The Role of Attachment to God in Understanding Religiosity and Generosity Among Christian Young Adults

Abstract

The study examined the association between religiosity and generosity, and whether it is mediated by secure attachment to God, among Christian young adults. A total of 154 participants (Mean age = 22.75, SD = 6.12) completed self-report measures on religiosity (religious activities and intrinsic religiosity), attachment to God, and generosity (generous behavior and interpersonal generosity). In terms of direct effects, religious activities were positively associated with secure attachment to God and generous behavior, whereas intrinsic religiosity was associated with higher levels of interpersonal generosity. In terms of indirect effects, secure attachment to God mediated the relations between both types of religiosity (religious activities and intrinsic religiosity) and interpersonal generosity. Secure attachment to God did not mediate the relation between religiosity and generous behavior. The results of the study highlight the role of religiosity and secure attachment to God in cultivating generosity among young adults. Implications of the study findings, especially with regard to the potential roles of clinicians and clergy in cultivating generosity among young adults, will be discussed.

Keywords

religiosity generosity interpersonal generosity attachment to God

Most of the major world religions encourage prosocial behaviors such as generosity, and many religious people self-report higher levels of prosocial behaviors than non-religious people (Harrell, 2012). Generosity has generally been defined as the tendency to give freely to others (Hayhurst, 2010). It may involve giving objective resources, such as time, money, or in-kind goods. It may also include subjective resources, such as talents or acts of kindness (Fernandez et al., 2016; Hayhurst, 2010). People who are generous are concerned about the well-being of others and are willing to make life choices or give away possessions to help others (Fernandez et al., 2016; Kasser, 2005).

A related construct to generosity is interpersonal generosity, which is defined as the amount of time, attention, or energy a person gives for the well-being of another through interpersonal relationships (Smith & Hill, 2009). Put another way, interpersonal generosity is the work one person puts into a relationship with another person for that other person’s benefit. Interpersonal generosity differs from generosity in general in that it benefits the other person in the relationship but not the broader society in general. People who have self-reported high interpersonal generosity enjoy doing things for their friends, such as cooking an elegant meal and also tend to be extroverted and open to new experiences compared to those who display less interpersonal generosity (Dotson, 2012).

While generosity usually entails short-term loss, such as money, time, or goods, it often involves long-term gain. For example, individuals who have been generous may build a reputation for being generous and trustworthy (Wedekind & Braithwaite, 2002). The community can also benefit from individual generosity because people are more likely to be generous themselves if they have observed others in their social network being generous (Allen, 2018). Finally, generosity can have a snowball effect where those who experience an act of generosity engage in such acts themselves, thus starting a trend of generosity in their community (Aknin et al., 2013).

Generosity has also been associated with personal well-being, including increased happiness (Anik et al., 2009), physical health (Brown, 2003), longer life expectancy (Allen, 2018), and lower levels of depression (Musick & Wilson, 2003) and burnout (Allen, 2018). Researchers found that widows who gave support to others were less likely to develop depression 1 year after becoming a widow, compared to widows who were less generous (Brown, 2003). In studies involving older adults, researchers found that participants report greater quality of life and self-esteem when they volunteer their time (Allen, 2018), and lower symptoms of anxiety, somatization, and depression (Post, 2005). When studying dialysis patients, researchers found that generosity was positively associated with decreased depression and higher levels of subjective well-being among caregivers (Brown, 2003). Some researchers have suggested that advertising the emotional benefits of generosity may encourage people to give even more, increasing their personal well-being as well as the well-being of their community (Anik et al., 2009).

Given the individual and social benefits of generosity, scholars have identified factors such as religiosity that may promote generosity among young adults. Historically, religiosity has been difficult to define because people have vastly different ideas of what it means to be religious. For the purposes of this study, religiosity is conceptualized based on religious activities (organizational and non-organizational) and intrinsic religiosity. Organizational religious activity is public engagement in religious activities such as attending church, prayer groups, or Sunday school. In contrast, non-organizational religious activity is usually conducted in private, and these religious activities can include private praying, listening to religious radio, or reading Scripture (Koenig & Bussing, 2010; Liu & Koenig, 2012). Intrinsic religiosity is the degree of religious motivation or commitment an individual possesses (Koenig & Bussing, 2010). People with high intrinsic religiosity tend to see their religion as highly valued in its own right (Liu & Koenig, 2012; Moscati & Mezuk, 2014).

Empirical studies have generally documented the positive effect of religiosity on generosity (Fernandez et al., 2016). Religious individuals report higher prosocial behaviors, including higher levels of generosity, and are perceived by others as more altruistic (Harrell, 2012). Specifically, researchers found organizational religious activity, such as church attendance, to be positively related to monetary giving (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011). People who are regular church attenders are more likely to self-report a higher rate of giving. Generally, religiosity is associated with helping other like-minded individuals, suggesting that giving related to one’s religion is not universal and restricted to other in-group members (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2007; Harrell, 2012).

