AM
IO
N
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION
ER
IC
AN
PSY
C H O L O GIC AL
DIV
AS
S
I
OC
AT
NEWSLETTER
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION DIVISION 36
ISIO N 36
VOLUME 29, NO. 1
Anger
Toward God:
A Brief Overview
of Existing
Research
Julie Juola Exline
Case Western Reserve
University
Margaret Gorman Early
Career Award Address
APA Division 36
Presented at the 111th Annual
Convention of the American
Psychological Association
Toronto, Ontario
August 7, 2003
For comments, please contact:
Dr. Julie J. Exline
Department of Psychology
Case Western Reserve University, 11220 Bellflower
Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7123.
Phone: (216) 368-8573.
FAX: (216) 368-4891.
E-mail: [email protected]
WINTER 2003–2004
P
eople are often wary about discussing feelings of anger toward
God, suggesting that fear of the
dreaded “lightning bolt from heaven” is
alive and well. Over one third of undergraduates in a recent survey reported
that they believed it was morally wrong
to feel angry toward God (Exline, 2003).
In a study of African American men living
in homeless shelters, 46% reported that
it was definitely not acceptable to have
negative feelings toward God, and 82%
reported that it was definitely not acceptable to hold on to such negative feelings
(Smith & Exline, 2002). According to anecdotal and clinical accounts, people are often afraid to admit anger or other negative
feelings toward God (e.g., Novotni &
Petersen, 2001; Yancey, 1988). These
sources suggest that even when negative
feelings toward God cause substantial distress, people are often reluctant to admit
these forbidden feelings to other people,
to God, or even to themselves.
Yet in spite of such fears and misgivings,
people still become angry toward God.
In the 1988 General Social Survey, which
used a national probability sample of
households in the United States, 63% of
respondents reported that they sometimes
felt angry toward God. When college students recalled negative events from their
own lives in which they believed God
might have played a role, 50% of them
reported that the experiences prompted
some negative feelings toward God (Exline, 2002, August). In a study of homeless
men, approximately one third reported
that becoming homeless precipitated
problems in their relationships with God
(Smith & Exline, 2002). Taken together,
these findings suggest that feelings of
anger toward God are not an aberration—
instead, they are a fairly common response to negative life events.
The idea that people can hold negative
feelings toward God is certainly not new
within psychology. Themes related to
anger toward God have appeared in research on God images (e.g., Benson &
Spilka, 1973), spiritual development (e.g.,
Hall & Edwards, in press), “amazing apostates”(Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1997),
religious conflict (e.g., Nielsen & Fultz,
1995), negative religious coping and spiritual struggles (e.g., Pargament, Koenig,
Tarakeshwar, & Hahn, 2001; Pargament,
Murray-Swank, Magyar, & Ano, 2002;
Pargament, Smith, Koenig, & Perez, 1998;
Pargament, Zinnbauer, et al., 1998), spiritual risk (e.g., Fitchett, 1999a, 1999b), and
spiritual injury (Lawson, Drebing, Berg,
Vincellette, & Penk, 1998). Although all of
these literatures are relevant to the topic
of anger toward God, space constraints
here dictate a restricted focus. Thus, the
primary purpose of this article is to highlight key findings from a few recent studies that have focused specifically on anger
toward God. Readers seeking an overview
of religious and spiritual struggles more
generally are referred to other recent
(Continued on page 2)
INSIDE
Announcements
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2004 Award Recipients .
. . . . . . . . . . .
9
. . .
10
. . . . .
11
. . . . . . . . . .
12
Call for 2005 Award Nominations
2004 Mid-Winter Conference .
New Member Welcome .
9
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER — APA DIVISION 36
Anger Toward God
— Continued from page 1
Even though
such suffering
can be traced to
human hands,
people may
blame God
on the grounds
that God failed
to prevent the
suffering.
2
overviews (e.g., Exline, 2002, forthcoming;
Fitchett, 1999a, 1999b; Pargament, 1997,
2002; Pargament et al., 2002).
