_____

Bound by Tradition: ; When a Cruel and Distant God Drives Religious Participation

This study offers a novel contribution to the literature on intergenerational faith transmission by revealing that individuals who view God as cruel or distant may, in some cases, demonstrate greater religious commitment than those who view God as loving. While prior research confirms that religious parents tend to raise religious children (Bader & Desmond, 2006; Bao et al., 1999; Goeke-Morey & Cummings, 2017; Volk et al., 2016), less understood is why some maintain this commitment while others do not. This study addresses that gap by introducing a critical, often overlooked variable: how one emotionally experiences God. In doing so, it challenges the assumption that religious continuity is inherently positive or adaptive.

By examining view of God as a moderating factor, this study explores not only behavioral continuity in religious engagement from childhood to adulthood, but the emotional quality underlying it. Whether God is perceived as loving, cruel, or distant may influence not just if one engages in religious life, but how that engagement is experienced—as comforting or distressing, connecting or compulsive. This distinction reveals the psychological complexity behind external behavior and challenges the idea that religious participation is inherently adaptive.

Theoretically, the study bridges attachment theory and the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to examine both the relational origins and behavioral outcomes of religious commitment. Beliefs formed in early family environments may persist into adulthood (Ajzen, 1991, 2002), but their expression is shaped by the emotional lens through which individuals relate to God (Exline et al., 2015; Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992). Understanding these underlying motivations can help support healthier expressions of faith.

The unexpected findings suggest that a negative view of God may not hinder—but intensify—religious commitment. This complicates the assumption that engagement is always driven by a positive relational experience with the divine. These results open new avenues for research and practice, particularly in understanding how religious behavior can mask emotional insecurity, unresolved spiritual struggles, or maladaptive attachment patterns.

The aim of this study was two-fold: first to explore the relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment, and second, to explore the influence of three separate views of God—loving, cruel, and distant—on intergenerational faith transmission. Two research questions guided the investigation: first, does household religiosity predict current religious commitment? Second, do views of God—specifically as loving, cruel, or distant—moderate this relationship? By exploring these emotional dynamics, the study clarifies not just who remains religious, but how relational experiences with both parents and God shape the deeper meaning behind that commitment.

This study offers a nuanced perspective of intergenerational faith transmission, highlighting the complex—and sometimes counterintuitive—ways in which views of God shape religious engagement. Findings carry implications for clinicians, scholars, and faith leaders seeking to foster religious commitment that is both emotionally healthy and spiritually adaptive.

Understanding Religious Engagement and Mental Health

Religious engagement profoundly influences mental health, serving as both a protective factor and a potential source of distress. For many, faith fosters resilience, emotional stability, and a sense of belonging, contributing to psychological well-being (Cassibba et al., 2008; Ellison & Lee, 2009; Schwadel & Hardy, 2022). Secure attachment to God has been linked to reduced anxiety and depression, highlighting its psychological benefits (Granqvist et al., 2010; Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992). However, religious participation is not universally beneficial. When driven by fear, guilt, or coercion, it may intensify psychological struggles (Allen et al., 2015; Judd et al., 2020). Maladaptive religious engagement has been associated with scrupulosity and legalism, increasing rather than reducing distress (Allen et al., 2015; Exline et al., 2015; Judd et al., 2020). Scholars differentiate adaptive engagement—rooted in intrinsic motivation and emotional fulfillment—from maladaptive engagement, driven by fear of punishment or social obligation (Ellison & Lee, 2009; Pargament, 2002). Understanding this distinction is essential when evaluating religious involvement’s impact on mental health.

This study reveals a paradox: individuals with a negative view of God—perceiving God as cruel or distant—are more likely to engage in religious practices. This challenges conventional assumptions and underscores the need to explore the psychological and social dynamics behind religious engagement (Exline et al., 2015; Granqvist et al., 2010). Ultimately, it is the emotional experience of religious participation—not just its presence—that determines whether it supports or harms mental health (Ellison & Lee, 2009; Schwadel & Hardy, 2022).