At the same time, the associations between religion and generosity are nuanced and depend on other factors. For example, individuals’ levels of generous behavior were found to differ by religious denomination, suggesting that religious tenets related to one’s denomination to be more impactful than other religious tenets (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Will & Cochran, 1995). Some authors theorize that Protestants’ higher level of giving is due to overall higher church attendance and social expectations on giving (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011), while participating in religious activities was especially significant for Catholics (Will & Cochran, 1995). Overall, people raised in a religious household tend to be more generous, but the strength of conviction did not increase giving for either Protestants or Catholics. Another example involves the concept of religiosity itself. Some aspects of religiosity, like Scripture reading, may be more impactful than other religious behaviors such as prayer or church attendance. Cole and Caudill Ovwigho (2009) found that people who engaged in Scripture reading were less likely to engage in risky behaviors when compared to their peers who only engaged in church attendance and prayer. In addition, given that this study’s participant sample largely comprised young adults, it is also important to note that people in their early 20s may be engaged in a period of self-reflection as it relates to their religiosity. Some young adults may question their spirituality or distance themselves from their religion while on a journey of self-exploration in ways that may complicate understandings of religiosity constructs (McNamara Barry et al., 2010). Although these factors make the need for nuance clear, there is initial evidence supporting the role of religiosity in the development of generosity (Fernandez et al., 2016). However, less is known about the underlying mechanism(s) that may explain this association.

While studies have found religiosity to be associated with generosity, less is known about the underlying mechanism that may explain the link. In this study, we sought to examine the role of secure attachment to God as a potential mediator. According to the attachment theory proposed by Kirkpatrick (1992), God is an attachment figure who meets the needs for a safe haven and secure base. Many religious individuals, especially those belonging to a monotheistic tradition, tend to view or experience God as a “Father-figure” with whom they have a relationship and thus develop an attachment style. People with a secure attachment to God pray to feel closer to God, seek God in a time of crisis, and are more likely to feel confident in decision-making when they feel God’s presence (Homan, 2014). They have viewed God as one who provides comfort and protection in the face of threats (Bradshaw et al., 2010), and therefore, is available as a haven of safety or a secure base in times of trouble. A secure attachment to God could correlate with early childhood experiences (see Hall et al., 2009 for correspondence model) but also be unique to, and at perhaps substitute for, human attachments (compensation model, for example, Hall et al., 2009).

Attachment theory has stated that children develop an “internal working model” (Homan, 2014, p. 978) of the world through interactions with their parents or primary caregivers. Repeated interactions with a caregiver who is responsive and available form a working model or mental representation of their own selves, others, and the world. This in turn allows the child to be securely attached to the parent, where they feel that their needs will be met (Bowlby, 1969/1982). However, negative working models or insecure forms of attachment can develop when the attachment figures are inconsistent or if they repeatedly miss opportunities to support and protect the child. This may lead to adaptation of secondary attachment strategies by a child and corresponding insecure attachment styles (see Mikulincer and colleagues, 2005 for a review).

Religiosity has been posited to be related to secure attachment to God. The proximity seeking behavior directed toward God mirrors engagement with the child’s primary attachment figure. Christian believers have participated in religious activity, such as prayer and meditation, to feel closer to God and have sought God in times of need (Homan, 2014; Miner et al., 2014). Furthermore, if Christian believers have perceived God as meeting their psychological needs then attachment security with God arises (Miner et al., 2014). Therefore, participating in religious activity strengthens, or at least activates, attachment to God. Having activated secure attachment through religiosity, a person may then feel that they can be other-oriented and give freely and abundantly to others.

A secure attachment with a primary caregiver has been found to promote altruistic behavior, including compassion and generosity (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Gillath et al., 2005). Most notably, Mikulincer and colleagues (2005) demonstrated that activating attachment security by implicit and explicit security primes fostered compassion and altruism, whereas attachment insecurity suppressed caregiving. A person can shift their resources toward the welfare of others once they feel secure enough (Mikulincer et al., 2002). Attachment security has provided the necessary emotional affordances and a working model to help others (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Kunce & Shaver, 1994).