The organization of this article is as follows: The first section contains a brief
overview of situations that often prompt
anger toward God. It also describes some
other emotions and struggles that can cooccur with anger toward God. The second
section describes some situational and dispositional factors that have been empirically linked with anger toward God. The
third section raises the possibility that, for
some people, viewing God as responsible
for suffering can lead to shaken faith—
and in some cases, to a decision to not
believe in God. The final section discusses
various means that people may use to resolve their anger toward God.
Undeserved Suffering:
A Core Theme
A theme central to most accounts of anger
toward God is undeserved suffering (see,
e.g., Kushner, 1981; McCloskey, 1987;
Novotni & Petersen, 2001; Yancey, 1998).
People become angry toward God when
innocents suffer and when evil escapes
punishment. Untimely death, injury, illness, freak accidents, natural disasters—
people often attribute such events to the
hand of God, as they do not seem to stem
directly from the misdeeds of humans. But
people can also become angry toward
God in the wake of interpersonal events—
not only heinous crimes such as wartime
atrocities and murder, but also more common transgressions such as abuse, assault,
divorce, abandonment, and betrayal (e.g.,
Exline, 2002, August; Novotni & Petersen,
2001; for a literature review specific to
sexual abuse, see Murray-Swank, 2003).
Even though such suffering can be traced
to human hands, people may blame God
on the grounds that God failed to prevent
the suffering. Resentment toward God can
also stem from more mundane problems
—perhaps rain on one’s wedding day or a
sprained ankle that prevents participation
in a sports tournament. In such situations,
central themes often include disappointment, violated expectations, or a sense
that a reasonable request has not been
granted. In short, feelings of anger toward
God do not seem to arise only in rare situ-
ations involving brutal atrocities or
devastating natural disasters; rather, such
feelings can arise in response to more
common forms of suffering.
Although anger toward God is the primary
focus of this article, anger is not the only
emotion that people experience toward
God in situations involving suffering. In
one recent study (Exline, 2002, August),
undergraduates recalled a serious negative
incident in which they believed God
played a role. They then rated the extent
to which they experienced various emotions toward God immediately after the
incident. Reports of outright hatred and
rage were rare, while mistrust and frustration were more common. Feelings of confusion topped the list. Participants also
reported moderate levels of positive emotion toward God (equal to the levels of
mistrust and frustration). Positive feelings
showed only moderate negative correlations with negative emotion, suggesting
that anger toward God and positive emotion toward God are by no means mutually exclusive.
Predictors of Anger
toward God
Although empirical research on anger toward God is still sparse, existing studies
have identified a number of predictive
factors. As reviewed below, many of the
factors that predict anger toward God
seem to parallel those involved in interpersonally based anger and grudges.
Offense severity and offender motives.
Anger is a natural response to perceived
injustice. When people believe that they
(or valued others) have been mistreated,
they take offense. The more severe and
intentional the offense, the more difficult
it is to forgive (e.g., Boon & Sulsky, 1997;
Zechmeister & Romero, 2002). Consistent
with this logic, undergraduates reported
more anger toward God if they viewed
God as clearly responsible for a highly
damaging event (Exline, Baumeister,
Bushman, & Campbell, forthcoming,
Study 4). Negative feelings were greater
to the extent that God’s actions were
viewed as malevolent, punitive, disappointing, illogical, or shaming.
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER — APA DIVISION 36
Apologies and repayment. In cases of
interpersonal transgression, people are
much more likely to forgive if they receive
apologies (e.g., Darby & Schlenker, 1982;
McCullough et al., 1998; Ohbuchi, Kameda,
& Agarie, 1989) or other forms of repayment (e.g., Witvliet, Worthington, Wade,
& Berry, 2002). A similar pattern emerged
in a study of anger toward God among
undergraduates (Exline et al., forthcoming,
Study 4). To the extent that participants
believed that God had repaid them in
some positive way for their suffering, they
reported more benevolent attributions
about God’s intentions. Feeling repaid
was also associated with perceptions that
the event had an overall positive impact
on one’s relationship with God.
Individuals high in a sense of personal
entitlement may be especially sensitive to
issues involving repayment. An inflated
sense of entitlement often accompanies
narcissism. Because they feel superior to
others, high-entitlement individuals believe that they merit special treatment.