The Theory of Planned Behavior and the Development of Adaptive Religious Engagement

Religious engagement varies widely in its psychological implications. Adaptive engagement is typically driven by intrinsic meaning and motivation, promoting resilience, emotional health, and coherence (Bader & Desmond, 2006; Ellison & Lee, 2009; Pargament et al., 2004). In contrast, maladaptive engagement—often fueled by fear, guilt, or external pressure—can increase distress and reinforce unhealthy patterns (Allen et al., 2015; Exline et al., 2015; Judd et al., 2020).

TPB offers a valuable lens for understanding these contrasting pathways. According to TPB, behavior is shaped by three primary factors: attitudes toward the behavior, perceived social norms, and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991, 2002). In religious contexts, adaptive engagement reflects positive attitudes towards faith, supportive social norms, and a sense of agency. Conversely, maladaptive engagement may emerge when individuals feel compelled by external expectations or believe they lack freedom to engage authentically. For example, participation rooted in anxiety, obligation, or fear of divine punishment may reflect social pressure or internalized guilt rather than personal conviction.

Individuals who view God as cruel, punitive, or rejecting may be more prone to these patterns, engaging in religious behavior to appease expectations or reduce existential fear (Exline et al., 2013; Schwadel & Hardy, 2022). These struggles—including abandonment or condemnation by God—are linked to worse mental health outcomes (Exline et al., 2000; Exline et al., 2015). In contrast, those with secure attachment to God and a positive view of God—as loving, forgiving, and accepting—tend to experience faith as enriching and protective (Exline et al., 2015; Exline et al., 2013; Granqvist et al., 2010; Pargament, 2002).

Self-compassion has emerged as a factor associated with adaptive religious engagement (Biskas et al., 2021; Bodok-Mulderij et al., 2023). Rooted in Buddhist principles, self-compassion involves extending kindness to oneself in failure or distress, recognizing common humanity, and maintaining mindful emotional awareness (Neff, 2003; Neff, 2022). Individuals with higher self-compassion tend to engage with faith from a place of emotional stability, viewing religious practice as a source of support rather than a source of distress (Bodok-Mulderij et al., 2023). Self-compassion also reduces religiously driven guilt and shame—emotions implicated in maladaptive religious engagement (Biskas et al., 2021). Framed through the lens of TPB, self-compassion may enhance internal motivation (positive attitudes), reduce coercive norms, and increase perceived ability to engage in religion freely. In this way, self-compassion may foster emotional resilience and grace-based, internally guided religious participation.

Attachment Theory and the Development of View of God

Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969, 1982) provides a framework for understanding how early relationships shape perceptions of God and religiosity. Secure attachments in childhood often lead to viewing God as loving and supportive, whereas insecure attachments may foster perceptions of God as distant, punitive, or indifferent (Granqvist, 2005; Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992). The correspondence model suggests that secure parental bonds foster positive God representations, while the compensation model proposes that insecurely attached individuals turn to religion to meet unmet emotional needs (Granqvist, 2005; Granqvist & Hagekull, 1999).

These models clarify how early relationships shape long-term religious behavior. The surprising finding that individuals with a negative view of God engage more in religious practices suggests compensatory mechanisms may be active (Exline et al., 2013; Kirkpatrick, 1997). Research also shows that insecure parental bonds often result in rigid or legalistic religious engagement, reinforcing duty-driven participation (Allen et al., 2015; Beck & McDonald, 2004).

Recent findings suggest that self-compassion may buffer against the negative effects of insecure attachment and rigid religiosity, promoting a more adaptive religious experience (Bodok-Mulderij et al., 2023). Insecurely attached individuals often struggle with self-kindness and emotional regulation, reinforcing legalistic religious patterns as compensation (Bodok-Mulderij et al., 2023; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005). This may explain why those with negative God views—shaped by insecure attachment—engage in more fear-based religious practices (Beck & McDonald, 2004; Exline et al., 2013). A lack of self-compassion may intensify guilt, shame, and rigidity, fueling maladaptive patterns (Biskas et al., 2021; Judd et al., 2020).

