvariablesremoved;thisinvolvesself and mothervariablespartialled
out.
3Thisinvolves,forcomparison, selfand fathervariablespartialledout.
at .05 level.
*Indicatessignificance
at .01 level.
tndicates significance

variablesareremoved frombothmother mosttentative senseforthemales.This

and fatherGod imagecorrelations, the would seem to be contradicted by the
father-God r's will be higher than the females. In sum, it seems safeto infer
mother-Godcoefficients. An almost essentially no substantive evidence in
negligibletendency for such to occur favor ofthe Freudian view.
takesplace forthemalesas theloving
God and lovingfathercorrelation is TheAdlerian Position
not paralleledby a similarsignificant Turningto the Adlerianperspective
associationbetween lovingGod andlov- in whichparentpreference entersthe
ing mother.None of the mother-Godpicture,one observesin Table 3 all
associationsfor the males attainssig- variations by sexes of preference with
nificance.In contrast, a case can be preference forthe oppositeparentre-
madeforthefemalesthatdirectly con- movedalongwithselfand thenon-pre-
tradictsthe Freudianpositionbecause ferredparent'scharacteristics. The cen-
the singlefather-God associationnoted tral measureof preference abstracted
above,whichis notpresentamongthe hereis the degreeto whichan S indi-
mother-God coefficients, is nowreplaced cateda desireto "be like"eithermoth-
by 5 newsignificant lovingmoth- er or father,As Tables 1 and 2 in-
r's. A
er seemsto go withloving(.27), tradi- dicate,neitherof thesepreferences ap-
tionalChristian (.29), omni-ness (.33), pearsto correlate significantlyand con-
and nondeistic(-.27) God images, sistently withtheGod images.No mean-
whilea viewof one'sfatheras control- ingfulassociationsare manifested for
lingopposespossession of thetradition- themales; while for the females,thede-
al Christianview (-.28). sire to "be like" motheris positively
The above data hardlysupportthe associatedwithimagesof a lovingGod
psychoanalytic viewpoint exceptin the (.26) and an omni-nessconception

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
160 REVIEW OF RELIGIOUS RESEARCH

(.28). Beinglikefatherweaklyparal- similarmanner, preferenceforfatheris

lels the holdingof a traditionalChris- also independentof the God percepts
tianGodimage(.23). noted,a
forthefemalesand,as initially
Whenthepreferred parentis thefa- controllingfatherstilltiesto an omni-
therand mother preferenceis partialled Godimage.

TABLE3
MATRICES
CORRELATION OF THEADLERIAN
BY SEXESFORASSESSMENT PARENT
PREFERRED TO GODHYPOTHESIS

Matrixl Males (N = 116) Females (N = 82)

God Concepts GodConcepts
Initial Matrix2 L C W TC K 0 D L C W TC K 0 D
"Be Like" Mother 05 03 04 -02 -04 -11 -01 26* 05 10 19 07 28+ -18
"Be Like" Father 09 01 -09 -06 -01 -03 02 10 14 23* -10 -15 -04 -07
LovingMother 24+ -17 16 03 05 -04 -12 32+ 05 05 39+ 21 38+ -28+

Controlling Mother-13 24+ 05 00 -04 -10 03 -10 09 -06 -25* -14 -18 02
Final Matrix3
preferredparent is father)
IWh-jen
"Be Like" Father 10 -03 -08 -08 00 02 02 00 13 22 -15 -19 -13 18

Loving Father 24+ 12 -03 16 15 06 00 -07 08 14 -07 -07 -14 21

Controlling Father -12 00 -06 -09 00 04 15 -04 16 -06 18 15 29+ -09

Final Matrix3
Whenpreferredparent is mother)
"Be Like" Mother 04 02 10 00 -03 -09 -01 14 05 00 18 11 31+ -17

LovingMother 06 -17 -04 -14 -16 -07 -12 29+ 06 02 29+ 13 36+ -27+
Controlling Mother-11 20* 09 05 -05 -12 -02 -08 04 -05 -28* -14 -22 -04
1Decimalpoints omitted.
2See Table 2 for correlations with loving and controlling father image.
3A total of 7 preference, self, and opposite parent variables were partialled out.
*Indicates significance at the .05 level.

