Abstract
This study introduces a newly developed scale assessing Protestant theological beliefs on a Theological Openness/Biblical Literalism dimension (Study 1) and examines its relationship with attachment to God (Study 2). To establish validity, we conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the Protestant Theology Scale (PTS) and assessed its convergent and discriminant validity against established religious measures. We hypothesized that anxiety about abandonment by God would predict Biblical Literalism theological beliefs, but avoidance of intimacy with God would predict Theological Openness theological beliefs. Results supported these hypotheses, with avoidance toward God predicting Theological Openness beliefs, but anxiety about abandonment by God predicted Biblical Literalism theological beliefs. The study highlights the importance of theological constructs in attachment research and emphasizes the need for further scale validation.
Keywords
Research over the past few decades has examined how the relationships with caregivers formed in childhood predict the quality of relationships individuals form with other partners over the lifespan. Researchers have applied Attachment Theory (cf. Bowlby, 1980) and an internalization of views of the self and other as positive or negative (cf. Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) to the discussion of how individuals imagine and relate to God (e.g., Cicirelli, 2004; Granqvist, 2006; Granqvist et al., 2007, 2012; Kirkpatrick, 1999). For example, individuals may want closeness to God, view God as a secure base from which to explore the world (including theological exploration), experience God as a safe haven, and experience separation anxiety at feeling removed from God (Kirkpatrick, 1999) suggesting that individuals’ images of and relationships with God seem to have features similar to those of bonds with other partners (Beck, 2006).
The correspondence hypothesis of attachment to God suggests that attachment patterns with humans correspond to or are reflected in the attachment patterns in individuals’ experiences of, or relationships with, God (Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1990; see also Granqvist & Hagekull, 1999 for a discussion of socialized correspondence and emotion-based compensation hypotheses). The compensation hypothesis proposes that individuals’ attachment to God may not correspond to their attachments to humans because God serves as a substitute attachment figure (or secure base) for individuals with insecure or unfulfilling human attachments.
Evidence for both hypotheses exists (e.g., Beck & McDonald, 2004; Limke et al., 2015; Limke & Mayfield, 2011; Murunga et al., 2014). For example, among adults who self-identify as Christian and were raised in a household with married biological/adoptive parents, attachment to father predicts attachment to God in a way supporting the correspondence hypothesis (Limke & Mayfield, 2011; Murunga et al., 2013). These individuals seem to project their attachment to the father in the home in which they were raised onto their relationship with God. Among people who self-identify as Christian but were not raised with intact families, attachment to God follows the compensation hypothesis. These individuals seek relationships with God to fulfill unreliable relationships with parents. Unsurprisingly, researchers have also criticized the correspondence and compensation hypotheses, arguing that narrow conceptualizations and measurements of spirituality and religiosity limit their usefulness. Studies often provide weak or mixed support for either model.
Parental attachment shapes how individuals perceive and relate to God. People who develop secure attachments to their parents usually perceive God as loving, emotionally close, stable, and less distant or controlling (Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2008). People with insecure parental attachments often view God as more emotionally distant. These early attachment patterns also influence the nature of religious conversion. Individuals with secure attachments typically undergo gradual religious conversions, but those with insecure attachments more often experience sudden and dramatic shifts in belief (Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2004, 2008).
However, attachment to God affects more than just conceptualization of relationships with a deity. Specifically, attachment to God is associated with spiritual (both religious and existential) well-being (Beck & McDonald, 2004) and faith development (Hart et al., 2010). Attachment security may be better predictors of psychological well-being than are other conventional indicators of religious practice (such as frequency of prayer or church attendance) and even individuals’ conceptualization of the features of God (or God image; cf. Bradshaw et al., 2010; Cooper et al., 2009; Miner, 2009).
Protestant theology
One particularly under-researched area of religiosity and spirituality involves examining individual differences in theological beliefs. These theological differences include interpretation of scripture, church practices, and moral judgments (Johnson, 1967) among other differences and are often described using a continuum of conservative to liberal (or conservative to modernist; e.g., Spilka & Bridges, 1991; Strunk & Larsen, 1974). Research involving theological differences has examined ideas about mental health, medical training/decisions, and empathy in pastoral situations (McLeland & Sutton, 2008; Neumann & Leppien, 1997; Stack & Wasserman, 1992; Virkler, 1980). Other research has illustrated the link between theological differences and economic, political, and social beliefs (e.g., Barker & Carman, 2000; Bean, 2014; Green, 2003; Guth et al., 2003; Johnson, 1967, 1998; Kiecolt & Nelsen, 1988; Spilka & Bridges, 1991). Researchers have also established a correlation between theological beliefs and job satisfaction (Mueller & McDuff, 2004).