While Neff (2022) emphasizes the contextual nature of self-compassion and limitations of the Self-Compassion Scale, it has not yet been adapted for religious contexts. Nonetheless, research links adaptive religiosity with higher self-compassion, suggesting that fostering self-compassion enhances faith’s emotional benefits while reducing distress (Bodok-Mulderij et al., 2023; Judd et al., 2020). Self-compassion also protects against religious struggles, offering healthier ways of engaging with faith without guilt or harsh self-judgment (Biskas et al., 2021). Although not the central focus of this study, self-compassion provides a valuable lens for understanding the emotional dynamics of religious engagement.

Conclusion

This study uncovers a previously overlooked dynamic in the psychology of religion: both cruel and distant views of God predict increased religious engagement. This counterintuitive result challenges assumptions that negative God views deter participation. Instead, it suggests individuals may turn to religious practices not for spiritual fulfillment, but to resolve inner conflict, meet perceived obligations, or cope with unmet attachment needs. Demonstrating that both loving and punitive views of God can drive commitment—albeit through different motivations—this study deepens understanding of religious behavior. The findings contribute significantly to the literature and hold clinical value, emphasizing the need to explore why individuals engage in religion—and whether that engagement fosters or hinders well-being.

Method

Study Design

This study employed a quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional process analysis to examine the moderating role of view of God in the relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment. The following research questions guided this analysis:

1. Does household religiosity predict current religious commitment?
2. Do views of God—specifically loving, cruel, or distant—moderate the relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment?

Several hypotheses were proposed. First, it was hypothesized that household religiosity would significantly predict current religious commitment (H1). Second, it was expected that view of God would moderate this relationship (H2). More specifically, a loving view of God was expected to strengthen the relationship (H2a), while cruel (H2b) or distant (H2c) views would weaken it.

Participants and Recruitment

Participants in this study were recruited as part of a dissertation project examining the relationship between religiosity, view of God, and self-compassion (Strivings, 2024). The mean age of participants was 55.90 years (SD = 16.76), with ages ranging from 18 to 84. The sample was predominantly female (62.2%), with male (37.4%) and other (.4%) identities comprising the remainder. Racial and ethnic composition included Caucasian (73.3%) and African American (19.5%), with the remaining 7.3% identifying as American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, or Hispanic/Latino/Spanish origin.

Marital status categories included married (42.7%), single (27.9%), divorced (14.9%), widowed (7.6%), non-committed dating or monogamous dating (6.1%), and married but separated (.8%). Religious affiliations were predominantly Protestant (32.8%) and Catholic (27.5%), with the remainder identifying as Other (6.9%). Religious service attendance varied, with 33.6% attending three or more times per week, 22.9% not attending at all, and the remainder attending less frequently.

Instruments

Household Religiosity

Household religiosity or religious commitment within one’s family of origin was assessed using the Religious Commitment Inventory-Household (RCI-H; Volk et al., 2016). This 10-item measure evaluates the degree to which participants’ parents demonstrated explicit religious behaviors, such as reading religious materials or engaging with a faith community. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not true at all of my parents (1) to totally true of my parents (5). The RCI-H has demonstrated excellent internal validity, with a = .96 in this sample.

Current Religious Commitment

Current religious commitment was measured using the 80 RCI developed by Worthington et al. (2003) to measure explicit religious behaviors. This 10-item measure evaluates the degree to which one demonstrates explicit religious behaviors, such as reading religious materials or engaging with a faith community. Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from not true at all of me (1) to totally true of me (5). The RCI has demonstrated excellent internal validity, with a Cronbach’s alpha of a = .96 in this sample.