They are also highly invested in collecting
on the debts that they believe others owe
to them. Recent research has demonstrated
that high-entitlement individuals take offense more readily than others (McCullough, Emmons, Kilpatrick, & Mooney,
2003). Entitlement is also associated with
unforgiving attitudes and behaviors—particularly if no repayment is received (Exline et al., forthcoming, Studies 1 through
3). Entitlement has also been linked with
more negative emotion toward God, more
negative attributions about God’s intentions, and decreased faith in God when
negative emotions do occur (Exline et al.,
forthcoming, Study 4). Furthermore, highentitlement individuals appeared especially sensitive to the issue of being repaid by God. If high-entitlement persons
believed that God had repaid them (even
partially) for their suffering, they tended
to report a positive impact of the event
on their bond with God. But if they did
not feel repaid, they tended to report a
negative impact. Being repaid by God
was less of an issue for individuals who
scored lower on the entitlement measure.
Religiosity and perceived closeness to
God. Based on the interpersonal forgiveness literature, there are a number of reasons to predict that more religious people
would be less likely to hold grudges
against God. First of all, forgiveness is
more likely when the two parties share a
close, committed relationship prior to the
offense (e.g., Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia,
2002; Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, & Hannon, 2002). Second, religiosity predicts
more positive attitudes about forgiveness
in general (e.g., Tsang, McCullough, &
Hoyt, in press). Relative to less religious
people, highly religious people should
feel closer to God and more committed
to God, and they should be more likely to
believe that anger toward God should be
resolved. Consistent with this reasoning,
lower levels of anger toward God have
been associated with both current religiosity and retrospective reports of perceived
closeness to God prior to the event (Exline
et al., forthcoming, Study 4). Religiosity
was also strongly associated with belief
that anger toward God was morally unacceptable, which raised the question of
whether highly religious people appeared
less angry toward God simply because
they were afraid to admit their anger.
However, the association between religiosity and lower levels of anger toward
God remained significant even when we
controlled for beliefs about moral acceptability of such feelings.
Anger Toward God
— Continued from page 2
…high-entitlement
individuals appeared
especially sensitive
to the issue of
being re-paid
by God.
Parental relationships and attachment.
Relationships with close others—particularly one’s parents—may also have meaningful associations with a person’s perceived relationship with God. For example,
prior research on God images suggests
that people’s images of God often mirror
their images of their fathers (e.g., Beit-Hallahmi & Argyle, 1975; see also Rizzuto,
1979). A direct extension of this prior work
would be to ask whether a strained or distant relationship with one’s father might
be associated with more problems in
one’s perceived relationship with God.
Data on sexual abuse survivors support
this hypothesis, suggesting that women
who suffer sexual abuse from their fathers
often have negative God images and difficulty trusting God (see Murray-Swank,
2003, for a review). Also, in a sample of
homeless men (Smith & Exline, 2002), a
poor current relationship with one’s father
was linked with more perceived problems
in one’s current relationship with God, a
more frequent sense that God was punishing the self, and somewhat greater belief
(Continued on page 4)
3
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER — APA DIVISION 36
Anger Toward God
— Continued from page 3
According to these
preliminary data, the
known predictors
of anger toward God
seem to mirror
the predictors of
interpersonal anger
and unforgiveness.
4
that it was acceptable to hold on to negative feelings toward God. Participants
were much less likely to recall problems
in their early relationships with God if
their fathers had lived with them during
childhood.
Among these homeless men, the data
also raised the possibility that maternal
relationships may be important in predicting one’s perceived relationship with
God (see also Vergote & Tamayo, 1981).
Although only 4 of the 52 homeless men
in our sample reported that their mothers
did not live with them during childhood,
a statistically significant effect nonetheless
emerged: The absence of one’s mother
during childhood predicted more recalled
problems in the men’s early relationships
with God. In addition, a sense of having
been treated well by one’s mother was
associated with fewer perceived problems
in one’s relationship with God—and with
greater odds of resolving problems when
they did occur. Although preliminary and
awaiting replication, these data suggest
the possibility that people’s perceived relationships with God may be linked with
their relationships with both their mothers
and their fathers.