+Indicates significance at the .01 level.

out alongwithselfand theothermater- Considering motherpreference with

one notesthatmalesasso- thatforthefather
nal variables, removed, againthere
forthe
ciatea lovingfatherwitha lovingGod is notedlittleor no significance
(.24) thoughthemagnitude of thisre- males,althougha numberof significant
is somewhat
lationship weakerthanori- correlationsappear for the females.
ginallynotedin Table 1. The other Whilethemalesshowa borderline asso-
significant
statistically mother
noted ciationof a controlling
coefficients witha
above are no longerpresentand father like view of God (.20), the women
preference appears to continueto be manifestnotablystrongerassociations
independent of the God images.In a betweenlovingmotherand lovingGod

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PARENTS, SELF, AND GOD 161

(.29), a traditional ChristianGod im- associated.Therefore, to assess a So-

age (.29), an omni-concept(.36), cial Learningpossibility thatit is the
and a non-deistic one (-.27). Prefer- like-sexparentfromwhomgeneraliza-
ence forthemotheralso affiliates with tion or projectionto God imagesoc-
an omni-image (.31). These observa- curs,it is necessaryto partialout all
tionslead one to cautiouslysuggestthat preference indicators.Concurrently, all
parentalpreference on the partof the measuresof the opposite-sexparent
femaleyouthmaytie to God percepts. wouldalso haveto be removed in order
The Adlerianperspectivegains some to obtaina relatively pure testof this
support herebutnotformales. theory.In addition,as withtheevalua-
tionoftheFreudianhypothesis reported
TheSocialLearning Position earlier,the researchers
are sayingthat
Thoughpreferences for one parent the correlation coefficients
betweenthe
as opposedto theothermaybe associat- like-sex parentand God conceptswillbe
ed withthe parentafterwhicha child higher thanwiththeopposite-sex parent.
modelshimself ratherstrong By removingfourpossiblepreference
or herself,
and pervasiveculturalpressuresenter measuresand five dealingwith each
thepictureto forcea like-sexpattern of parentand theself,it is possibleto fo-
modeling(Bandura,1971). Preferences cuson thisquestion.
of be
may, course, similarly conditioned. Once again,as Table 4 demonstrates,
In addition,as is evidentfromTable 1, significant betweenthe ap-
correlations
parentalpreferences tendto be positivelypropriateparent and God imagestend

TABLE4
MATRICES
CORRELATION OF THESOCIALLEARNING
BY SEXESFORASSESSMENT LIKE-SEXPARENT
TO GODHYPOTHESIS

Matrixo Males (N = 116) Females (N = 82)

God Concepts God Concepts
Initial Matrix2 L C W TC K 0 D L C W TC K 0 D
Final Matrix3
(Father is Model for Males; Motherfor Females)
Loving Parent 22* 09 02 21" 11 04 -05 17 03 02 19 12 26* -17

Controlling Parent-07 05 -06 -07 04 06 17 04 08 -05 -21 -14 -12 -14

Final Matrix3
F-(orcomparison: Motherfor males; father for females)
Loving Parent 00 -30+ -18 -13 -15 -07 -13 -11 -08 00 05 05 -09 07