View of God

Participants’ views of God were measured using the God-10 scale (Exline et al., 2013), which includes three subscales: loving (e.g., loving, caring, forgiving), cruel (e.g., cruel, unkind, rejecting), and distant (e.g., distant, remote, unavailable, uninvolved). Items are rated on a 5-point scale from not at all (0) to extremely (5). For this study, the Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales were .88 (loving), .87 (cruel), and .80 (distant), demonstrating strong internal consistency in this sample.

Procedures

Approval for the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and informed consent was secured. The survey was administered through Qualtrics, an online panel recruitment platform recognized for diverse, representative samples (Boas et al., 2018). Inclusion criteria required participants to be over 18, profess belief in God, and identify as Christian. Ineligible participants were exited from the survey. After removing incomplete responses and ensuring quality through response checks and attention filters, a final sample of 262 participants (N = 262) remained. This screening approach ensured a robust dataset for testing study hypotheses.

Data Analysis

This study used a quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional process analysis to examine the moderating role of view of God in the relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment. Data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS. Descriptive statistics were computed to summarize sample characteristics and key study variables. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were calculated to assess the internal consistency of the measures. Pearson’s correlations were used to examine bivariate relationships among current religious commitment, household religiosity, and views of God.

A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the main hypotheses. In each model, View of God was entered as the dependent variable. Independent variables included current religious commitment (RCI scores) and household religiosity (RCI-H scores). Interaction terms were created to assess potential moderating effects of views of God on the relationship between current religious commitment and household religiosity. All variables were mean centered prior to creating interaction terms. Statistical significance was set at p < .05, and effect sizes were reported where applicable.

To ensure data quality, incomplete entries, patterned responses, inattentive or overly rapid answers, duplicates, and potential bot data were removed. Consideration was given to common limitations, including Type I and II errors and the biases of self-report. Final analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS.

Results

This study examined the relationship between household religiosity, view of God, and current religious commitment within the framework of Attachment Theory and TPB. The sample size included 262 participants (N = 262). Analyses explored the direct relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment, and then the moderating effects of three views of God—loving, cruel, and distant.

Data Screening

Data were collected via Qualtrics in December 2023. After screening for inauthentic responses (e.g., incompleteness, straight-lining, inattentiveness, speeders, duplicates, and automated patterns), 262 valid participants remained. Forced-response validation ensured complete data. Participants answered demographic questions and items on current religious commitment, childhood household religiosity, and view of God. Cronbach’s alpha indicated strong internal consistency across all measures: RCI-H = .96, RCI = .96. For the God-10, subscale alphas were: Loving = .88, Cruel = .87, Distant = .80. The total score of the God-10 had a lower alpha of .61, consistent with its multidimensionality.

Correlation Analysis

Pearson’s correlations confirmed model assumptions. Household religiosity was significantly correlated with current religious commitment (r = .61, p < .01) and God image (r = .16, p < .05). Current religious commitment was also significantly associated with God image (r = .15, p < .05). All relationships were positive.

Moderation Model: View of God on Intergenerational Faith Transmission

A moderation model tested the effects of three God views on the relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment. Views of God as loving, cruel, and distant were explored separately. All three views significantly predicted current religious commitment.

View of God as Loving

Viewing God as loving significantly strengthened the relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment. This supported the hypothesis that perceiving God as loving strengthens the relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment. Household religiosity remained significant when adding God image of loving to the model. Household religiosity significantly predicted current religious commitment (B = 1.34, p = .00). Additionally, God image loving significantly predicted current religious commitment (B = .68, p = .00). The interaction between household religiosity and God image loving was statistically significant (B = -.17, p = .03). Both slopes for the interaction effect were significant showing a crossover pattern. This pattern may indicate a differential susceptibility effect. This means that for current religious commitment, this crossover interaction by God image: Loving indicates that as household religiosity increases, current religious commitment decreases for those who believe God is very loving but increases for those who do not view God as loving. Table 1 illustrates this relationship.

Table 1: Moderation Predicting Current Religious Commitment Using God Image: Loving

Note. GL: L = God Image: Loving, HR = Household religiosity

View of God as Cruel

Viewing God as cruel significantly strengthened the relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment. This did not support the hypothesis that perceiving God as cruel would weaken the relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment. Household religiosity remained significant when adding the God image of cruel to the model. Household religiosity significantly predicted current religious commitment (B = .41, p = .00). Additionally, God image of cruel significantly predicted current religious commitment (B = -.40, p = .00). The interaction between household religiosity and God image cruel was statistically significant (B = .12, p = .02). Both slopes for the interaction effect were significant showing a crossover pattern. This pattern may indicate a differential susceptibility effect. This means that for current religious commitment, this crossover interaction by God image: Cruel indicates that as household religiosity increases, current religious commitment decreases for those who believe God is not cruel but increases for those who do view God as very cruel. Table 2. Illustrates this relationship.

Table 2: Moderation Predicting Current Religious Commitment Using God Image: Cruel

Note. GL: C = God Image: Cruel, HR = Household religiosity

View of God as Distant

Viewing God as distant significantly strengthened the relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment. This did not support the hypothesis that perceiving God as distant would weaken the relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment. Household religiosity remained significant when adding the God image of distant to the model. Household religiosity significantly predicted current religious commitment (B = .36, p = .00). Additionally, the God image of distant significantly predicted current religious commitment (B = -.51, p = .01). The interaction between household religiosity and the God image of distant was statistically significant (B = .14, p = .01). Both slopes for the interaction effect were significant showing a crossover pattern. This pattern may indicate a differential susceptibility effect. This means that for current religious commitment, this crossover interaction by God as distant indicates that as household religiosity increases, current religious commitment decreases for those who believe God is not distant but increases for those who do view God as very distant. Table 3 illustrates this relationship.

Table 3: Moderation Predicting Current Religious Commitment Using God Image: Distant

Note. GL: D = God Image: Distant, HR = Household religiosity

Summary

These results reveal the complex interplay between household religiosity and view of God in shaping current religious commitment. This study underscores the importance of addressing view of God in clinical counseling to better understand and support clients’ religious behaviors and mental health. Clinicians are encouraged to explore the motivations underlying religious participation, particularly for those with a negative view of God, to promote adaptive religiosity and psychological well-being.

Discussion

This study contributes to the growing body of research on the developmental and psychological factors influencing religious engagement. The findings highlight the complex interplay between household religiosity, view of God, and current religious commitment. Notably, viewing God as loving emerged as a key moderator, amplifying the positive relationship between household religiosity and current religious commitment. This aligns with previous research showing that a loving view of God fosters emotional well-being and supports adaptive religious practices (Exline et al., 2013; Granqvist et al., 2010; Schwadel & Hardy, 2022).

Surprisingly, the findings that both cruel and distant views of God also predicted increased religious commitment stand in contrast to the assumption that punitive God images discourage religious involvement. This contradicts some prior research suggesting that negative God views lead to avoidance or withdrawal from religion (Exline et al., 2000) and suggests a unique compensatory motivation. Instead, it suggests that individuals with a punitive or rejecting view of God may engage in religious activities driven by compensatory mechanisms or a sense of duty. These motivations likely reflect efforts to resolve inner conflicts or fulfill normative expectations instilled during childhood.

The significant interactions for viewing God as cruel and God as distant require careful interpretation. While all views of God were positively associated with adult religious engagement, findings revealed a nuanced pattern among individuals raised in religiously committed households. Specifically, for religious individuals who grew up in households with religiously committed parents, the more loving they viewed God, the less they displayed explicit religious engagement in adulthood. Conversely, for religious individuals who grew up in households with religiously committed parents, the crueler or more distant they viewed God, the more they displayed explicit religious engagement in adulthood.

These findings suggest that negative views of God, rather than deterring engagement, may drive religious participation through alternative psychological pathways. These individuals may perceive religion as a means of addressing unmet emotional needs, fulfilling duty-driven obligations, or resolving inner conflicts. Such motivations align with compensatory behaviors described in Attachment Theory and TPB.

Research on religious struggles further supports the idea that engagement stemming from fear or obligation may not necessarily be linked to positive well-being outcomes (Exline et al., 2000; Exline et al., 2015). This underscores the importance of understanding the diverse emotional and psychological motivations that sustain religious behaviors, especially when they are rooted in early relational dynamics and negative God concepts.

Implications for Clinicians, Parents, and Christian Educators

The discovery that both positive and negative views of God can drive religious engagement has important implications for clinicians working with religious populations. For clients with a loving view of God, engagement may serve as a source of emotional support and belonging (Granqvist et al., 2010). Conversely, when clients perceive God as cruel or distant, their participation may be driven by unresolved spiritual struggles or internalized obligation—potentially contributing to emotional distress (Exline et al., 2015; Judd et al., 2020). Clinicians must recognize the complex emotional dynamics underlying such duty-driven participation, especially when rooted in attachment insecurity or punitive God concepts (Beck & McDonald, 2004; Granqvist, 2005).

Therapeutically, it is essential to explore the underlying motivations behind religious behaviors. When clients express a negative view of God, clinicians should assess whether religious engagement is supporting well-being or reinforcing shame, guilt, or anxiety. In such cases, interventions that reshape God image, foster self-compassion, and address unresolved attachment issues may promote a more emotionally adaptive form of faith.

Parents raising children in religious households may also benefit from these findings. Exposure to punitive or fear-based portrayals of God may lead children to internalize rigid beliefs that manifest in emotionally strained or duty-driven religious engagement in adulthood. By modeling grace-based theology and emotionally authentic faith practices, parents can help foster healthier and more enduring religious commitment. Encouraging open conversations about doubt, emotional safety, and God’s relational nature may promote more adaptive and secure spiritual development.

Christian educators also play a key role in shaping students’ spiritual trajectories. In faith-based settings, educators must be attuned to the fact that students’ religious behaviors may stem from fear or obligation rather than genuine conviction. Educational and pastoral strategies that emphasize grace, relational theology, and self-compassion can support students in cultivating a more intrinsic and emotionally grounded faith. Curricula that normalize spiritual questions, promote relational models of God, and integrate emotional awareness may foster healthier engagement.

Theoretical Contributions

This study advances theoretical understanding by integrating Attachment Theory and TPB to explain the emotional and motivational dynamics that underlie adult religious engagement. Attachment Theory provides a framework for understanding how early relational experiences shape one’s view of God. Secure attachments are typically associated with perceiving God as loving and supportive, which fosters adaptive religious behavior. In contrast, insecure attachments may result in viewing God as punitive, unkind, unavailable, or rejecting—contributing to duty-driven or compensatory religious participation (Granqvist et al., 2010; Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992).

TPB complements this perspective by explaining how beliefs, norms, and perceived control guide behavior. According to TPB, individuals are more likely to engage in a behavior when they (1) hold positive attitudes toward it, (2) perceive social support or expectations surrounding it, and (3) believe they have the capacity to perform it (Ajzen, 1991, 2002). Those who view God as loving may be motivated by internal conviction and positive associations with faith. Conversely, individuals who view God as cruel or distant may participate in religious practices out of fear, guilt, or perceived obligation—reflecting externalized motivation and lower perceived behavioral control.

This study extends both theoretical frameworks by demonstrating that view of God operates as an emotionally salient belief variable. From a TPB lens, God image influences perceptions of normative pressure and behavioral control. From an attachment perspective, God serves as a relational figure—either secure or compensatory—shaped by early parental bonds. These findings support the refinement of current models of religious behavior to include emotionally embedded belief systems and attachment-based motivations.

The significant moderation effects for all three God views—loving, cruel, and distant—indicate that TPB can be expanded to incorporate affective and relational factors such as God image. This integration highlights the role of emotional meaning-making in belief systems and behavioral outcomes.

Limitations and Future Directions

While this study offers valuable insights, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, its reliance on self-reported measures introduces the possibility of response bias. Future research should consider longitudinal designs to capture how religiosity and view of God evolve over time. Additionally, although the sample was diverse, it may not fully represent broader populations, which limits the generalizability of these findings.

Cross-cultural comparisons and denominational differences are important areas for future research. Different religious traditions may shape how individuals perceive God, experience attachment, and internalize religious norms. Understanding these differences may provide greater insight into how view of God influences adaptive or compensatory engagement patterns. This line of research can also clarify how theological frameworks interact with psychological mechanisms like shame, guilt, and perceived obligation (Granqvist et al., 2010; Kirkpatrick, 1997).

Future research should explore targeted interventions aimed at reshaping negative God images, particularly in individuals affected by theological guilt, scrupulosity, or coercive religious norms. Emerging research suggests that self-compassion is associated with healthier religious engagement and improved psychological well-being (Bodok-Mulderij et al., 2023; Judd et al., 2020). Its potential as a protective or corrective factor for maladaptive religiosity is especially compelling in contexts where rigid beliefs and fear-based motivation dominate.

To advance this work, researchers should examine how self-compassion functions within faith-based populations and consider developing culturally and theologically attuned self-compassion measures. While there is currently no established measure of self-compassion contextualized within religious belief systems, adapting existing scales to reflect religious values and beliefs may be essential for accurately capturing its role among faith-based populations. However, efforts to integrate self-compassion into religious contexts may be constrained by the model’s Buddhist foundations (Neff, 2003a, 2022), which do not fully align with the relational and theological frameworks central to many theistic traditions. The absence of self-compassion models or validated instruments tailored specifically to religious populations further limits research and intervention efforts in this area.

In addition, future research should investigate how self-compassion interacts with God image and perceived religious norms to shape behavior, especially in environments marked by shame or fear. Understanding these dynamics may clarify how internalized beliefs influence not only outward religious practices but also emotional and psychological health. Ultimately, exploring the intersections of self-compassion, God image, and religious motivation may inform interventions that help individuals move from fear-based religiosity toward more grace-centered, emotionally restorative forms of religious engagement.

Conclusion

This study highlights the complex and often counterintuitive relationship between household religiosity, view of God, and current religious commitment. The novel finding that cruel and distant views of God predict greater—rather than lesser—religious participation marks a significant contribution to the literature on faith development and psychological functioning. These results challenge the traditional view that religious engagement is inherently rooted in spiritual fulfillment or secure attachment. Instead, they reveal how fear, relational insecurity, and coercive theological frameworks can sustain external religious behaviors.

By uncovering these dynamics, this study underscores the importance of looking beyond surface-level participation to understand the emotional and psychological forces that drive religious life. For clinicians, parents, educators, and researchers alike, the findings emphasize the need to explore how individuals experience and internalize their view of God—and whether that view fosters emotional health or perpetuates distress. Promoting adaptive religiosity requires more than encouraging practice; it involves addressing the underlying motivations, attachments, and belief systems that shape spiritual engagement. Only then can religious participation become not just consistent—but healing, transformative, and emotionally restorative.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

Allen, G. E. K., Wang, K. T., & Stokes, H. (2015). Examining legalism, scrupulosity, family perfectionism, and psychological adjustment among LDS individuals. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 18(4), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2015.1021312

Bader, C. D., & Desmond, S. A. (2006). Do as I say and as I do: The effects of consistent parental beliefs and behaviors upon religious transmission. Sociology of Religion, 67(3), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/67.3.313

Bao, W. N., Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., & Conger, R. D. (1999). Perceived parental acceptance as a moderator of religious transmission among adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(2), 362-374. https://doi.org/10.2307/353754

Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The attachment to God inventory, tests of working model correspondence, and an exploration of faith group differences. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32(2), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710403200202

Biskas, M., Sirois, F. M., & Webb, T. L. (2021). Using social cognition models to understand why people, such as perfectionists, struggle to respond with self‐compassion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(4), 1160–1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12531

Boas, T. C., Christenson, D. P., & Glick, D. M. (2018). Recruiting large online samples in the United States and India: Facebook, Mechanical Turk, and Qualtrics. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(2), 232–250. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.28

Bodok-Mulderij, I., Schaap-Jonker, H., Klaassen-Dekker, A., Boselie, J., & Jacobs, N. (2023). The relation between religion/spirituality and mental health is mediated by self compassion: Evidence from two longitudinal studies in the Dutch-speaking general population. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 15(3), 407–417. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000501

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment (Vol. 1). The Hogarth Press.

Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52(4), 664–678. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1982.tb01456.x

Cassibba, R., Granqvist, P., Costantini, A., & Gatto, S. (2008). Attachment and God representations among lay Catholics, priests, and religious: A matched comparison study based on the adult attachment interview. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1753–1763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013772

Ellison, C. G., & Lee, J. (2009). Spiritual struggles and psychological distress: Is there a dark side of religion? Social Indicators Research, 98(3), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9553-3

Exline, J. J., Grubbs, J. B., & Homolka, S. J. (2015). Seeing God as cruel or distant: Links with divine struggles involving anger, doubt, and fear of God’s disapproval. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 25(1), 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2013.857255

Exline, J. J., Homolka, S. J., & Grubbs, J. B. (2013). Negative views of parents and struggles with God: An exploration of two mediators. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 41(3), 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164711304100303

Exline, J. J., Yali, A. M., & Sanderson, W. C. (2000). Guilt, discord, and alienation: The role of religious strain in depression and suicidality. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(12), 1481–1496. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(200012)56:123.0.co;2-a

Goeke-Morey, M.C., & Cummings, E.M. (2017). Religiosity and parenting: Recent directions in process-oriented research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.02.006

Granqvist, P. (2005). Building a bridge between attachment and religious coping: Tests of moderators and mediators. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 8(1), 35–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674670410001666598

Granqvist, P., & Hagekull, B. (1999). Religiousness and perceived childhood attachment: Profiling socialized correspondence and emotional compensation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38(2), 254–273. https://doi.org/10.2307/1387793

Granqvist, P., Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2010). Religion as attachment: Normative processes and individual differences. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309348618

Judd, D. K., Dyer, W. J., & Top, J. B. (2020). Grace, legalism, and mental health: Examining direct and mediating relationships. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 12(1), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000211

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. https://doi.org/10.2307/1387553

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1992). An attachment-theoretical approach to romantic love and religious belief. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 266–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183002

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment theory and emotions in close relationships: Exploring the attachment-related dynamics of emotional reactions to relational events. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00108.x

Neff, K. D. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2, 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860390129863

Neff, K. D. (2022). Self-compassion: Theory, method, research, and intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 74(1), 193–218. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031047

Pargament, K. I. (2002). The bitter and the sweet: An evaluation of the costs and benefits of religiousness. Psychological Inquiry, 13(3), 168–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1303_02

Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., Tarakeshwar, N., & Hahn, J. (2004). Religious coping methods as predictors of psychological, physical and spiritual outcomes among medically ill elderly patients: A two-year longitudinal study. Journal of Health Psychology, 9(6), 713–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105304045366

Schwadel, P., & Hardy, S. A. (2022). What aspects of religiosity are associated with values? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 61(2), 374–388. Doi? https://doi.org/10.1111/jssr.12777

Strivings, A. (2024). Moderated mediated model of religiosity, God image, and self-compassion. Doctoral Dissertations and Projects. 5267. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/5267

Volk, F., Thomas, J., Sosin, L., Jacob, V., & Moen, C. (2016). Religiosity, developmental context, and sexual shame in pornography users: A serial mediation model. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 23(2–3), 244–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720162.2016.1151391

Worthington, E. L., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., Schmitt, M. M., Berry, J. T., Bursley, K. H., & O’Connor, L. (2003). The religious 144 commitment inventory–10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.50.1.84