Cited by 114Religion, Spirituality, and PsychologyAttachment and Relationship DynamicsStudy and Philosophy of Religion

Attachment to God and Implicit Spirituality: Clarifying Correspondence and Compensation Models

Hall, Todd W., Fujikawa, Annie, Halcrow, Sarah R., Hill, Peter C., Delaney, Harold·2009·Journal of Psychology and Theology

Abstract

This article empirically investigates two alternative, competing hypotheses regarding human attachment patterns and attachment patterns with respect to people's spiritual experiences of relationship with God. The correspondence model posits that attachment patterns with humans correspond to, or are reflected in attachment patterns in individuals’ experiences of God. The compensation model, in contrast proposes that attachment patterns with humans do not correspond to God attachment patterns presumably because God functions as a substitute attachment figure for those with insecure human attachments. Overall, the evidence has been somewhat mixed, with some findings supporting correspondence and some supporting compensation. It is argued here that this is due to limitations of the conceptual models, more specifically, lack of clarity regarding the compensation model, and the limited way in which spirituality and religiousness has been conceptualized and measured. We propose a conceptual distinction between implicit spiritual functioning and explicit spiritual functioning, which reflect two separate ways of knowing and processing emotional information: explicit knowledge and implicit relational knowledge (Stern et al., 1998). Based on this distinction, we propose a conceptual model arguing that correspondence operates at implicit levels of spiritual experience, and that human attachment patterns are not associated with explicit spiritual functioning. Results overall provided strong support for this model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/009164710903700401

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hall, T. W., Fujikawa, A., Halcrow, S. R., Hill, P. C., & Delaney, H.
Affiliations
  • Biola University (US)
  • University of New Mexico (US)
Corresponding author
Hall, Todd W.
Venue
Journal of Psychology and Theology
Published
2009-12
Volume
37
Issue
4
Pages
227-244
ISSN
  • 0091-6471 (ISSN-L)
  • 2328-1162
OpenAlex
W278113271
Cited by
114
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Psychology and Theology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Study and Philosophy of Religion
Keywords
attachment to God, correspondence model, compensation model, insecure attachment, religiosity, spirituality, attachment figures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review