Among evangelical Christians, God is often described as a “Father-figure” who provides and takes care of His people. Similar to attachment security in human relationships, people who have reported a secure attachment to God tend to experience life satisfaction, happiness, and lower levels of anxiety and depression (Homan, 2014). In addition, they have reported higher self-esteem and interpreted their physical pain in a positive light (Zahl & Gibson, 2012). A secure attachment to God also has had a positive correlation with an individual’s religious coping, such as their ability to experience God as a source of strength and to decrease their expressions of blame toward God (Miner et al., 2014). But, it remains an empirical question as to whether secure attachment to God may have served as a mediator between religiosity and generosity. Drawing from the broader literature on the role of secure attachment to caregivers on generosity, we expected that to the extent that an individual feels safe, secure and loved by God, they will have greater emotional capacity within themselves, thus allowing them to be more generous and other-focused.

Study Aims

The aims of the study were twofold. First, we sought to examine the effects of two types of religiosity (religious activity and intrinsic religiosity) on generosity (generous behavior and interpersonal generosity) among Christian young adults. Consistent with past literature (Fernandez et al., 2016), we hypothesized that religiosity would be associated with higher levels of generous behavior and interpersonal generosity. Second, we explored the extent to which secure attachment to God may mediate the relation between religiosity and prosocial behavior. Consistent with past literature (Miner, 2009), we hypothesized that secure attachment to God would significantly mediate the relation between religiosity and generosity. Specifically, both religious activity and intrinsic religiosity would be positively associated with secure attachment to God, which in turn would be associated with higher levels of generous behavior and interpersonal generosity.

Method

Participants

The study included a total of 154 participants (59.74% female). Women on average were 23.52 years old (SD = 7.06) and men were 21.26 years old (SD = 4.03). The study included 49 adult graduate students from a Protestant seminary in the Southwest (73% female; mean age of 28.94 years and SD = 2.91) and 105 undergraduate participants from a Protestant college located in the Midwest (53% female; mean age of 19.98 years and SD = 1.51). In terms of the overall ethnic make-up of the participants, 55.7% were European American, 16.5% were Asian American, 7% were Hispanic or Latino American, 3.2% were Black or African American, 5.7% were Mixed, and 7% identified as “Other.”

Procedures

Participants for this study were recruited from a seminary and college through print and electronic flyer distribution and in-person advertisement in classrooms. Interested participants visited the web link identified on the flyer that took them to a consent form on Qualtrics. After providing consent, they were directed to the online survey to complete.

Measures

Religiosity

Duke University Religion Index (Koenig & Bussing, 2010) was used to measure religious activities and intrinsic religiosity. Religious activities comprised two items that measure the frequency of attending organizational religious activity (church or other religious meetings) and non-organizational religious activity (private religious activities, such as prayer, meditation, or Bible study; α = .73). The items were measured on a 6-point Likert-type scale where 1 = never, and 6 = more than once/week. Intrinsic religiosity, however, contains three items and measures a person’s religious motivation (e.g., “My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life”; α = .76). These items are measured on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = definitely not true and 5 = definitely true of me. This scale demonstrated strong convergent validity and high internal consistency in a sample of adults aged 18–90 from both clinical and community populations (Cronbach’s Alpha = .75; Koenig & Bussing, 2010).

Generosity

The Generosity Scale (Kasser, 2005) comprised four items that measure the degree to which an individual enjoys or is willing to give or share their possessions and money (e.g., “I enjoy sharing my things with other people.”). Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly agree and 5 = strongly disagree. The authors included multiple samples in their study and reported internal reliability for their measure with Cronbach’s Alpha ranging from .70 to .78 (Kasser, 2005). The scale has lower internal reliability for this study (α = .64).

Interpersonal generosity

The Interpersonal Generosity Scale (Smith & Hill, 2009) contains 10 items designed to measure generosity through one’s interpersonal relationships (e.g., “I’m the kind of person who is willing to go the ‘extra mile’ to help take care of my friends, relatives, and acquaintances”). Responses were rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 6 = strongly agree. The authors reported that the scale has good criterion and content validity as well as high internal consistency of Cronbach’s Alpha = .87 (Smith & Hill, 2009). The scale demonstrates good internal reliability for this study (α = .85).

Attachment to God

The Attachment to God Scale (Rowatt & Kirkpatrick, 2002) consists of nine items that measure an individual’s attachment style as it relates to their experience of God. The original measure contains two subscales, avoidant and anxious attachment. Due to the growing body of literature on secure, avoidant, and anxious attachment in adult attachment theory, a separate “secure” subscale from Bradshaw et al. (2010) was used for the purposes of this study. Bradshaw and colleagues (2010) posit that secure and avoidant attachment are at opposite ends of a continuum, and so the six items from the avoidant subscale were used, with three of the original items reverse coded. Items included in the secure subscale are “God seems impersonal to me” (reverse coded), “God seems to have little or no interest in my personal problems” (reverse coded), “God seems to have little or no interest in my personal affairs” (reverse coded), “I have a warm relationship with God,” “God knows when I need support,” and “I feel that God is generally responsive to me.” Responses were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale where 0 = not true and 3 = very true with higher numbers reflecting a more secure attached relationship with God. The authors reported that the secure subscale demonstrated good internal consistency of Cronbach’s Alpha = .86 (Bradshaw et al., 2010). The subscale also demonstrates good internal reliability for this study (α = .84).

Data analysis plan

Preliminary analysis was first conducted on the data, including descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of all main study variables. Second, t tests were conducted to determine if there were any significant differences between the graduate and undergraduate students on demographic information and main study variables. Chi-square tests were also used to examine the relationship between gender and ethnicity between the two groups of participants.

PROCESS mediation models were used for the main research questions (Hayes, 2013). Specifically, Model 4 was used to determine the direct and indirect effects of the independent variables (religiosity) on both dependent variables (generous behavior and interpersonal generosity) through attachment to God. Age, gender, ethnicity, denomination, and recruitment location were controlled for and used as covariates for each model.

Results

The means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of all main study variables are presented in Table 1. Religious activity was positively correlated with secure attachment to God and generous behavior, but not interpersonal generosity. Intrinsic religiosity was correlated with secure attachment to God, generous behavior, and interpersonal generosity. Finally, secure attachment to God was correlated with higher levels of generous behavior and interpersonal generosity.

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations of All Main Study Variables (N = 154).

Measure	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Religious activity	5.11	.77	–
2. Intrinsic religiosity	4.41	.68	.39**	–
3. Secure attachment to God	14.92	.52	.41**	.49**	–
4. Generous behavior	3.76	.65	.45**	.28**	.23**	–
5. Interpersonal generosity	5.80	.73	.16	.22**	.28**	.31**	–

SD: standard deviation.

N = 154.

p < .01.

Because the data were collected from two separate schools, a series of chi-square tests and independent t tests were conducted to determine if the students from the two schools differed on the main study variables (see Table 2). Chi-square tests indicated that the undergraduate population had significantly more males and a significantly different ethnic composition (see Table 2). As expected, the t tests revealed that graduate students (M = 28.94, SD = 2.91) are older than undergraduate students (M = 19.98, SD = 1.51). In addition, graduate students (M = 4.04, SD = .71) are also more generous than undergraduate students (M = 3.62, SD = .58). As such, school was included as a covariate in the main mediation models.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables.

	Graduate students(n = 49)		Undergraduate students(n = 105)		χ² (15)
Socio-demographics
Gender	10 male, 36 female		49 male, 56 female		8.35**
Ethnicity	15 European American,13 Asian American,6 Latino American,3 African American,2 Mixed, 7 Other		73 European American,13 Asian American,5 Latino American,2 African American,7 Mixed, 4 Other		23.15**
	M	SD	M	SD	t(142–152)
Age	28.94	2.91	19.98	1.51	11.21**
Independent variables
Religious activity	5.16	.60	5.10	.84	ns
Intrinsic religiosity	4.50	.53	4.38	.74	ns
Potential mediator
Attach. to God (secure)	2.61	.37	2.43	.57	ns
Dependent variables
Generous behavior	4.04	.71	3.62	.58	3.92**
Interpersonal generosity	5.86	.64	5.78	.77	ns

SD: standard deviation.

p < .01.

Mediation analyses

A total of four mediation models were conducted to examine if attachment to God mediated the effects of two types of religiosity (religious activity and intrinsic religiosity) on two forms of generosity (generous behavior and interpersonal generosity). The indirect effect was tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 5,000 samples, implemented with the PROCESS macro developed by Hayes (2013). Age, gender, ethnicity, denomination, and location were included as covariates in each model.

The effects of religious activity

As shown in Table 3, there were significant indirect effects between religious activity and interpersonal generosity through attachment to God (B = .11, SE = .05, 95% CI = [.03, .21]). Religious activity was positively associated with secure attachment to God (B = .42, 95% CI = [1.07, 2.36], p < .001), and secure attachment to God was related to higher levels of interpersonal generosity (B = .27, 95% CI = [.02, .11], p < .001). The direct effect of organizational religious activity on interpersonal generosity was not significant, suggesting the presence of a full mediation. Approximately, 4% of the variance in interpersonal generosity was accounted for by the predictor (R² = .04).

Table 3.

Indirect Effects of Religious Activity Through Secure Attachment to God on Generous Behavior and Interpersonal Generosity.