However, language and terminology are important (Smith, 2008) when defining and measuring these differences and most research hosts many methodological issues. For example, some surveys lack the length necessary to capture a broad range of theological beliefs (cf. Kaldestad, 1992; Reimer, 2011). Validation of these surveys often relied on narrow or biased samples. In one case, only participants who held positive attitudes toward Christianity and engaged in regular prayer were included (Kaldestad, 1992). In other instances, theological differences were assumed based only on denominational affiliation, despite considerable within-group variability (e.g., Ellison & Goodson, 1997; Taylor & Merino, 2011). However, considerable variability exists, both between and within denominations (Blaikie, 1976; Davidson, 1972; Hoge et al., 1994; Reimer, 2011). Regardless, self-identification is more appropriate (Taylor & Merino, 2011) than using denominational categories when assessing denominational differences.
Current study
To address these methodological issues and to examine the link between theological beliefs and attachment to God, we created a new scale—the Protestant Theology Scale (PTS)—that included many beliefs relevant to a wide range of Protestant denominations (cf. Murphy, 2007) and provided a scale on a continuum of Theological Openness (liberal) to Biblical Literalism (conservative) theological beliefs (Study 1). Rather than rejecting the correspondence and compensation hypotheses, this study proposes that this new dimension offers a conceptually rich and psychologically meaningful framework for understanding individual differences in attachment to God. This theological orientation may capture relational dynamics with God not fully explained by early human attachment patterns alone, suggesting a valuable complement to existing models.
A new scale was necessary for this study because other measures of religiosity, theology, and morality do not cover the specific parts of interest to this study. For example, although religious fundamentalism is a global phenomenon, it is different idea as religious conservatism (although they likely overlap; see Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2009, for a review of fundamentalism). There are differences between Catholic and Protestant individuals in how theology impacts relationships with and perceptions of God (e.g., Eurelings-Bontekoe et al., 2005; Steger et al., 2010; Torgler & Schaltegger, 2014).
We then examined the link between attachment to God (i.e., anxiety of abandonment by God and avoidance toward God) and Protestant theological beliefs (Study 2). We hypothesized that high anxiety of abandonment by God would predict high Biblical Literalism theological beliefs. We also hypothesized that low anxiety of abandonment by God and low avoidance toward God (i.e., secure attachment to God) would predict Theological Openness (i.e., low Biblical Literalism). Results supported these hypotheses.
Study 1
Participants
Two-hundred and forty-two self-identifying Protestant undergraduate students took part for partial fulfillment of a course research requirement. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 51 (M = 19.93; SD = 4.38). Of the 242 participants, 67.36% were White/Non-Hispanic, 14.46% were Black or African American, 5.79% were Hispanic or Latino/a, 7.44% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, 2.89% were Asian, and 2.07% identified as Other. Of the participants, 25.62% were male and 74.38% were female. There were no differences in Protestant theology beliefs by gender, p = .24.
To be included in the study, participants had to meet two religious qualifications. First, they had to define themselves as “theists” using the Dawkins Belief Scale (Dawkins, 2006; i.e., they had to rate themselves as 1, 2, or 3, on the scale of 1 to 7). Second, they had to self-categorize as part of a Protestant denomination. Of the 242 participants, 42.98% were Baptist (including Southern Baptist and Free Will Baptist); 34.71% were Non-Denominational (including Calvary Chapel and New Life Fellowship); 12.40% were Methodist (including United and Free Will Methodist, Nazarene, and Wesleyan); 6.20% were Pentecostal (including Assembly of God and New Apolistic Church); 2.07% were Restorationist (including Church of Christ and Disciples of Christ); and 1.65% were Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Anglican (including Church of England and Episcopal). On average, they went to 3.58 (SD = 4.45) religious services per month.
Materials
PTS
We created the PTS with input from both psychologists and theologians. The PTS follows the work of Murphy (2007), who delineated three philosophically important domains that provide the foundation for the basic assumptions in theology. These domains provide bifurcated—Theological Openness (liberal) or Biblical Literalism (conservative) theological options.