Controlling Parent-10 23* 11 05 -06 -13 -02 -06 21 00 16 10 29* -02

IDecimnalpoints omitted,
2See Tables 2 and 3 for correlations with loving and controlling motherand father images,
3A total of 9 preference, self, and parent variables were partialled out.
*Indicates significance at the .05 level.
+Indicates significance at the .01 level.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
162 REVIEW OF RELIGIOUS RESEARCH
to be scarce. The patternof a loving outlooktowardothersand the world.
father'sbeing affiliated witha loving Apparently thisincludesimagesof God
God (.22) and a traditional Christian as researchhas alreadydemonstrated
image (.21) amongthe males is still (Bensonand Spilka,1973). The pres-
foundhere. Likewise,a lovingmoth-,entworkcontinues to revealsimilarsig-
er and an omniconception of God are nificantcorrelations thoughprimarily
affiliated(.26) for the femaleyouth. forthefemales(see initialmatrix, Ta-
Whencomparisons are effectedwiththe ble 5). Theseindicatethatperceptions
oppositesex parent,all of theforegoingof selfas lovingor controlling are posi-
relationshipsdisappear; but three new tivelyrelated to likeviews of the deity.
ones are manifested. For the males,a For bothsexeslovingselftiesto a tra-
controlling God image becomesasso- ditional ChristianGod image(.27; .37),
ciatedwitha non-loving Mother(-.30) whilenegative selfviewson thepartof
and a controlling mother(.23), while the males (low SEI) affiliate withthe
a controlling fatheris relatedto an conceptof a wrathful God (-.25). High
omni-Godperception(.29). One can self-esteem (SEI) amongfemalesis fur-
hardlysuggest that these observations theraffiliatedwithperceptsof a loving
implyany real support for the Social God (.31), A traditionalChristian
LearningHypothesis. Hence, this view view (.23), a God of kindliness (.30),
seemshighlyquestionableas such has and a non-deistic image (-.31). Ap-
beenevaluated here. parently highself-valuationis consonant
withtheholdingof imagesof God that
The Self-EsteemPosition are bothpositive,close, personaland
Self-concept theory which has more also of a deityverymuchinvolvedin
recently been phrased as Self-Esteem human affairs.
theory offersthe formulation that one's When the parentmeasuresare par-
viewof himself or herselfis centralin tialledout foreach sex separately, the
and
determining shaping his or her initial
pattern of relationshipstends to

TABLE 5
CORRELATION MATRICES BY SEXES FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE
SELF-ESTEEM, SELF TO GOD HYPOTHESIS

Matrix2 Males (N = 116) Females (N -- 82)

God Concepts God Concepts

Initialmatrix L C W TC K O. D. L CW TC K O D
LovingSelf 33t 141 -17 27? 16 05 03 -01
417t-24* 37? 26* 19 -16
ControllingSelf -12 19* 01 03 02 -11 -06 03 26* -15 -02 07 03 -05
Self-Esteem(SEI) 15 -15 -25? 09 01 00 01 311 03 -03 23* 301 13 -31t
Final matrix2
LovingSelf 04 07
22*"-11 -09 23*"14 -12 33-t-36t1-03301 18 06 -07
ControllingSelf -19* 17. 02 -02 00 -06 03 22 -15 02 08 01 -04
Self-Esteem(SEI) 09 -12 -21" 09 02 00 00 15 -07 -04 11 18 -04 -19

'Decimal pointsomitted.
2A totalof 6 parentvariableswerepartialledout.
at .05 level.
*Indicatessignificance
at .01 level.
tIndicatessignificance

