DOES SELF ESTEEM MATTER IN REGARD TO RELIGIOSITY AND DEGREE OF SECURE ATTACHMENT?

D o e s S e l f E s t e e m M a t t e r

i n R e g a r d t o R e l i g i o s i t y a n d D e g r e e o f S e c u r e Attachment?

I N T R O D U C T I O N Background on Adult Attachment

Over the past four decades, attachment theory has become one of the most highly regarded and influential theories for social-emotional development and has significantly contributed to the understanding of interpersonal functioning. Attachment Theory was developed by Bowlby (1973) and colleagues with additions to the theory from Ainsworth (Ainsworth, Blehar & Wall, 1978) who assigned attachment styles through analyzing individual attachment patterns.

Attachment theory states a working internal model of relationships and self is formed through the quality of relationship between an infant and caregiver (Bowlby, 1973). The applications of attachment theory extend into adult relationships with the theory proposing “that the nature and quality of relationships in adult life are influenced by affective experiences that took place during childhood” (Collins & Read, 1990).

The working model of attachment incorporates content such as emotion regulation (Crugnola et al., 2011) and is crucial to understand how individuals manage stress/distress (Mikulincer, Dolev & Shaver, 2004). This serves as a model in the development of subsequent relationships between figures of importance and self (such as friends, significant others, authority figures, etc.) and dictates the level of proximity an individual seeks from others when their attachment system is activated (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007).

Stability of Attachment Style Waters, Merrick, Trebous, Crowell & Albersheim (2000) found people’s attachment style are relatively stable over time through a 20- year longitudinal study. Attachment style has also shown to be relatively stable over significant life changes— for example, within the two years following becoming a new mother (Stern, Fraley, Jones, Gross, Shaver, & Cassidy 2018). However, research has revealed “attachment is malleable, such that, with new experiences (e.g., adult trauma, psychotherapy),” an individual can move between attachment styles, becoming more or less secure over time (Tasca, Ritchie & Balfour, L. 2011; BakermansKranenburg & vanIjzendoorn, 2009; Waters et al., 2000). Attachment and Self-esteem

Here we describe self-esteem as a person’s general negative or positive attitude towards themselves (Rosenberg, 1965). A child’s environment and relationship with caregivers has been shown to have a deep and permanent effect on the development of their self-esteem (Verschueren and Marcoen 1999, Orth 2018). Bowlby (1985, 1989) outlined that the processes which are linked in establishing an individual’s sense of “self” and attachment style are similar to those responsible for developing an individual’s attitude towards what they perceive as their “self.” However, research by Çevik (2018) has shown levels of self-esteem to be linked with fearful and dismissive attachment styles but not to secure nor preoccupied. Further, Nanu (2015) demonstrated a positive relationship between secure attachment and self-esteem as well as a negative

Alexa Cillia

relationship between insecure attachments and self-esteem, insecure attachment referring to all attachment styles aside from secure. As detailed above, research on the nature of the relationship between attachment and self-esteem has not been conclusively determined. Religiosity and Self-esteem

There are mixed findings linking religiosity and self-esteem. In general, religiosity is often examined with the distinction of internal versus external religiosity. Generally, internal religiosity provides individuals with a motivation for life through religion, and they see religion as giving life ultimate significance. In contrast, in extrinsic religiosity, religion is used as a tool for gaining other extrinsic goals such as sociability, security, and status. Unless otherwise noted, religiosity is composed as a combination of both intrinsic and extrinsic. In 2006, Jonas & Fischer found self-esteem negatively correlated with intrinsic religiosity. Additionally, Stern & Wright (2017) found religiosity to have a negative relationship with selfesteem. However, religiosity has also been positively linked to self-esteem (Khaledian, 2013). Additionally, Waldron, Scarpa, & Kim-Spoon (2018) found an individual’s view of God affects the relationship between religiosity and self-esteem. Waldron, et all., (2018) found abuse victims who viewed God as negative experience a negative relationship with religiosity and self-esteem while those who view God positively experience a positive relationship with religiosity. Religiosity and Attachment

Prior research has shown a positive

relationship between religious views and secure attachment styles as well as a negative relationship between religious attitudes and a preoccupied attachment style (Baghteyfouni, Sogolitappeh, Baghteyfouni, Raaei, F & Sharbafzadeh 2015). However, the empirical support for this relationship is sparse with few published studies on the subject. Attachment, Religiosity, Self-esteem on Wellbeing

Involvement in a religion has been linked with a higher level of wellbeing and life satisfaction (You & Lim, 2019; Yang, 2010). Prior research has also shown life satisfaction/wellbeing has a positive relationship with secure attachment and a negative relationship with anxious attachment styles as well as insecure attachment styles in general (Nanu, 2015; Li, X., & Zheng, X. 2014). Literature has also shown a positive relationship between self-esteem and life satisfaction (Yang, Q., et al. 2018; Li, X., & Zheng, X. 2014).