First, Epistemology (or divine revelation) includes a determination about how God is to be known (i.e., through scripture or through experience). Individuals with Biblically literal theologies would choose scripture as their foundation of knowledge of God. In this way, they are identifying an external authority and adopting an outside-in approach to knowing God. Individuals with Theological Openness note the need for experiential foundations to knowledge of God, choosing an inside-out approach.
Language (or divine talk) includes a delineation of how individuals should speak about God (i.e., language about God as descriptions and statements of fact or as expressions of human experience). Individuals with Biblically literal theologies emphasize the factual nature of religious talk, emphasizing that the content of scripture is not only inerrant, but that the words themselves were breathed by and revealed by God. Individuals with Theological Openness theological foundations recognize the ability to express theological awareness through language but are also not held captive by the specific words used in scripture (e.g., allowing for more feminizing language about God).
Metaphysics (or divine action) includes an understanding of how God acts in the world (i.e., through divine intervention or divine immanence). Individuals with Biblically literal theologies endorse beliefs of God directly intervening in the world to achieve specific divine purposes in history, such as in the self-revealing and redemptive acts depicted in biblical narratives. Individuals with Theological Openness theologies would suggest that God acts in and through all natural processes, including evolutionary processes.
Because these areas of theology are necessarily co-mingled, we created one scale of Protestant theology beliefs that had items from each area. Participants responded to each question using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). A sum of the items (some reverse-scored) provides an index of theological beliefs among a continuum of Biblically literal to Theological Openness theological beliefs (keeping with the terminology proposed by Murphy, 2007). Internal consistency of the PTS was high, α = .81. See Appendix 1 for the full scale and scoring directions. As we believe this is a dimensional and not categorical construct, we did not identify cutoff scores.
Other measures
We included the Post-Critical Belief Scale (PCBS; Hutsebaut, 1996, 1997 see also Duriez et al., 2000), the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ; Graham et al., 2011), Defensive Theology Scale (DTS; Beck, 2006), and the Revised Religious Fundamentalism Scale (RRFS; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2009) for convergent/divergent validity purposes. Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics for the measures used in this study.
Varimax Rotation of Protestant Theology Scale Items.
Extraction method: principal component analysis. Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser normalization.
Rotation converged in six iterations.
The PCBS was created to assess the two dimensions (literal/symbolic and exclusion/inclusion of transcendence) proposed by Wulff (1991, 1997). The PCBS has four subscales. Orthodoxy (literal inclusion) measures a literal affirmation of religious existence and a religious realm. External Critique (literal exclusion) assesses a literal disaffirmation in which individuals reject the existence of a religious realm. Second Naiveté (symbolic inclusion) represents a restorative interpretation in which there is symbolic meaning in religious interpretation but also an acknowledgment that something exists beyond the self. Relativism (symbolic exclusion) includes a reductive interpretation in which individuals reject the existence of a religious realm but admit to a true but hidden meaning of religious myths. We expected some overlap of these scales with the PTS. Specifically, we expected a negative correlation between Orthodoxy and the PTS; that is, one type of Biblically literal Protestant theology is an orthodox or fundamentalist one, so it makes sense these should be correlated. Part of Theological Openness theological interpretations is an inclusion of symbolism in interpretation of scripture and religion; thus, we also expected a correlation between the PTS and Second Naiveté. Similarly, we expected a correlation with the overall literal/symbolic dimension.
Hypotheses surrounding the dimension of exclusion/inclusion (and the remaining two subscales) were more difficult to predict. The PCBS scales were developed and confirmed in a traditionally Catholic population (cf. Duriez et al., 2007). Thus, low scores on the Inclusion dimension (i.e., External Critique and Relativism) indicate that individuals are non-religious due to their lack of willingness to acknowledge a religious realm. However, maybe Protestant denominations allow for this skepticism in a way that is not accepted in Catholicism, so we made no specific predictions about this dimension.