Because parental relationships are so
central in issues regarding attachment, it
seems sensible to predict that attachment
styles would be linked with a person’s
propensity to experience negative feelings
toward God (for a review, see Kirkpatrick,
1999). Secure attachment is associated
with a greater propensity to forgive others
(e.g., Davidson, 2001; Luebbert, 2000).
Also, some evidence demonstrates that
people can turn to God as a substitute attachment figure (e.g., Kirkpatrick, 1998).
Data from two studies offer some support
for a link between attachment style and
anger toward God. Among college students, insecure attachment has been associated with more negative feelings toward
God in the wake of a negative life event
(Exline, 2002, August). Among homeless
men, insecure attachment (in particular,
avoidant attachment) was associated with
greater recollection of problems in one’s
early relationship with God (Smith & Exline, 2002). Though preliminary, these results suggest that those who report secure
attachment bonds appear to have fewer
problems in their perceived relationships
with God.
Other indices of emotional and spiritual
strain. People who report that they are
frequently angry toward God often score
high on other indices of emotional and
spiritual distress. Trait anger is associated
with anger and grudges toward God in
the wake of negative life events (e.g.,
Exline, 2002, August; Exline, Yali, & Lobel,
1999). Difficulty resolving anger toward
God has also been linked with depression
(Exline et al., 1999), an association that
appears to be mediated by feelings of
alienation from God. In addition, anger
toward God often co-occurs with other
types of spiritual struggles (e.g., Nielsen
& Fultz, 1995; Pargament, Smith, et al.,
1998; Pargament, Zinnbauer, et al., 1998),
such as feeling punished by God and interpersonal strife surrounding religious
issues. Clearly, people who are experiencing high levels of negative emotions are
more likely to report negative feelings
toward God as well. However, because
the studies to this point have used crosssectional, correlational designs, we cannot
yet determine the direction of causality.
Summary. According to these preliminary
data, the known predictors of anger toward
God seem to mirror the predictors of interpersonal anger and unforgiveness. Anger
toward God is more likely when people
believe that God directly caused severe
suffering through malevolent intentions.
Belief that God has repaid the suffering
person in a good way may help to facilitate resolution of anger—particularly for
persons high in narcissistic entitlement.
Entitlement is also associated with feeling
more offended by God and with greater
difficulty resolving negative feelings toward God. Compared to less religious individuals, those who are highly religious
at the time of assessment and/or who felt
close to God prior to a negative event reported less anger toward God. A secure,
positive, stable relationship with one’s
parents—or some other source of secure
attachment—is associated with less anger
toward God. Frequent feelings of anger
toward God often seem to be part of a
larger pattern of emotional and spiritual
distress in a person’s life.
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER — APA DIVISION 36
A Closer Look at Atheists
and Agnostics: Are Negative
Feelings toward God
One Reason for Not
Believing in God?
An early study of anger toward God
among undergraduates (Exline et al.,
1999) revealed a counterintuitive finding:
Those who reported that they did not
believe in God reported more grudges
toward God than those who identified
themselves as believers. At first glance,
this finding seemed to reflect an error.
How could people be angry with God
if they did not believe in God’s existence?
Re-analyses of a second dataset (Kampani
& Exline, 2002) revealed similar patterns:
Those who endorsed their religious belief
as “atheist/agnostic” or as “none/unsure”
reported more anger toward God than
those who reported some religious
affiliation.
How could unbelievers report anger
toward God—in fact, higher levels of
anger toward God than believers did?
A closer look at the second dataset
(Kampani & Exline, 2002) suggested
that there were two different groups
of unbelievers. One group was labeled
simple unbelievers. These individuals
reported that they had never believed
in God, and they seemed to have little or
no emotion around the issue. They typically skipped questions that asked about
emotions and attitudes toward God—
presumably because they had never believed in God. There was also a second
group of people whose pattern of responses indicated a past belief in God,
followed by a decrease in belief over
time. In contrast to the simple unbelievers,
these participants usually did answer questions that asked about emotions and attitudes toward God. Even though many of
them currently labeled themselves as atheist/agnostic, they had some past history
of believing in God. Many also reported
some current belief in God when beliefs
were tapped using a 10-point scale (as
opposed to a dichotomous category). We
labeled this group conflicted unbelievers.
In subsequent analyses we compared
both unbeliever groups with a group
labeled believers. When compared to
believers, conflicted unbelievers reported
more negative feelings toward God, more
negative attributions about God’s intentions, fewer approach behaviors toward
God, less sense of having been repaid by
God, and less satisfaction with the outcome of the incident. (Note that we could
not make comparisons with simple unbelievers because they did not answer the
questions about feelings toward God.)
Relative to believers, conflicted unbelievers reported more anxious/ambivalent and
avoidant attachment. Conflicted unbelievers also reported lower self-esteem than
believers or simple unbelievers. Although
preliminary, these findings suggest that it
is meaningful to assess feelings of anger
toward God even among people who are
not certain that they believe in God. They
are also consistent with the notion that
certain people may be psychologically
predisposed to experience crises of faith
(see also Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1997).
In the same study (Kampani & Exline,
2002), participants reported how the incident they described had influenced their
belief in God’s existence immediately after
the event. Of those who believed in God
before the event (85% of the sample), 21%
(of these 85%) reported a decrease in belief; 27% reported an increase in belief;
and 52% reported no change. Participants
also rated their belief in God earlier in life,
just before the event, just after the event,
and currently. On average, participants
reported a slight but significant decrease
in belief immediately after the event;
however, current levels of belief were
similar to those just before the event. This
pattern suggests that, in general, the negative event caused a temporary shaking of
belief rather than a more enduring abandonment of belief. Nonetheless, there was
a subset of participants (9%) whose responses suggested a more lasting change:
They stated that they resolved their negative feelings toward God by deciding not
to believe in God.
Anger Toward God
— Continued from page 4
How could people
be angry with God
if they did not
believe in God’s
existence?
Resolving Negative Feelings
toward God
When people feel anger toward God,
how do they deal with this anger? Choosing not to believe in God is one option,
(Continued on page 6)
5
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER — APA DIVISION 36
Anger Toward God
— Continued from page 5
Many people
do not believe
that God is
capable of moral
wrongdoing,
rendering the term
“forgiveness”
inappropriate.
but what other means do people use? A
clarification is needed before proceeding.
Even though this article suggests parallels
between anger toward God and interpersonal unforgiveness, I have chosen not to
use the term “forgiving God”. Most definitions of forgiveness emphasize the moral
blameworthiness of offenders. Many people do not believe that God is capable
of moral wrongdoing, rendering the term
“forgiveness” inappropriate. To avoid
conceptual confusion, I simply speak of
resolving anger toward God rather than
forgiving God.
Among undergraduates who reported
some negative feelings toward God in
the wake of a distressing event, approximately 80% reported that their negative
feelings toward God had decreased over
time (Exline, 2002, August). As stated
above, 9% of these participants reported
that they resolved their anger toward God
by deciding not to believe in God. But
what about those who maintained their
belief in God? How did they resolve their
negative feelings? Although some cited
the simple passage of time as a reason
(27%), most individuals cited some type
of meaningful insight or reappraisal.
These included insight into why the incident occurred (27%), benign reappraisal
of God’s intentions (25%), acceptance of
what happened (18%), seeing the event
as God’s will (12%), and deciding that God
was not at fault (11%). In other cases the
negative consequences of the event were
reduced, either by seeing some good outcome (14%) or by noting that the suffering
had ended (11%). These results mirror
those from bereavement research, in which
both meaning-making attributions and seeing benefit in a negative event have been
associated with good adjustment (e.g.,
Nolen-Hoeksema & Davis, 2002).
Other potential ways of reframing have
been suggested in the popular literature.
For example, people may find relief by
viewing suffering as a loving correction
for sin or as a tool for character refinement (e.g., Arthur, 1997; Wilkinson, 2001).
Others might focus on the idea that human perspectives are severely limited in
comparison with God’s; thus, there are
many mysterious aspects of God’s nature
and plan that humans simply cannot
comprehend (e.g., Jeffress, 2000; Yancey,
1988). Another potential means of relief,
6
particularly for people who view God as
cruel or sadistic, might be to consider the
possibility that God actually suffers when
people suffer. Rather than looking on passively (or contemptuously) when people
are in distress, perhaps God actually
shares in our sorrows (e.g., Kushner,
1981). Another possibility is that the need
for genuine free will necessarily involves
the possibility of suffering and evil (e.g.,
Kushner, 1981; McCloskey, 1987). If suffering and evil are natural consequences
of free will, God may not always choose
(or be able, depending on the theology)
to remove or prevent suffering. Individuals might also find comfort in believing
that justice will ultimately be restored in
the afterlife (McCloskey, 1987). In our
current research, we are attempting to
empirically assess some of these forms
of reappraisal.
Other tools to facilitate resolution of
negative feelings might include writing a
letter to God and/or visualizing a loving
response from God. Both of these techniques have received some empirical attention among survivors of sexual abuse
(Murray-Swank, 2003), and we are currently examining them in our laboratory
in a large sample of college undergraduates. It might also be helpful to read religious texts that emphasize positive attributes of God such as love, faithfulness,
and justice. Finally, to the extent that perceived relationships with God mirror relationships with significant others, learning
to forgive significant others might help
people to reduce anger toward God as
well.
Conclusions and Future
Directions
The research reviewed here suggests that
feelings of anger toward God arise quite
often in situations involving suffering—
even though people may not see such
feelings as morally appropriate. To date,
the predictors of anger and grudges toward God that have been identified seem
to parallel the predictors of interpersonal
anger and grudges: Anger toward God is
greatest when God is held responsible for
incidents involving severe and undeserved
suffering—especially if people view God’s
intentions as malevolent, punitive, illogi-
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER — APA DIVISION 36
cal, or shaming. Negative feelings
toward God may shake a person’s
faith, and in some cases they appear
to prompt decisions to abandon belief
in God.
Certain people may be especially susceptible to anger toward God and associated crises of faith. People who
often feel angry toward God—or who
have difficulty resolving such anger—
often show other signs of emotional
distress (e.g., anger, depression) or
spiritual distress (e.g., feeling punished
by God, feeling strained in relationships with one’s religious community).
One recent study (Kampani & Exline,
2002) identified a group called conflicted believers, whose profile suggested insecure attachment and low
self-esteem. More generally, insecure
attachment and poor or distant relationships with parents may be associated with greater anger toward God.
People with a sense of personal entitlement also appear to be more susceptible to anger toward God. Furthermore, when highly entitled persons do
experience such anger, it often leads
to decreased belief in God. Feeling
close to God beforehand may serve
as a buffer against negative feelings;
however, people who are highly religious may have some difficulty acknowledging their negative feelings
toward God if they believe that such
feelings are morally wrong.
Our preliminary data suggest that,
most of the time, people are able to
resolve their negative feelings toward
God regarding a specific incident.
Although there does not seem to be
a common pathway by which this
reduction of negative feelings occurs,
people often report that they find relief
by uncovering some meaning or benefit in the event—a finding consistent
with the broader literature on trauma
and loss (for reviews, see Nolen-Hoeksema & Davis, 2002; Park & Folkman,
1997).
The empirical study of anger toward
God presents a rich and largely unexplored frontier. To date, there are only
a few cross-sectional studies focusing
specifically on this topic. Longitudinal
and experimental designs are needed.
It will also be essential to tap a wider
variety of religious backgrounds. (Participants in the studies reported here
were predominantly Christian.) Anger
toward God could presumably be
studied in the context of many major
life events such as serious illness or
injury, bereavement, divorce, or financial downturns.
As the field progresses, there will be a
need for more formal interventions to
help people cope with negative feelings toward God (see, e.g., MurraySwank, 2003; Zornow, 2001). Also, because anger toward God often coexists
with a belief that God is angry toward
the self, it seems crucial to learn more
about how people go about the process of seeking and receiving forgiveness from God. Greater knowledge
of this topic may be required before
focused interventions can be developed, because problems in people’s
perceived relationships with God may
not be limited to a one-way problem
of anger toward God; instead, they
may involve a more broad sense of
a rift in one’s relationship with God.
Development of interventions should
provide a natural opportunity to collaborate with pastoral counselors, theologians, chaplains, and other religious
professionals. Relative to general psychologists, professionals in the aforementioned areas are likely to have
greater experience in dealing with
problems of faith.
Ideally, research on religious responses
to suffering will lead not only to practical interventions but also to a deeper
understanding of basic psychological
processes (see Hill, 1999). Understanding why and when people become
angry toward God—and how they
resolve that anger—may provide new
insights to help refine theoretical
frameworks on topics such as transgression, forgiveness, and coping.
References
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1997).
Amazing conversions: Why some turn
to faith and others abandon religion.
Amherst, NY: Prometheus.
Arthur, K. (1997). As silver refined:
Learning to embrace life’s
disappointments. Colorado Springs,
CO: WaterBrook.
Beit-Hallahmi, B., & Argyle, M. (1975).
God as a father projection: The theory
and the evidence. British Journal of
Medical Psychology, 48, 71–75.
Benson, P. L., & Spilka, B. (1973). God
image as a function of self-esteem
and locus of control. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 13, 297–310.
Boon, S. D., & Sulsky, L. M. (1997).
Attributions of blame and forgiveness
in romantic relationships: A policycapturing study. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 12, 19–44.
Darby, B. W., & Schlenker, B. R. (1982).
Children’s reactions to apologies.
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 742–753.
Davidson, L. L. (2001). Forgiveness
and attachment in college students.
Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 61(11-B), 6129.
Exline, J. J. (2002). Stumbling blocks
on the religious road: Fractured
relationships, nagging vices, and the
inner struggle to believe. Psychological
Inquiry, 13, 182-189.
Exline, J. J. (2002, August). Rifts and
reconciliation between humans and
God: an overview. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Exline, J. J. (2003). [Frequency of negative
feelings toward God]. Unpublished raw
data.
Exline, J. J. (forthcoming). Religious and
spiritual struggles. In R. F. Paloutzian
& C. Park (Eds.), Handbook of the
psychology of religion. New York:
Guilford.
Exline, J. J., Baumeister, R. F., Bushman,
B. J., & Campbell, W, K. (forthcoming).
Too proud to back down: Narcissistic
entitlement as a barrier to forgiveness.
Exline, J. J., Yali, A. M., & Lobel, M.
(1999). When God disappoints:
Difficulty forgiving God and its role in
negative emotion. Journal of Health
Psychology, 4, 365–379.
Fincham, F. D., Paleari, F. G., & Regalia,
C. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The
role of relationship quality, attributions
and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9,
27–37.
Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro,
M., & Hannon, P. (2002). Dealing with
betrayal in close relationships: Does
(Continued on page 8)
7
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER — APA DIVISION 36
Anger Toward God
(Continued from page 7)
commitment promote forgiveness?
Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 956–974.
Fitchett, G. (1999a). Screening for
spiritual risk. Chaplaincy Today, 15 (1),
2–12.
Fitchett, G. (1999b). Selected resources
for screening for spiritual risk.
Chaplaincy Today, 15 (1), 13–26.
Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (in press).
The Spiritual Assessment Inventory: A
theistic model and measure for assessing
spiritual development. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion.
Hill, P. C. (1999). Giving religion away:
What the study of religion offers
psychology. International Journal for
the Psychology of Religion, 9, 229–249.
Jeffress, R. (2000). When forgiving doesn’t
make sense. Colorado Springs, CO:
WaterBrook.
Kampani, S., & Exline, J. J. (2002, August).
Can unbelievers be angry at God?
Presentation at the annual meeting of
the American Psychological Association,
Chicago, IL.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1998). God as a
substitute attachment figure: A
longitudinal study of adult attachment
style and religious change in college
students. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 24, 961–973.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1999). Attachment and
religious representations and behavior.
In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),
Handbook of attachment: Theory,
research, and clinical applications
(pp. 803–822). New York: Guilford.
Kushner, H. S. (1981). When bad things
happen to good people. New York:
Avon Books.
Lawson, R., Drebing, C., Berg, G.,
Vincellette, A., & Penk, W. (1998).
The long term impact of child abuse
on religious behavior and spirituality
in men. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22,
369–380.
Luebbert, M. C. (2000). Attachment,
psychosocial development, shame, guilt,
and forgiveness. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Section B: The Sciences
and Engineering, 60(8-B), 4234.