There is weak evidence of the relationship between religiosity and secure attachment. However, both attachment and religiosity are related to similar constructs such as wellbeing and self-esteem. Further, both religiosity and attachment style have been independently, positively linked to self-esteem indicating the possibility of a moderation relationship. Shedding light on the relationship between religiosity and secure attachment (as well as self-esteem) could uncover the mechanisms behind their role in wellbeing/life satisfaction and lead to interventions for effectively improving both a person’s attachment style in becoming more secure and their wellbeing/life satisfaction. Current Study

This study’s goal is to explore the mechanisms behind the relationship between religiosity, self-esteem, and secure attachment. We seek to explore whether a person’s level of religiosity and degree of secure attachment (DSA) are significantly related. Further, if this relationship exists, we investigate whether it is moderated by self-esteem (Figure 1). That is to say, whether a person’s religiosity is linked to their DSA, with their level of selfesteem affecting the strength of this relationship.

Through this data collection and analysis, we expect to find a significant positive relationship between religiosity and DSA. Additionally, we expect this relationship to be moderated by their level of self-esteem, with lower selfesteem weakening this relationship.

M E T H O D Participants

The participants were recruited through convenience sampling with Johns Hopkins University SONA portal for research credit in AS.200.201 or extra credit in an eligible class if not enrolled in AS.200.20. A total of 104 participants were recorded and consented to the use of their data in this analysis 69% female; 39% White, 27% Asian - including South and Eastern Asian, and 11% Black; additionally. All participants were between the ages of 18 and 22, with an average of 19. This sample generalizes to the population of educated young adults. Design

This study is correlational featuring two predictor variables (self-esteem and religiosity) as well as an outcome variable (DSA), all of which are continuous and on an interval scale.

A multiple regression analysis controls for self-esteem during the analysis of the direct relationship between religiosity and DSA. Additionally, each measure within the survey is randomized to control for priming effects, and the administration of the survey is consistent for all participants. No manipulation checks were included due to the limited procedures available for inclusion in the survey. Materials

Here levels of religiosity, level of self-esteem, and DSA score were measured through the Duke University Religion Index (Koenig, 2010; DUREL), Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965; RSES), and The Attachment Style Questionnaire (Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra, & Bakker, 2003; ASQ), respectively. All of these measures are self-report surveys which utilize Likert scales (1-4; 1-5; 1-6) and are interval measures. These surveys are considered reliable and valid in collecting data with regards to religiosity, level of self-esteem and attachment style, respectively.

The DUREL is a popular multidimensional measure of religiosity and in 2018, Lace & Handal confirmed the Tripartite Structure of the DUREL and its validity for use in English speaking university student contexts. The DUREL consists of five items: it specifically measures overt (item 1), non-overt (item 2), and intrinsic religiosity (items 3 – 5). Items measuring overt and nonovert religiosity are measured through a 6-point Likert Scale while intrinsic religiosity is measured through a 5-point Likert scale.

Prior research frequently uses the RSES and it is regarded as adequately valid and reliable. However, Gnambs, Scharl & Schroeders (2018) found cultural differences between participants affects the validity of the scale due to differing interpretations of the items when compared across countries. However, the participants are all located in America and should not experience the same variability as was shown across more vs. less individualistic countries.

Additionally, Xu & Leung, (2018) found the RSES is reliable with a higher point Likert Scale (compared to a 4-point), unfortunately because of the scoring dictated by the project we were unable to account for this and administered the RSES with a 4-point Likert Scale with all ten items.

The ASQ consists of 22 items measured on a 5-point Likert Scale, this survey measures secure, preoccupied, fearful and dismissive attachment. The ASQ has been frequently used as a reliable measure of attachment style in these four categories. However, development in attachment research has also produced the Experiences in Close Relationship Scale (ECR; Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). This scale measures attachment style based on two dimensions: avoidance and anxiety. The different combinations of the scales of avoidance and anxiety roughly map onto the four attachment styles determined by the ASQ.