The MFQ assesses five foundations of morality: care/harm (underlying the virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance), fairness/cheating (underlying ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy), loyalty/betrayal (associated with virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group), authority/subversion (related to traits of leadership and followership, including respect for authority and traditions), and sanctity/degradation (underlying notions of living in an elevated, less carnal, more noble “body is a temple” way). Researchers have recently added a sixth—liberty/oppression—possibility as another moral foundation. Because of work suggesting differences in the endorsement of these moral foundations by political affiliation (i.e., the left rely primarily on care and fairness, but the right endorse all foundations; Graham et al., 2009), we hypothesized that the PTS would negatively correlate with those other three dimensions: loyalty, authority, and sanctity.
The DTS assesses five theological tendencies: special protection (or the belief that a person will be protected from misfortune because of God), special insight (or the belief that a person can accurately discern the will of God in choices or the actions of God in life), divine solicitousness (or the belief that all concerns—even trivial ones—are considered important by God), special destiny (or the belief that a person’s life has a specific plan by God), and denial of randomness (or the belief that God’s hand is involved in all things—i.e., there is no randomness). Because the DTS was originally moderately negatively correlated with reports of a Quest orientation to religion (i.e., one that includes room for questioning and skepticism; cf. Beck, 2006) but is also an idea covering a different part of religious beliefs than the PTS, we hypothesized that the PTS would be moderately and negatively correlated with the DTS.
Finally, the RRFS (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 2009) was designed to measure attitudes about religious beliefs (allowing for use to capture fundamentalism across many faiths). It assesses attitudes such as the ideas of “one true religion,” “a special relationship with a deity,” and “a fundamental, basic, intrinsic, essential, inerrant truth” among believers. Although we expected individuals high in religious fundamentalism to endorse Biblically literal theology, the PTS encompasses a broader range of conservative theological beliefs—including evangelical perspectives (e.g., believe in theistic evolution or reject rigid moral dogmatism)—that are not necessarily fundamentalist. So we expected a strong, but not perfect, negative correlation between scores on the RRFS and the PTS.
Procedure
After registering for the study via Sona-Systems, participants received a link to the study available on SurveyMonkey (www.surveymonkey.com). After clicking on the link, participants read an informed consent form. By continuing, they indicated their consent to take part in the research project. Participants then completed the PTS, PCBS, MFQ, DTS, RRFS, and demographic questions (counterbalanced to avoid order effects).
Results and Discussion
First, we began with a factor analysis of the newly constructed PTS. See Table 1 for a summary of the factor analysis findings and see Table 2 for descriptive statistics of the measures. Data from the three identified factors were entered into AMOS to confirm the three-factor solution. Although the solution was confirmed, the best, most parsimonious solution ended up being a one-factor solution (see Figure 1), χ2(df = 124) = 415.09, p < .001, normed fit index (NFI) = .927, comparative fit index (CFI) = .947, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .080 [.071, .088].
Descriptive Statistics for Protestant Theology, Post-Critical Beliefs, Moral Foundations, Defensive Theology, and Religious Fundamentalism (Study 1).
N = 242.
Structural equation model of the PTS confirming a one-factor solution. Model fit indices: χ²(124) = 415.09, p < .001, NFI = .927, CFI = .947, RMSEA = .080 [.071, .088] (Study 1).
Next, we conducted correlations between the PTS and measures of post-critical beliefs, moral foundations, defensive theology, and religious fundamentalism. As expected, there was a correlation between the PTS and the PCBS Orthodoxy, r(240) = −.48, p < .001, as well as PTS and PCBS Second Naiveté, r(240) = .20, p = .001. As Theological Openness theological beliefs increased, Orthodoxy decreased and Second Naiveté increased. Similarly, there was a correlation between the PTS and the PCBS symbolic dimension, r(240) = .44, p < .001, such that as Theological Openness theological beliefs increased, symbolic beliefs increased. Although not hypothesized, we also noted a correlation between the PTS and both PCBS External Critique, r(240) = .49, p < .001, and PCBS Relativism, r(240) = .55, p < .001, as well as with the PCBS exclusion dimension, r(240) = .57, p < .001. This finding is interesting because the sample included only individuals self-identified as Protestant theists, suggesting that there may be something special about Protestant theology that allows space for individuals to experience and express skepticism about the difficulty of making sense of transcendence that may not be present in Catholicism.
As expected, we also noted a correlation between only three of the five moral foundations. Specifically, there was a correlation between the PTS and MFQ Loyalty/Betrayal, r(240) = −.15, p < .02; the PTS and MFQ Authority/Subversion, r(240) = −.28, p < .001; and the PTS and MFQ Sanctity/Degradation, r(240) = −.36, p < .001. As Theological Openness theological beliefs increased, endorsement of the moral foundations of loyalty, authority, and sanctity decreased. There was no correlation between the PTS and MFQ Care/Harm or between the PTS and MFW Fairness/Cheating.
There was a correlation between the PTS and DTS, r(240) = −.31, p < .001, such that as Theological Openness theological beliefs increased, defensive theological beliefs decreased. Finally, as expected, the strongest correlation was between the PTS and RRFS, r(240) = −.78, p < .001. That is, as Theological Openness theological beliefs increased, religious fundamentalism increased.
Taken together, these analyses of convergent validity suggest that the PTS provides a unique but fitting contribution to methods of measuring religious beliefs and practice. However, the sample used in Study 1, which skewed young, female, and conservative Protestant, may have influenced the development and initial factor structure of the PTS. This demographic profile likely shaped the range of theological beliefs represented, possibly narrowing the variability of responses on items reflecting Theological Openness. Certain liberal theological perspectives or experiential approaches to faith may have been underrepresented, limiting the scale’s sensitivity to those belief systems. Conservative interpretations of scripture may have also appeared more internally consistent or salient in the factor structure because of the homogeneity of the sample. So we intentionally included a more diverse range of participants in Study 2 to captures the full spectrum of theological beliefs across Protestant denominations.
Study 2
Method
Participants
Four hundred and eighty individuals were recruited through Amazon MTurk to complete the study in exchange for about $1.50. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 86 (M = 35.16; SD = 10.45). Of the 480 participants, 84.17% were White/Non-Hispanic, 6.88% were Black or African American, 2.92% were Hispanic or Latino/a, 1.04% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, 3.33% were Asian, 0.21% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islan der, and 1.46% were Multiracial. Of the participants, 62.08% were cis-gendered male. On average, they attended 6.71 (SD = 9.54) religious services per month.
Materials
Attachment to God Inventory
The Attachment to God Inventory (AGI; Beck & McDonald, 2004) uses a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) to measure participants’ level of agreement about their perceptions of their relationships with God along two dimensions: anxiety of abandonment by God (e.g., “I worry a lot about my relationship with God”) and avoidance of intimacy with God (“My experiences with God are very intimate and emotional”—reversed). Internal consistency for both scales in this study was moderately high, αs > .67. In this study, scores for anxiety of abandonment by God ranged from 14 to 92 (M = 58.71, SD = 22.51) and scores for avoidance of intimacy with God ranged from 17 to 94 (M = 57.62, SD = 12.01).
PTS
We also included the PTS. Internal consistency of the PTS in this study was very high, α = .97. In this study, scores for the PTS ranged from 1.00 to 7.00 (M = 4.91, SD = 1.56).
Procedure
Participants recruited received a link to the study available on Qualtrics. After clicking on the link, participants read an informed consent form. By continuing, they indicated their consent to participate in the research project. Participants then completed the AGI, PTS, measures not included in this study, and demographic questions (counterbalanced to avoid order effects).
Results and Discussion
First, a multivariate analysis of variance was used to examine differences in religious attendance, attachment to God, and Protestant theology beliefs. There was a difference in anxiety about abandonment by God by gender, F(1, 471) = 17.45, p < .001, such that males reported more anxiety than did females. There was also a difference in avoidance toward God by gender, F(1, 471) = 9.27, p = .002, such that males reported more avoidance than did females. There were no gender differences in religious attendance or in theology beliefs.
A hierarchical multiple regression examined the relationship between Protestant theology and attachment to God. The main effects for attachment anxiety and avoidance were entered on Step 1. These terms were centered to test interactions (Aiken & West, 1991). The interaction term for anxiety and avoidance was entered on Step 2. Specifically, including the interaction term is important because the specific combination of low attachment anxiety and low attachment avoidance represents a secure attachment to God.