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PARENTS, SELF, AND GOD 163

be maintained withbothsomeweaken- foundingself,preference, and parent

ingand somestrengthening of theseas- measures havebeenpartialled out.There
sociations.The abovenotedcoefficientsare fourtheoretical positionsand two
betweenloving self and loving and sexesor a possibility of eightinstances
traditional ChristianGod imagesper- over whichtherecould be agreement.
sist. A controlling self among the Interestingly, the dimensionof loving
males becomesantithetic to,perceiving self or either parentis positively asso-
God as loving(-.19), whileamongthe ciatedwiththe lovingGod conceptin
femalesthe conceptof a controllingsevenoftheeightcases.In threewe find
God is notconsonantwithfeelingthat lovingself or parentto be affiliated
one is a lovingperson (-.36). Self- withtheholdingof a traditional Chris-
esteemon theSEI continues be
to, neg- tian God image. These two God images
atively relatedto perceptions ofa wrath- correlaterespectively formalesand fe-
ful God forthe males (-.21). Though males .28 and .41. A similarnumber
tentative,the abovefindings do appear of significant correlations witha con-
to suggestsome possiblevalidityfor trolling selfor parentlead to thecon-
theself-esteem position. ceptof a controlling God or thenega-
Whenone comparesthe numberof tion of a lovingGod. There is also
significant partial correlations in the morethana passingsuggestion, specif-
finalmatrices forthevarioushypothesesicallyamongthefemales,thatthecon-
relativeto the totalnumbercomputed,troland love dimensions are notneces-
it is evidentthatone-third of thoseob- sarilynegatively associated. Here both
tainedfortheevaluation oftheAdlerian controlling motherand fatheraffiliate
andSelf-Esteem theory positions appear with the conceptof an omni-God image
to be statistically meaningful. One- and so does a lovingmother. One
fifth ofthoseemployed to testtheFreud- mighthypothesize that this apparent
ian and Social Learningtheoryframe- identification of omniness,control, and
works also reach or exceed the .05 love a
reflects female inference of affec-
level. These resultshardlylead to a tional concernfromthe presenceof
feeling ofconfidence in asserting thesu- parentswho are involvedmuchmore
periority of any of these theories over in thelifeof a girlthanthatof a boy.
theothers.Thelackofindependence of A similarkindof control-love relation-
the statisticalassessmentproceduresshipdoes notoccurforthemaleswhere
mustalso be takenintoconsideration.thesevariablesmay be in opposition.
In addition, thetheoriesthemselves are Male-parent relationships, as we know,
hardlyindependent of each other.For are oftenpremised on providing greater
examplethefather in theFreudianview freedomforboys and love herecould
maybe thepreferred parentin theAd- meanless controlandhencethegreater
lerianperspective andalsothemodelfor independence of malesand theiroppor-
themalechildinSocialLearning theory. tunityto expressmasculine prerogatives
If one examinesthepatternsof sig- morefreely.For bothsexes,in theini-
nificant relationships acrossthevarious tial matricesand in Table 1, thereare
theories,certainconsistencies are ob- ratherpervasive,negativeand signifi-
served.It shouldbe notedthatthisper- cant correlations betweenthelove and
tains to final matrices in which con- control dimensions. This pertainsto

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
164 REVIEW OF RELIGIOUS RESEARCH

a discussionof what may be present namely,whymustit be assumedthat

whenconfounding elements fromthese God imageshave to be generalizations
are removed.And it is suggested that fromselfor parents? Grantedthatit is
thismorerefinedtreatment leaves the psychologicallyreasonable to makesuch
original patternfunctional forthemales inferences, this kind of thinkingab-
but not for the females. If so, this stractspeoplefromtheculturalcontext
makessensefromwhatis knownabout in whichtheylive and individualizes
differentialchildrearingand socializa- boththesociocultural milieuand theol-
tionpracticesextantin our culturefor ogy.More appropriate wouldbe recog-
thesexes. nitionof theprimacy of a longreligio-
Thesefindings leadtoadditional ques- culturaltradition.God imageshave a
tionsthatmightimplythatthe fore- stereotypic qualityabout themin the
goingfindings are based on semanticpopularmindandthishas cultural roots.
similaritiesamongtheself,parent,and The sensitive natureofthisdomainmay
God scalesespecially withregardto the further leadtotherather strict
reification
lovingandcontrolling dimensions. Could and anthropomorphization of God con-
itemstyleandcontent factorsbe operat- cepts.Statedmoresimply, relativeto the
ing to build in the relationships ob- current workand research on individual
served? This is not to be dismissed and familialcorrelates of God images,
lightly and can only be definitively an- what may be observed maybe simply
sweredwhenone setsup different scale thepointsat whichculturalstereotypes
formsfor assessingself,parents,and in bothspheresmatcheachother.There
God on thesevariables. In addition, are justso manydimensions whichcan
one might reasonably ask if theself and be called for
upon descriptive purposes.
parentdimensions employed are too re- For example,God imagesconveythe
strictiveand if it wouldnothave been conceptsof love and authority and so
betterto have utilizeda broaderspec- do thoseof parents. Controlis an es-
trumof traitcharacteristics forselfand sentialpartof such a complex. Con-
parents than the two employedhere. currently, one likesto viewoneselfin
As statedearlier,thelovingand control a positivelight-hence,lovingand not
measuresdid seema priorito be rather overlyrestricting butwithsomepersonal
centralones whenone conceivesof the powerand capability.These facetsof
rolestereotypes assigned to bothparents roleperception whether theybe forself,
and God. Nevertheless, no one can parents,or God mayhave correlations
validlychallengethe view that more amongthembuiltin to the measure-
traittermsforboth self,parents,and ments employed.
God couldhavebeenusefully included. The presentresearchhas failedto
It is possibleto inferthatelements comeup withdefinitive answersrelative
of the varioushypotheses are differen-to thetheorieson whichasessment has
tiallyappropriate forthetwosexesand been attempted.A numberof signifi-
that the researchreallyneeds better cant alternative theoreticaland meth-
theorydevelopment whichtakes into odological have,however,
questions been
consideration theearlier noted statisticalphrased which meritadditional research
overlapamongthe varioustests. Still thatit is hopedmayresolvetheseoften
a more fundamentalquestion arises, long standinghypotheses. Lastly, the