Much of the literature connecting attachment to well-being and life satisfaction—as well as that between

attachment and religiosity, and attachment and self-esteem—has utilized the categorical model of secure, preoccupied, fearful, dismissive attachment. Therefore, it would make sense to use the ASQ when investigating the relationship between attachment and these variables. Procedure

Students logged into the SONA online portal and had the option to choose to participate in a number of research studies on the Johns Hopkins Campus. Once the student had enrolled to participate in this study, they were presented with a link to the online survey. This survey could be taken at any location and any time of the day; the student was made aware of this.

The first page of the survey presented a consent form. After filling out the consent form the participant was taken through the rest of the survey, which took an average of 8 minutes to complete. At the end of the survey, the SONA database automatically assigned the student research credit or extra credit depending on their preference. There was no component of deception present in this study.

R E S U L T S

We hypothesized the score on The Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) would predict the score on The Duke University Religion Index (Koenig, 2010) with a higher score on one predicting a higher score on the other. Additionally, we hypothesized this relationship would weaken depending on the score on the Secure Attachment subsection in the full Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra, & Bakker, 2003).

The Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was scored such that items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 were reverse scored (these response scores were subtracted from the highest possible response score + 1), then the average of the responses (1 – 4 scale) across the 10 items was taken. Higher values reflected greater self-esteem.

To score The Duke University Religion Index (Koenig, 2010) the (summed) raw score for items 1 – 5 was assigned as the participants’ Religiosity Score. This combines the overt, non-overt, and intrinsic religiosity sub-scales.

The full Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Van Oudenhoven, Hofstra, & Bakker, 2003) was scored such that the items 3, 7, 15 were reverse scored (these responses were subtracted from the highest possible score + 1), then the average of the secure sub-scale items (secure = items 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 20) were averaged and assigned as the DSA. The averages of each sub-scale item category (fearful = 2, 4, 18, 21; preoccupied = 6, 8, 10, 15, 19, 22; dismissing = 5, 11, 14, 17) were assigned as the Fearful

Attachment Score, Preoccupied Attachment Score, and Dismissive Attachment Score, respectively. The scores from the ASQ scale are quantitative and on an interval scale.

A bivariate linear regression was performed on religiosity (predictor variable) and DSA (outcome variable) to test the hypothesis of a significant relationship between the two variables. A bivariate linear regression was appropriate because the variables were continuous. Within the bivariate linear regression, an F-test was used to test the significance of the bivariate linear regression. The bivariate linear regression (and included F-test) found the relationship between these two variables as non-significant (see Table 1) [F(1,101) = 1.86, p = .176].

A multiple linear regression was not performed to determine the moderation effect of self-esteem on the relationship between religiosity and DSA, as the relationship between the two was determined nonsignificant, leaving no possibility of a moderation effect by self-esteem.

There was no relationship between religiosity and DSA, therefore, self-esteem could not weaken the relationship. Overall, there was no relationship between religiosity, DSA, and/or self-esteem present in the data. regression.

“A child’s environment and relationship with caregivers have shown to have a deep and permanent effect on the development of their self-esteem.”

Main Effects

Separate exploratory bivariate linear regressions were conducted between self-esteem and each attachment style. A bivariate linear regression was appropriate as there was one predictor variable (selfesteem) and one outcome variable (an attachment style) per linear regression. Additionally, there was only one set of data for each of the analysis due to the between-subjects design of the study. An F-test was conducted within each bivariate linear regression to determine the significance of the bivariate linear

Main effects between self-esteem and all attachment styles (measured through bivariate linear regressions) were found significant (see Figure 2). The bivariate linear regression (and included F-test) found significant relationships between self-esteem and DSA (degree of secure attachment) [F(1, 101) = 8.445, p = 0.004499, R2 = .07716], preoccupied attachment [F(1, 101) = 62.69, p = 3.239e-12, R2 = .383], fearful attachment [F(1, 101) = 15.4, p = .0001, R2 = .132], and dismissive attachment [F(1, 101) = 18.43, p = 4.054e-05, R2 = .154].

In other words, there was a significant positive relationship between self-esteem and DSA as well as self-esteewwm and dismissive attachment. There was also a significant negative relationship between self-esteem and preoccupied attachment as well as self-esteem and fearful attachment (see Figure 2).

D I S C U S S I O N

This study seeks to identify if there is a relationship between religiosity and DSA and further, if this relationship is affected (moderated) by selfesteem. We did not find a significant relationship between religiosity and

DSA; further, self-esteem was not a moderator as moderators affect existing relationships between variables. However, exploratory tests showed a significant positive relationship between high selfesteem and secure attachment as well as dismissive attachment. They also showed a significant negative relationship between high self-esteem and preoccupied attachment as well as fearful attachment.