For Protestant theology, the first model (main effects only) was significant, R2 = .65, p < .001. The main effects for attachment avoidance toward God and anxiety about abandonment by God predicted 65% of the variance in Protestant theology. Specifically, there was a main effect for avoidance toward God, β = −.40, t(477) = −14.47, p < .001, such that as avoidance toward God increased, Biblical Literalism Protestant theology decreased. There was also a main effect for anxiety about abandonment by God, β = .68, t(477) = 24.89, p < .00, such that as anxiety about abandonment by God increased, Biblical Literalism Protestant theology decreased. These main effects are qualified by a significant second model, R2 = .69, p < .001 (pFchange < .001), however. The main effects and interaction of attachment avoidance toward God and anxiety about abandonment by God predicted 69% of the variance in Protestant theology. Specifically, there was an interaction between avoidance toward God and anxiety about abandonment by God, β = .35, t(476) = −2.01, p < .001 (see Figure 2). The link between attachment avoidance toward God and Theological Openness Protestant theology is particularly true for individuals low in anxiety about abandonment by God (instead of high).
Adjusted predicted values for Protestant theology total score illustrating the interaction between avoidance toward God and anxiety about abandonment by God at one standard deviation above and below the means (Study 2).
General Discussion
This study suggests that it is the quality of attachment to God that significantly predicts Protestant theological beliefs. First, although initial exploratory factor analysis suggested a three-factor structure for the PTS, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS indicated that a one-factor solution provided a more parsimonious and theoretically coherent model (see Figure 1). The three-factor model, while conceptually meaningful, showed high intercorrelations between subdimensions, suggesting substantial overlap rather than distinct constructs. The best-fitting model was a single latent factor, capturing the continuum from Biblical Literalism to Theological Openness. Fit indices supported this decision. In addition, given that theological beliefs often function as an integrated worldview rather than isolated domains, a unidimensional approach aligns with existing literature on religious belief structures. Thus, the one-factor model was selected to maintain conceptual clarity and ensure a more interpretable and generalizable scale.
Study 1 examined the validity of the PTS by assessing its relationships with established measures of religious beliefs and moral foundations. As expected, Theological Openness was associated with lower religious orthodoxy and a greater tendency to interpret religious beliefs symbolically. Interestingly, it also correlated with some skepticism toward religious authority, suggesting that even among self-identified Protestants, those with more Theological Openness may accommodate critical perspectives on religious doctrine. Theological Openness was also linked to a reduced emphasis on group loyalty, deference to religious authority, and purity-based moral reasoning, indicating a broader rejection of rigid hierarchical structures in religious thought. Theological Openness was also negatively related to defensive theological beliefs and religious fundamentalism, reinforcing its distinction from more rigid or literalist theological orientations. These findings support the validity of the PTS by showing its alignment with established constructs and its ability to differentiate between theological perspectives.
Study 2 examined the relationship between attachment to God and Protestant theological beliefs, confirming that attachment styles significantly predict where individuals fall on the Theological Openness–Biblical Literalism continuum. Higher avoidance of intimacy with God was associated with greater Theological Openness, suggesting that individuals who maintain emotional distance from God are more likely to interpret religious beliefs in a flexible, symbolic manner. Conversely, higher anxiety about abandonment by God predicted stronger Biblical Literalism, suggesting that people who fear separation from God are more likely to hold rigid, literalist theological beliefs. In addition, an interaction effect revealed that Theological Openness was highest among individuals who were both high in avoidance and low in anxiety, further highlighting how distinct attachment styles shape theological perspectives.
The finding that avoidance—rather than attachment security—is associated with Theological Openness adds an important theoretical nuance. Although attachment theory suggests that secure attachment (i.e., low anxiety and low avoidance) typically helps with exploration, our results indicate that avoidance itself may foster theological flexibility. Individuals high in avoidance toward God usually resist emotional dependence and relational intimacy in their spiritual lives. This emotional distance may create psychological space that enables critical thinking and openness to symbolic or metaphorical interpretations of scripture. Rather than seeking a relationally secure base in God, avoidant individuals may approach faith more cognitively than emotionally, relying on personal experience, rational inquiry, or cultural integration as sources of religious knowledge. In this context, theological openness may reflect a form of intellectual autonomy rather than spiritual security. Symbolic theology may serve a protective function for avoidant individuals by allowing religious engagement without the vulnerability required by a literal, personal relationship with God.
The findings suggest a strong connection between attachment to God and theological beliefs, particularly regarding whether the Bible is viewed as a symbolic expression of human experience or as a literal, factual document. The highest levels of Theological Openness were seen among individuals high in avoidance but low in anxiety. However, given the correlational nature of this study, the direction of this relationship remains uncertain. It is equally possible that interpreting the Bible symbolically fosters a sense of emotional distance from God, rather than the other way around. Similarly, the association between attachment anxiety and Biblical Literalism may reflect a need for certainty and stability in one’s faith, but a literal interpretation of scripture maintains a perceived secure connection with God. Conversely, adhering to a literalist view of the Bible may contribute to heightened anxiety about abandonment by God.
It is also possible that individuals who are avoidant of God rely primarily on personal experience and rational thought as sources of religious knowledge while placing less emphasis on the Bible. In contrast, those with higher anxiety about abandonment by God may draw on both the Bible and personal experience to understand their faith. This pattern suggests that scripture may serve as an attachment focal point for believers, with anxious individuals seeking security in biblical teachings, but avoidant individuals may distance themselves from scripture and instead focus on experiential and intellectual approaches to understanding God.
These findings build directly on the theoretical foundation laid by earlier research, particularly regarding the correspondence and compensation hypotheses of attachment to God. Prior research has emphasized the predictive power of early caregiver attachments in shaping one’s relationship with the divine (e.g., Granqvist & Kirkpatrick, 2008), suggesting that secure or insecure parental bonds correspond to similarly secure or compensatory spiritual attachments. However, this study adds an important layer by showing theological beliefs themselves—specifically, where one falls on the Biblical Literalism/Theological Openness continuum—are also linked to current attachment dynamics with God. Rather than focusing only on childhood attachments, this study highlights the intrapsychic and cognitive processes involved in adult believers’ theological meaning-making. In doing so, it complements existing attachment frameworks by proposing that theological interpretation is a downstream consequence of early attachment style and a dynamic reflection of one’s ongoing emotional posture toward God.
A theologically informed perspective is essential for understanding attachment to God, as neglecting theological considerations can weaken research in this area (Miner, 2007). This study contributes uniquely to the field by directly measuring personal Protestant theology, a construct that has been difficult to define in past research. By assessing theology along a Theological Openness/Biblical Literalism continuum, this study provides insights that are both psychological and religious. The intersection of psychology and theology has long been recognized, as shown by dedicated academic journals exploring their relationship. Although earlier psychological research has often examined religion through denominational affiliation (e.g., Reimer, 2011) or religious behaviors, this study goes further by linking individuals’ theological beliefs to their attachment to God. By mapping theological orientation alongside attachment style, the study offers a more nuanced understanding of how religious beliefs and relational dynamics with God interact.
The findings of this study carry meaningful implications for theologians, pastors, and ministry leaders. By showing individuals’ attachment styles toward God significantly predict their theological interpretations, this research suggests that theological beliefs are not formed in a vacuum but are shaped by relational and emotional dynamics. For example, a congregant who endorses Biblical Literalism may not be upholding doctrinal orthodoxy but may also be managing deep anxieties about abandonment by God. But people who lean toward Theological Openness may not be rejecting tradition, but instead expressing a more emotionally distanced, reflective, or symbolic engagement with faith. Recognizing these patterns can help pastors respond to their congregants with greater empathy and nuance—moving beyond content-based theological disagreements to address the relational needs underlying belief systems. For theologians, these findings show the importance of integrating psychological insights into doctrinal reflection, as relational and emotional experiences with God may inform how theology is lived, taught, and understood in diverse communities.
Strengths, limitations, and future studies
This study provides a unique perspective on the relationship between attachment to God and personal Protestant theology, offering a more integrated understanding of how theological beliefs and relational experiences with God interact. The development of the PTS is a key contribution, as it allows theology to be measured along a Theological Openness/Biblical Literalism continuum rather than relying on denominational affiliation or adapted religiosity scales. Previous research has tried to assess theological orientation using indirect methods, but the PTS was specifically designed to capture theological beliefs within a Protestant framework. The findings suggest that the scale has strong psychometric properties, though further validation is necessary to refine its structure and assess its applicability across different Protestant populations.
The study also raises important questions about the distinction between attachment to God and personal theology. Because a relationship with God is largely an intrapsychological process, individuals’ theological beliefs may shape their experience of God rather than being distinct from it. If theological orientation is closely tied to attachment dynamics, it suggests that Theological Openness and Biblical Literalism may reflect intellectual positions as well as embedded relational frameworks. Future research should explore whether theology and attachment to God represent separate but correlated constructs or whether they reflect a singular underlying factor that influences both belief systems and relational experiences with the divine. Examining cases where individuals show high Theological Openness but strong attachment anxiety, for example, could help clarify these distinctions.