	Effect	BootLLCI	BootULCI	SE	t	p
Path—Religious activity to generous behavior
Total effect (c)	.32**	.21	.43	.06	5.61	.00
Direct effect (c₁)	.31**	.19	.44	.06	5.01	.00
Religious activity → attachment to God (a)	.42**	1.07	2.36	.33	5.24	.00
Attachment to God → generous behavior (b)	.01	−.03	.03	.02	.18	.86
Indirect effects
Total indirect effect	.00	−.05	.06	.03
Path—Religious activity to interpersonal generosity
Total effect (c)	.13	−.03	.30	.08	1.57	.12
Direct effect (c₁)	.02	−.15	.20	.09	.27	.78
Religious activity → attachment to God (a)	.42**	1.07	2.36	.33	5.24	.00
Attachment to God → interpersonal generosity (b)	.27**	.02	.11	.02	2.89	.00
Indirect effects
Total indirect effect	.11	.03	.21	.05

BootLLCI: bootstrapping lower limit confidence interval; BootULCI: bootstrapping upper limit confidence interval; SE: standard error.

Models include age, gender, ethnicity, school, and denomination as covariates.

p < .01.

In terms of the effects of religious activity on generous behavior, there were no significant indirect effects through secure attachment to God. Specifically, secure attachment to God was not associated with generous behavior. There was a significant direct effect of religious activity on generous behavior (B = .31, SE = .06, p < .001).

The effects of intrinsic religiosity

We found a significant indirect effect between intrinsic religiosity and interpersonal generosity through attachment to God (B = .13, SE = .06, 95% [CI = .00, .24]; Table 4). Intrinsic religiosity was positively associated with secure attachment to God (B = .49, 95% CI = [1.57, 2.97], p < .001), and secure attachment to God was significantly related to interpersonal generosity (B = .24, 95% CI = [.01, .10], p < .01). The direct effect of intrinsic religiosity on interpersonal generosity was not significant. Approximately, 6% of the variance in interpersonal generosity was accounted for by the predictor (R² = .06).

Table 4.

Indirect Effects of Intrinsic Religiosity Through Secure Attachment to God on Generous Behavior and Interpersonal Generosity Using Mediation.

	Effect	BootLLCI	BootULCI	SE	t	p
Path—Intrinsic religiosity to generous behavior
Total effect (c)	.20**	.06	.33	.07	2.86	.00
Direct effect (c₁)	.16*	.00	.31	.08	1.20	.05
Intrinsic Religiosity → Attachment to God (a)	.49**	1.57	2.97	.35	6.44	.00
Attachment to God → Generous Behavior (b)	.10	−.02	.05	.02	1.04	.30
Indirect effects
Total indirect effect	.04	−.05	.11	.04
Path—Intrinsic religiosity to interpersonal generosity
Total effect (c)	.22*	.03	.40	.09	2.33	.02
Direct effect (c₁)	.09	−.11	.30	.10	.88	.38
Intrinsic religiosity → attachment to God (a)	.49**	1.57	2.97	.35	6.44	.00
Attachment to God → interpersonal generosity (b)	.24*	.01	.10	.02	2.47	.02
Indirect effects
Total indirect effect	.13	.00	.24	.06

BootLLCI: bootstrapping lower limit confidence interval; BootULCI: bootstrapping upper limit confidence interval; SE: standard error.

Models include age, gender, ethnicity, school, and denomination as covariates.

p < .05; **p < .01.

The indirect effect between intrinsic religiosity and generous behavior was not significant; secure attachment to God was not associated with generous behavior. There was a significant direct effect of intrinsic religiosity on generous behavior (B = .16, SE = .08, p < .001).

Discussion

In this study, we sought to examine the associations between religiosity (religious activity and intrinsic religiosity), secure attachment to God, and prosocial behavior (generous behavior and interpersonal generosity) in a sample of Christian young adults. As hypothesized, both aspects of religiosity had a positive direct effect on secure attachment to God. Consistent with the literature, there is a reciprocal association between experiencing a secure attachment and regularly participating in religious activities or developing an intrinsically mature religiosity (Miner et al., 2014; Rowatt & Kirkpatrick, 2002). In addition, both aspects of religiosity were directly associated with increased generous behavior. This corroborates previous studies that found people who value their religion, attend church, or engage in regular personal Scripture reading, to also be more generous with their time and money (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011).

In terms of interpersonal generosity, only intrinsic religiosity had a direct effect. Contrary to past studies (e.g., Fernandez et al., 2016), people’s participation in religious activities were not directly associated with their interpersonal generosity. Even though both religiosity variables are interrelated, they each measure distinct aspects of religiosity (Koenig & Bussing, 2010) that may differentially influence prosocial behavior. Religious activities definitionally involve overt behaviors such as church attendance, prayer, or meditation. As such, it may be unsurprising that overt religious behaviors may be more linked with concrete prosocial behavior such as generous behavior through monetary giving. Likewise, intrinsic religiosity is covert and may be more linked with more intangible generous giving within relationships.