Data on the nature of the relationship between religiosity and DSA was mostly absent from literature, additionally, no prior research had looked at the relationship between religiosity, DSA, and self-esteem prior to this study. These results are significant in that they shed light on the relationship between key variables associated with well-being/life satisfaction.

There is conflicting prior research on the relationship between each attachment style and self-esteem, with various studies finding different relationships as well as non-significant relationship between different attachment styles.

Our results contribute to that research area finding significant relationships between all attachment styles and self-esteem, as well as the specific type of relationships.

Additionally, our results provide support for the categorization of attachment styles by dimensions of anxiety and avoidance (see Figure 3). Overall, our findings show a significant difference between attachment styles and self-esteem, which relate to levels of anxiety (negative view of self). Our study found attachment styles corresponding to a negative view of self (higher anxiety) were also linked with lower self-esteem. Conversely, attachment styles not associated with negative view of self (lower anxiety) were linked with higher self-esteem.

Prior research and our findings support the possibility of a clinical application of the relationship between attachment style and selfesteem. While the exact nature of their relationship is not known, through addressing either attachment style or self-esteem in treatment, a patient’s non-addressed trait, either self-esteem or style) may be able to improve/move to be more secure.

Limitations

As with any study that utilizes self-report measures, there is an uncertainty as to the accuracy and reliability of the responses collected from each individual. This is due to both uncertainty of the participant in questions requiring emotional clarity to the participant purposefully choosing a more socially acceptable answer. To combat this, the participant was notified their answers were confidential.

Additionally, all participants were recruited through the Johns Hopkins University SONA portal meaning all participants were undergraduate students at Johns Hopkins University (located in Baltimore, Maryland), between the ages of 18 -22, and participants were most likely enrolled in a Psychology course at the university (these are the classes which take SONA credit for extra credit). This convenience sampling has resulted in participants belonging to a population that may not be representative of all Americans.

Participant data on religiosity was extremely right skewed the data set collected, meaning most participants scored low on religiosity. This non-normal distribution could have contributed to the non-significant relationship between religiosity and DSA. A conventional method of correction should be applied in the future

Prior research shows the RSES reliability is significantly increased with the use of an 11- point scale instead of a 4-point scale (Xu & Leung, 2018). Unfortunately, given scoring restraints the RSES was administered with a 4-point scale although an 11-point scale is recommended going forward. Additionally, the RSES has shown to have limited validity due to cultural differences between participants affecting the interpretations of the items (Gnambs, et al., 2018). While the study was administered in English in the United States, international student responses were not controlled for – this should be controlled for going forward. Future Directions

In order to improve upon the reliability of the self-report measures, future studies should explore the possibility of behavioral measures to operationalize the self-report measures for all variables. Given the non-normal distribution of religiosity scores, a replication is recommended. Additionally, future studies should explore the causality of self-esteem and attachment styles in order to better understand their relationship and improve the potential for application in a clinical setting.

C O N C L U S I O N

A significant relationship between religiosity and DSA was not found, signifying a moderation effect by selfesteem could not have been present. However, significant relationships between all attachment styles and self-esteem were determined and provide support for the dimensional (anxiety and avoidance) approach to mapping attachment styles (Figure 3). Additionally, the relationship between attachment styles and self-esteem should be explored further for application in a clinical setting (such as therapy, psychiatry).

R E F E R E N C E S

Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Baghteyfouni, T. K., Sogolitappeh, F. N., Baghteyfouni, Z. K., Raaei, F., & Sharbafzadeh, A. (2015). The Relationship between Attachment Lifestyle with religious attitudes and anxiety. International Journal of Scientific Management & Development, 3(3), 993–997.

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2009). The first 10,000 adult attachment interviews: Distributions of adult attachment representations in clinical and non-clinical groups. Attachment and Human Development, 11, 223–263.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation: Anxiety, and anger (Vol. 19). New York: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford.

Çevik, G. B. (2018). The roles of attachment styles, anxiety, and communication skills in the prediction of self esteem in university students. Journal of Educational Sciences & Psychology, 8(1), 90–103.

Cho, Y. Y., & Choi, B. D. (2017). The effects of intrinsic extrinsic religious orientation on meaning of life, and well-being focusing on the mediating effect of university students’ recognition of death. Studies in Religion, 77(3), 67–92.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship

quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58(4), 644-663.