Further research should also investigate how demographic factors influence Protestant theological beliefs, as this study’s sample was limited in scope. Exploring denominational differences within the Theological Openness/Biblical Literalism framework could provide insight into whether individual or institutional factors play a greater role in shaping belief systems. Given the well-established link between attachment to God and psychological well-being, future research should explore whether theological orientation similarly influences mental health, coping strategies, and overall life satisfaction. Examining these connections could reveal important ways personal theology contributes to psychological functioning and well-being. Understanding these practical implications will offer deeper insight into how theological beliefs shape both religious and psychological experiences.
Although this study did not directly measure religious behaviors, the results offer a theoretical foundation for understanding how attachment dynamics and theological beliefs may shape patterns of religious practice. Prior research has shown that secure attachment to God is associated with more consistent religious behaviors, while avoidant and anxious styles predict differing approaches to prayer, worship, and spiritual coping (Beck & McDonald, 2004; Miner, 2009). The current findings suggest that individuals with high avoidance and Theological Openness may favor individualized or symbolic religious practices, but those high in anxiety and Biblical Literalism may engage in more prescriptive, rule-bound behaviors to maintain a sense of closeness to God. These patterns highlight the need to consider how relational factors with the divine influence belief systems and lived expressions of faith.
Future research should directly assess how attachment to God and theological orientation influence religious behaviors. By measuring practices such as frequency and type of prayer, scripture reading habits, worship attendance, and spiritual coping styles, researchers can explore whether individuals with avoidant attachment and Theological Openness are more likely to engage in solitary, reflective, or symbolic religious behaviors. Those high in anxiety and Biblical Literalism may show greater reliance on structured, communal, or prescriptive practices aimed at maintaining a sense of closeness and reassurance. Examining these behavioral expressions can deepen our understanding of how theology and attachment interact not just cognitively, but in the day-to-day lived experience of faith.
Despite its utility, the Theological Openness/Biblical Literalism continuum may oversimplify the complexity and nuance of individual theological belief systems. Although helpful for capturing general interpretive tendencies, the continuum may flatten important distinctions—for example, some individuals may interpret the creation story metaphorically while affirming the resurrection of Christ as a literal historic event. Such selective literalism or compartmentalized theology is not fully represented by a single continuum score. The PTS primarily addresses cognitive and doctrinal beliefs but does not capture the emotional or relational dimensions of Protestant faith, such as mysticism, spiritual intimacy, or experiences of divine presence. These parts may play a critical role in shaping one’s relationship with God and could interact with theology in meaningful ways. Future versions of the scale, or complementary measures, should consider these multidimensional elements to provide a more comprehensive picture of Protestant belief systems. Further testing is also needed across a broader range of Protestant subgroups to assess the scale’s generalizability and sensitivity to significant doctrinal differences. For example, beliefs about sacraments, divine sovereignty, or eschatology may vary meaningfully between traditions such as Pentecostalism, Methodism, Anglicanism, and Reformed theology. Understanding how the PTS performs across these theological contexts will be essential for its refinement and broader application.
Conclusion
This study explores the relationship between attachment to God and Protestant theological beliefs, introducing the PTS as a new measure to assess theology along a Theological Openness–Biblical Literalism continuum. Findings indicate that higher avoidance of intimacy with God is associated with greater Theological Openness, while higher anxiety about abandonment by God predicts stronger Biblical Literalism. Also, an interaction effect revealed that individuals high in avoidance but low in anxiety showed the highest levels of Theological Openness. The study also shows convergent and divergent validity for the PTS, showing expected correlations with religious fundamentalism, post-critical beliefs, and moral foundations. By showing theological beliefs and attachment to God are closely linked, this research provides a new framework for studying how relational dynamics with God influence religious interpretations, offering a foundation for future studies on theology, attachment, and well-being.
Footnotes
Appendix 1
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded in part by the Florence Aller Graduate Programs in Counseling Scholarship. These data were collected in partial fulfillment of the requirements for Andrew J. Marra’s Master of Science in Counseling Psychology degree.