An attachment perspective may provide additional context to the connection between intrinsic religiosity and interpersonal generosity. Secure attachment to God had a direct effect on both aspects of prosocial behavior (generous behavior and interpersonal generosity; Gillath et al., 2016). Consistent with the hypothesis and the broader adult literature on attachment, it seems that people are more generous toward others if they have a secure God attachment.

The main goal of the study was to examine the extent to which secure attachment to God mediated the relation between religiosity and prosocial behavior. Among the four mediation models that were run, two were significant. There were significant indirect effects between both aspects of religiosity and interpersonal generosity through secure attachment to God (as shown in Figure 1). To the extent that people engage in religious activity, they are more likely to experience God as a comforting presence (Mikulincer et al., 2005; Miner, 2009). The presence of a secure and loving relationship with God, in turn, prompts people to demonstrate higher levels of interpersonal generosity (Hall et al., 2009; Mikulincer et al., 2005).

Figure 1.

Mediation model of religiosity (religious activity and intrinsic) through secure attachment to God on interpersonal generosity.

The broader literature on adult attachment theory can help interpret these results. Bowlby’s attachment theory posits that a secure attachment is fundamental for developing prosocial feelings and behaviors (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007). A securely attached person may easily engage in altruistic feelings and behaviors because their needs for safety and protection have been met, based on positive and reliable interactions with their caregivers (Mikulincer et al., 2005). Furthermore, while research has not directly associated a secure attachment to interpersonal generosity, researchers have found secure attachment to be associated with a desire to be in close relationships and more positive experiences from these relationships (Hall et al., 2009). This study might be interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that attachment-based desire for close relationships facilitates interpersonal generosity. Therefore, activation of a secure attachment to God may encourage engagement in intimate relationships that also encourages generosity within these relationships.

Although there was no direct main effect between religious activities and interpersonal generosity, there was a significant indirect effect through secure attachment to God. In other words, the acts of attending church services, praying, or meditating do not necessarily result in greater levels of interpersonal generosity. However, to the extent that practicing these religious activities promote a safe and secure relationship with God, they demonstrate increased generosity within interpersonal relationships. This suggests that a secure attachment style may play an important role in the growth of society-oriented behavior. Attachment theory posits that attachment style is the framework from which a person perceives their world and interacts with others (Rashidi et al., 2016). While attending church or praying regularly may increase generous behavior in the form of monetary giving, individuals may not have the capacity to be generous on an intimate level until they feel securely attached to God.

Contrary to the hypothesis, secure attachment to God did not mediate the direct effect of religiosity on generous behavior. Although both types of religiosity have direct effects on generous behavior, secure attachment to God is not an underlying mechanism. Given that generous behavior captures distal and less emotionally latent behaviors, such as sharing possessions with others and giving money to charities (Fernandez et al., 2016; Hayhurst, 2010), this type of generosity could be less influenced by a secure attachment to God. However, a secure attachment to God seems important for interpersonal generosity which is intimate and emotionally latent interpersonal behaviors.

Taken together, the results of this study add to the extant literature that different types of religiosity could promote prosocial behaviors including generous behavior and interpersonal generosity. It also contributes to the literature and provides some initial evidence that secure attachment to God may be a factor that explains the relation between religiosity and interpersonal generosity. These findings in particular extend the current literature on attachment theory and attachment to God. The findings from this study may offer some practical implications for mental health counseling and Christian ministry, which will be described below.

There are several possible implications of the present findings. First, participating in religious activity and one’s intrinsic religiosity both seem to increase one’s enjoyment and willingness to be generous. Therefore, fostering religiosity may help to promote pleasurable prosocial behavior. Second, clergy and clinicians could focus on how the religiosity of a congregant or a religious client strengthens their attachment to God as an avenue toward increasing prosocial behavior. This may be particularly significant for those with insecure attachments throughout childhood. Religiosity, then, appears to increase interpersonal generosity by activating one’s attachment to God.

There are several limitations in this study that need to be addressed. First, the generalizability of these findings is limited because of the small sample size. Due to the small sample size, the study may also have lacked the statistical power to detect potential direct and indirect effects. Furthermore, the amount of variance explained in the significant models was small and more research on additional mechanisms promoting generosity is needed. In addition, data were gathered from self-selection participants and by self-report measures, which could be biased due to socially desirable responding. There are differences between having the desire to be generous, and actually engaging in generous behavior. The participants in our study were recruited from two faith-based higher education institutions, including a Protestant university and a seminary. There may be self-selection bias, such that our participants may be more likely to engage in a journey of religious self-exploration, and that their religious behavior may have been strengthened by their religious professors and peers. Similarly, compared to other self-identified Christians who did not attend a religious institution, they may endorse even higher levels of religious commitment or participation of religious activities. This may limit the extent to which these findings may be generalizable to a broader Christian population. Future research could investigate the relations of attachment to God, religiosity, and generosity among young adults who are religious but attend secular universities.

Due to the limitations of the cross-sectional design of this study, future studies could include an experimental design that includes measures to better detect prosocial behaviors (e.g., the dictator game for measuring generosity). In addition, we could not determine causation due to the limitations of the cross-sectional design. For example, it is difficult to determine if people who are securely attached to God have higher levels of religious activity or if people who are securely attached to God may have higher motivation and be more likely to engage in religious activity. Furthermore, some of the measures used had low internal reliability or insufficient validity. Specifically, secure attachment was conceptualized as a continuum. In future studies, researchers could examine how to group people into different categories of secure attachment and how they may differ. Religiosity is also a difficult construct to measure because it can be synonymous with other terms such as faith, devotion, or spirituality. Also, religiosity is conceptualized differently by various academic disciplines (e.g., a theologian describing it from a viewpoint of faith, and a psychologist describing it from a viewpoint of holiness or church attendance). In addition, the religious activity subscale was measured by using only two items. Given the recent research that demonstrates the differences in private and public religiosity, and the potential powerful impact of Scripture engagement, researchers may also want to measure these items separately to increase the nuance of findings. Therefore, additional measures should be used in future studies that examine this complex construct.

Despite these limitations, results from this study support the hypothesis that secure attachment to God is a mechanism involved in the relationship between religiosity and interpersonal generosity. Importantly, this study provided evidence that a secure attachment to God can increase a person’s interpersonal generosity, a largely understudied prosocial behavior. Future research studies will benefit from using larger and more diverse samples as well as including an experimental aspect to their design. Longitudinal studies may also be warranted to help clarify these relationships and identify clinical implications.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ramanda Mallery Pettit

Joel Jin

Aaron Rosales

Joey Fung

Author Biographies

Ramanda Mallery Pettit, M.A., is a doctoral candidate at Fuller School of Psychology. She is currently completing her psychology internship at Eastern Oklahoma VA Health Care System. Her research interests include attachment, generosity, marital satisfaction, and parenting.

Joel Jin, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology at Seattle Pacific University. He received his doctorate in clinical psychology from Fuller’s School of Psychology. His research program focuses on addressing mental health disparities, and topics of interest include stigma, perfectionism, and mindfulness-based interventions.

Aaron Rosales, Ph.D., is the Director of Mental Health at Brio, a non-profit that partners with communities to design and launch wellbeing initiatives in low-resource contexts globally. Locally, Aaron equips faith-based organizations to meet the wellbeing needs that arise in their communities through consultation, coaching, and collaborative programming.

Winnie Fung received her Ph.D. in Business Economics from Harvard University and her M.A. in Biblical Studies from Wheaton College. She was an Associate Professor of Economics at Wheaton College and now an Associate Professor and Academic Head at Lumina College in Hong Kong. Her research interests are in health and development economics.

Joey Fung holds a M.A. and Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles. She is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Fuller Theological Seminary. Her research interests lie in parenting, parent-child relations, mindfulness, and clergy well-being.

References

Aknin

L. B.

Dunn

E. W.

Whillans

A. V.

Grant

A. M.

Norton

M. I.

(2013). Making a difference matters: Impact unlocks the emotional benefits of prosocial spending. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 88, 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.01.008

Allen

(2018, May). The science of generosity [PDF file]. https://ggsc.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/GGSC-JTF_White_Paper-Generosity-FINAL.pdf

Anik

Aknin

L. B.

Norton

M. I.

Dunn

E. W.

(2009, August). Feeling good about giving: The benefits (and costs) of self-interested charitable behavior [PDF file]. http://fpmagazine.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/feeling.pdf

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2007). Generosity and philanthropy: A literature review [Unpublished manuscript]. https://generosityresearch.nd.edu/assets/17632/generosity_and_philanthropy_final.pdf

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2011). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialization. Voluntary Sector Review, 2, 337–365. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080511X6087712

Bowlby

(1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. I. Loss, sadness and depression. Basic Books. (Original work published 1969)

Bradshaw

Ellison

C. G.

Marcum

J. P.

(2010). Attachment to God, images of God, and psychological distress in a nationwide sample of Presbyterians. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 20, 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508611003608049

Brown

S. L.

(2003). An altruistic reanalysis of the social support hypothesis: The health benefits of giving. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 42, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/pf.48

Cole

Caudill Ovwigho

(2009). Bible engagement & social behavior: How familiarity & frequency of contact with the Bible affects one’s behavior [Paper presented]. Tel Aviv University.

10.

Collins

N. L.

Feeney

B. C.

(2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support seeking and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1053–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1053

11.