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PARENTS, SELF, AND GOD t65

validityof the individualistic scrutinized.

assump- sharply
tions underlyingthis area should be

NOTES AND REFERENCES Gorsuch,R. L.

1. For practical purposes, partial correlation is
treated here as the relationshipbetween two variables
when the average influenceof a numberof othershas
been removedfromthe associationin question.
2. Illustrativeadjectives for each of these scales are
as follows: Traditional Christian (Blessed, Gracious,
Righteous); Kindliness(Comforting,Forgiving); Omni-
ness (Infinite,Omnipotent); Deisticness (Distant, Im- Nelson, M. 0. and E. M. Jones
personal); Wrathfulness (Avenging, Damning). All
tests are available on request from the firstauthor.
Bandura, A. (ed.)
1971 PsychologicalModeling. Chicago, Ill.: Aldine-
Atherton.
Benson, P. and B. Spilka
1973 "God image as a functionof self esteem and
locus of control." Journal for the Scientific
of
Study Religion 12:297-310.
Coopersmith,S.
1967 Antecedents of Self Esteem. San Francisco, Spilka,
Calif.: Freeman.
Freud, S.
1938 "Totem and taboo." In A. A. Brill (ed.),
The Basic Writingsof Sigmund Freud. New
York, N.Y.: Modern Library.
1957 The Future of an Illusion. New York, N.Y.:
Doubleday.
Godin, A. and Monique Hallez
1964 "Parental images and divine paternity." In
A. Godin (ed.), From Religious Experience
to a Religious Attitude. Brussels, Belgium:
Lumen Vitae Press.
1968 "The conceptualization of God in attitude
ratings." Journal for the ScientificStudy of
Religion 7:56-64.
Itkin, W.
1952 "Some relationshipsbetween intra-family atti-
tudes and pre-parentalattitudes toward chil-
of Genetic Psychology 80:221-
dren." Journal
252.
1957 "An application of the Q-technique to the
studyof religiousconcepts." PsychologicalRe-
ports3:293-297.
Nelson, M. O.
1971 "The concept of God and feelings toward
parents." Journal of Individual Psychology
27:46-49.
Shaw, M. E. and J. Wright
1967 Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes.
New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
B., MargueriteRosensohn,and S. Tener
1973 "Freud revisited: God and father, or is it
mother or me?" Paper presentedat the 1973
convention of the Rocky Mountain Psycho-
logical Association,Las Vegas, Nevada, May 9.
Strunk, 0.
1959 "Perceived relationshipsbetween parental and
deity concepts." PsychologicalNewsletter10:
222-226.
Vergote,Antoineet al.
1969 "Concept of God and parental images."
Journal for the ScientificStudy of Religion
8:79-87.

This content downloaded from 69.85.232.34 on Sun, 25 May 2014 07:41:41 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions