Validation of the Apperception Test God Representations: An implicit measure to assess attachment to God representations. Associations with explicit attachment to God measures and with implicit and explicit measures of distress

IF 0.8 3区 哲学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
H. P. Stulp, J. Koelen, G. Glas, Liesbeth Eurelings-Bontekoe
{"title":"Validation of the Apperception Test God Representations: An implicit measure to assess attachment to God representations. Associations with explicit attachment to God measures and with implicit and explicit measures of distress","authors":"H. P. Stulp, J. Koelen, G. Glas, Liesbeth Eurelings-Bontekoe","doi":"10.1177/0084672420926262","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the context of theistic religions, God representations are an important factor in explaining associations between religion/spirituality and well-being/mental health. Although the limitations of self-report measures of God representations are widely acknowledged, well-validated implicit measures are still unavailable. Therefore, we developed an implicit Attachment to God measure, the Apperception Test God Representations (ATGR). In this study, we examined reliability and validity of an experimental scale based on attachment theory. Seventy-one nonclinical and 74 clinical respondents told stories about 15 cards with images of people. The composite Attachment to God scale is based on scores on two scales that measure dimensions of Attachment to God: God as Safe Haven and God as Secure Base. God as Safe Haven scores are based on two subscales: Asking Support and Receiving Support from God. Several combinations of scores on these latter subscales are used to assess Anxious and Avoidant attachment to God. A final scale, Percentage Secure Base, measures primary appraisal of situations as nonthreatening. Intraclass correlation coefficients showed that the composite Attachment to God scale could be scored reliably. Associations of scores on the ATGR scales and on the explicit Attachment to God Inventory with scores on implicitly and explicitly measured distress partly confirmed the validity of the ATGR scales by demonstrating expected patterns of associations. Avoidant attachment to God seemed to be assessed more validly with the implicit than with the explicit scale. Patients scored more insecure on the composite Attachment to God scale and three subscales than nonpatients.","PeriodicalId":44899,"journal":{"name":"Archive for the Psychology of Religion-Archiv Fur Religionspsychologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archive for the Psychology of Religion-Archiv Fur Religionspsychologie","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0084672420926262","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the context of theistic religions, God representations are an important factor in explaining associations between religion/spirituality and well-being/mental health. Although the limitations of self-report measures of God representations are widely acknowledged, well-validated implicit measures are still unavailable. Therefore, we developed an implicit Attachment to God measure, the Apperception Test God Representations (ATGR). In this study, we examined reliability and validity of an experimental scale based on attachment theory. Seventy-one nonclinical and 74 clinical respondents told stories about 15 cards with images of people. The composite Attachment to God scale is based on scores on two scales that measure dimensions of Attachment to God: God as Safe Haven and God as Secure Base. God as Safe Haven scores are based on two subscales: Asking Support and Receiving Support from God. Several combinations of scores on these latter subscales are used to assess Anxious and Avoidant attachment to God. A final scale, Percentage Secure Base, measures primary appraisal of situations as nonthreatening. Intraclass correlation coefficients showed that the composite Attachment to God scale could be scored reliably. Associations of scores on the ATGR scales and on the explicit Attachment to God Inventory with scores on implicitly and explicitly measured distress partly confirmed the validity of the ATGR scales by demonstrating expected patterns of associations. Avoidant attachment to God seemed to be assessed more validly with the implicit than with the explicit scale. Patients scored more insecure on the composite Attachment to God scale and three subscales than nonpatients.
统觉测试上帝表征的验证:评估对上帝表征的依恋的隐式测量。与明确的对上帝的依恋的联系以及与明确和含蓄的痛苦的联系
在有神论宗教的背景下,上帝表征是解释宗教/灵性与幸福/心理健康之间联系的一个重要因素。虽然自我报告测量上帝表征的局限性被广泛承认,良好验证的隐性测量仍然不可用。因此,我们开发了一个内隐的上帝依恋测量,统觉测试上帝表征(ATGR)。本研究以依恋理论为基础,对实验量表的信度和效度进行检验。71名非临床和74名临床受访者讲述了15张带有人物图像的卡片的故事。对上帝的复合依恋量表是基于两个衡量对上帝依恋维度的量表:作为避风港的上帝和作为安全基地的上帝。上帝作为避风港的得分基于两个子量表:请求支持和从上帝那里得到支持。后两个分量表的得分组合被用来评估焦虑型和回避型对上帝的依恋。最后一个量表,安全基础百分比,衡量的是对无威胁情况的初步评估。班级内相关系数表明,对上帝依恋量表的评分是可靠的。ATGR量表和外显依恋量表的得分与内隐和外显测量的痛苦得分的关联,通过展示预期的关联模式,部分地证实了ATGR量表的有效性。逃避型对上帝的依恋似乎用内隐量表比外显量表更有效。患者在对上帝的复合依恋量表和三个子量表上的不安全感得分高于非患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
期刊介绍: The international, peer-reviewed journal Archive for the Psychology of Religion/Archiv für Religionspsychologie is the oldest periodical that publishes research in the psychology of religion. It is the organ of the International Association for the Psychology of Religion (IAPR), founded in 1914. The Archive for the Psychology of Religion/Archiv für Religionspsychologie is open to all scientific methodologies, both quantitative and qualitative.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信