Dotson

C. A.

(2012). An examination of the relationship between personality and cooking [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University of Central Missouri.

12.

Fernandez

N. A.

Schnitker

S. A.

Houltberg

B. J.

(2016). Charitable sporting events as a context for building adolescent generosity: Examining the role of religiousness and spirituality. Religions, 7, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel7030035

13.

Gillath

Ruthann

Ali

Mohamed ana Yen

(2016). Examining the experience and enhancement of generous behavior via attachment security [Unpublished manuscript]. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292139168_Promoting_Generosity_through_Attachment_Security

14.

Gillath

Shaver

P. R.

Mikulincer

Nitzberg

R. A.

Erez

van Ijzendoorn

M. H.

(2005). Attachment, caregiving, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in an attachment-theoretical framework. Personal Relationships, 12, 425–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2005.00124x

15.

Hall

T. W.

Fujikawa

Halcrow

S. R.

Hill

P. C.

Delaney

(2009). Attachment to God and implicit spirituality: Clarifying correspondence and compensation models. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 37, 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710903700401

16.

Harrell

(2012). Do religious cognitions promote prosociality? Rationality and Society, 24, 463–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043463112463930

17.

Hayes

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

18.

Hayhurst

(2010). Generosity in Otago secondary schools. Ministry of Social Development.

19.

Homan

K. J.

(2014). A mediation model linking attachment to God, self-compassion, and mental health. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 17, 977–989. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2014.984163

20.

Kasser

(2005). Frugality, generosity, and materialism in children and adolescents. In Moore

K. A.

Lippman

L. H.

(Eds.), The search institute series on developmentally attentive community and society: What do children need to flourish? (Vol. 3, pp. 357–373). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-23823-9_22

21.

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

(1992). An attachment-theory approach to the psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0201_2

22.

Koenig

H. G.

Bussing

(2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A five-item measure for use in epidemiological studies. Religions, 1, 78–85. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel1010078

23.

Kunce

L. J.

Shaver

P. R.

(1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic relationships. In Bartholomew

Perlman

(Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 205–237). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

24.

Liu

E. Y.

Koenig

H. G.

(2012). Measuring intrinsic religiosity: Scales for use in mental health studies in China—A research report. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 16, 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2012.672404

25.

McNamara Barry

Nelson

Davarya

Urry

(2010). Religiosity and spirituality during the transition to adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 311–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025409350964

26.

Mikulincer

Gillath

Shaver

P. R.

(2002). Activation of the attachment system in adulthood: Threat-related primes increase the accessibility of mental representations of attachment figures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 881–885. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.881

27.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007). Attachment patterns in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.

28.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Gillath

Nitzberg

(2005). Attachment, caregiving, and altruism: Boosting attachment security increases compassion and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 817–839.

29.

Miner

(2009). The impact of child-parent attachment, attachment to God and religious orientation on psychological adjustment. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 37, 114–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710903700203

30.

Miner

Dowson

Malone

(2014). Attachment to God, psychological need satisfaction, and psychological well-being among Christians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 42, 326–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164711404200402

31.

Moscati

Mezuk

(2014). Losing faith and finding religion: Religiosity over the life course and substance use and abuse. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 136, 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2013.12.018

32.

Musick

M. A.

Wilson

(2003). Volunteering and depression: The role of psychological and social resources in different age groups. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 259–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00025-4

33.

Post

S. G.

(2005). Altruism, happiness, and health: It’s good to be good. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm1202_4

34.

Rashidi

Sharif Mousavil

Esmaeili

(2016). The relationship between styles of attachment to God and forgiveness and empathy among female students in the city of Qom. Health, Spirituality and Medical Ethics, 3, 18–24.

35.

Rowatt

Kirkpatrick

L. A.

(2002). Two dimensions of attachment to God and their relation to affect, religiosity, and personality constructs. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 637–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00143

36.

Smith

Hill

J. P.

(2009). Toward the measurement of interpersonal generosity (IG): An IG scale conceptualized, tested, and validated [Unpublished monograph]. University of Notre Dame. https://generosityresearch.nd.edu/assets/13798/ig_paper_smith_hill_rev.pdf

37.

Wedekind

Braithwaite

V. A.

(2002). The long-term benefits of human generosity in indirect reciprocity. Current Biology, 12, 1012–1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(02)00890-4

38.

Will

J. A.

Cochran

J. K.

(1995). God helps those who help themselves? The effects of religion affiliation, religiosity, and deservedness on generosity toward poor. Sociology of Religion, 56, 327–338. https://doi.org/10.2307/3711826

39.

Zahl

B. P.

Gibson

N. J. S.

(2012). God representations, attachment to God, and satisfaction with life: A comparison of doctrinal and experiential representations of God in Christian young adults. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22, 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2012.670027