Crugnola, C. R., Tambelli, R., Spinelli, M., Gazzotti, S., Caprin, C., & Albizzati, A. (2011). Attachment patterns and emotion regulation strategies in the second year. Infant Behavior and Development,34(1), 136-151.

Gnambs, T., Scharl, A., & Schroeders, U. (2018). The structure of the Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale: A cross-cultural meta-analysis. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie, 226(1), 14–29.(Supplemental)

Jonas, E., & Fischer, P. (2006). Terror management and religion: Evidence that intrinsic religiousness mitigates worldview defense following mortality salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(3), 553–567.

Lace, J. W., & Handal, P. J. (2018). Confirming the Tripartite Structure of the Duke University Religion Index: A Methodological Approach. Journal of Religion & Health, 57(2), 704–716.

Li, X., & Zheng, X. (2014). Adult Attachment Orientations and Subjective Well-Being: Emotional Intelligence and Self-esteem as Moderators. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal,42(8), 1257-1265.

Mikulincer, M., Dolev, T., & Shaver, P. R. (2004). Attachment-Related Strategies During Thought Suppression: Ironic Rebounds and Vulnerable Self-Representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(6), 940–956. ht

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Nanu, D. E. (2015). The Attachment Relationship with Emotional Intelligence and Well-Being. Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy / Revista de PSIHOterapie Experientiala, 18(2), 20–27.

Khaledian, M., Moradi, S., Tavhidi, A., & Shaikhzekariaee, V. (2013). The Relationship between Attachment Lifestyle with Depression and Anxiety of the Political Students. Open Journal of Social Science Research, 1(5), 115.

Koenig, H. G., & Büssing, A. (2010). The Duke University Religion Index (DUREL): A Five-Item Measure for Use in Epidemological Studies. Religions, 1(1), 78-85.

Orth, U. (2018). The family environment in early childhood has a long-term effect on self-esteem: A longitudinal study from birth to age 27 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(4), 637-655.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Stern, S., & Wright, A. J. (2017). Discrete Effects of Religiosity and Spirituality on Gay Identity and Self-esteem. Journal of Homosexuality,65(8), 1071-1092.

Tasca, G. A., Ritchie, K., & Balfour, L. (2011). Implications of attachment theory & research for the assessment and treatment of eating disorders.Psychotherapy, 48(3), 249-259. Developmental Processes across the First Two Years of Parenthood: Stability and Change in Adult Attachment Style. Developmental Psychology, 54(5), 975–988.

Verschueren, K., & Marcoen, A. (1999). Representation of self and socioemotional competence in kindergartners: Differential and combined effects of attachment to mother and father. Child Development, 70(1), 183–201.

Waldron, J. C., Scarpa, A., & Kim-Spoon, J. (2018). Religiosity and interpersonal problems explain individual differences in self esteem among young adults with child maltreatment experiences. Child Abuse & Neglect,80, 277-284.

Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L. (2000). Attachment security in infancy and early adulthood: A 20-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 71, 684–689.

Xu, M. L. and Leung, S. O. (2018), Effects of varying numbers of Likert scale points on factor structure of the Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale. Asian J Soc Psychol, 21: 119-128.

Yang, J. Y. (2010). The relationship among orientations to happiness, religiosity and subjective well being in adolescents. (Master’s thesis). Myongji University, Seoul, Korea.

Yang, Q., Tian, L., Huebner, E. S., & Zhu, X. (2018). Relations among academic achievement, self-esteem, and subjective well-being in school among elementary school students: A longitudinal mediation model. School Psychology Quarterly. (Supplemental)

You, S., & Lim, S. A. (2019). Religious Orientation and Subjective Well-being: The Mediating Role of Meaning in Life. Journal of Psychology & Theology, 47(1), 34–47.

ALEXA M. CILLIA

Class of 2021. Alexa is majoring in Psychology and Spanish. She currently works as a research assistant in Dr. Papadakis’ Clinical Psychology Lab, which studies the association between co-rumination, depression, and friendship closeness. She intends to pursue a PhD in Clinical Psychology and is interested in studying the effects of violence exposure in children and corresponding protective and risk factors.

F I G U R E S

Figure 1. Hypothesized relationship between Predictor Variables and Outcome Variable.

Table 1. Bivariate Linear Regression between variables Religiosity and DSA outlined above. The Relationship is not significant with [F (1,101) = 1.86, p = .176].