(2003). Narcissists as “victims”: The role
of narcissism in the perception of
transgressions. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 885–893.
(1998). Red flags and religious coping:
Identifying some religious warning
signs among people in crisis. Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 54, 77–89.
McCullough, M. E., Rachal, K. C.,
Sandage, S. J., Worthington, E. L., Jr.,
Brown, S. W., & Hight, T. L. (1998).
Interpersonal forgiving in close relationships II: Theoretical elaboration and
measurement. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 75, 1586–1603.
Park, C. L., & Folkman, S. (1997).
Meaning in the context of stress and
coping. Review of General Psychology,
1, 115–144.
Rizzuto, A. M. (1979). The birth of the
living god: A psychoanalytic study.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Murray-Swank, N. A. (2003). Solace for
the soul: An evaluation of a psychospiritual intervention for female
survivors of sexual abuse. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Bowling Green
State University.
Smith, C., & Exline, J. J. (2002, August).
Effects of homelessness on a person’s
perceived relationship with God. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the
American Psychological Association,
Chicago, IL.
Nielsen, M. E., & Fultz, J. (1995). Further
examination of the relationships of
religious orientation to religious conflict.
Review of Religious Research, 36,
369–381.
Tsang, J-A., McCullough, M. E., &
Hoyt, W. T. (in press). Psychometric
and rationalization accounts for the
religion-forgiveness discrepancy.
Journal of Social Issues.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Davis, C. G.
(2002). Positive responses to loss:
Perceiving benefits and growth.
In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.),
Handbook of positive psychology
(pp. 434–445). New York: Oxford.
Vergote, A., & Tamayo, A. (Eds.). (1981).
The parental figures and the representation of God: A psychological and crosscultural study. The Hague: Mouton.
Novotni, M., & Petersen, R. (2001). Angry
with God. Colorado Springs, CO: Piñon.
Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N.
(1989). Apology as aggression control:
Its role in mediating appraisal of and
response to harm. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 56, 219–227.
Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology
of religion and coping. New York:
Guilford.
Pargament, K. I. (2002). The bitter and
the sweet: An evaluation of the costs
and benefits of religiousness.
Psychological Inquiry, 13, 168–181.
Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G.,
Tarakeshwar, N., & Hahn, J. (2001).
Religious struggle as a predictor of
mortality among medically ill elderly
patients: A two-year longitudinal study.
Archives of Internal Medicine, 161,
1881–1885.
Pargament, K. I., Murray-Swank, N.,
Magyar, G. M., & Ano, G. G. (2002).
Spiritual struggle: A phenomenon of
interest to psychology and religion.
In W. R. Miller & H. Delaney (Eds.),
Human nature, behavior, and religion.
Washington, DC: APA Books.
McCloskey, P. (1987). When you are
angry with God. New York: Paulist
Press.
Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig,
H. G., & Perez, L. (1998). Patterns of
positive and negative religious coping
with major life stressors. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 710–724.
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A.,
Kilpatrick, S. D., & Mooney, C. N.
Pargament, K. I., Zinnbauer, B. J., Scott, A.
B., Butter, E. M., Zerowin, J., & Stanik, P.
8
Wilkinson, B. (2001). Secrets of the vine.
Sisters, OR: Multnomah.
Witvliet, C. V. O., Worthington, E. L., Jr.,
Wade, N.G., & Berry, J.W. (2002, April).
Physiological reactivity to apology and
restitution. Paper presented at a meeting
of the Society of Behavioral Medicine,
Washington, D.C.
Yancey, P. (1988). Disappointment with
God: Three questions no one asks aloud.
New York: Harper Collins.
Zechmeister, J. S., & Romero, C. (2002).
Victim and offender accounts of
interpersonal conflict: Autobiographical narratives of forgiveness and
unforgiveness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 82, 675–686.
Zornow, G. B. (2001). Crying out to God:
Prayer in the midst of suffering.
Unpublished manuscript.
Author’s Note:
I am very grateful for generous support
from Division 36 (Psychology of Religion)
of the American Psychological Association,
the John Templeton Foundation, the Pew
Younger Scholars Mentoring Program, the
Institute for Research on Unlimited Love,
and the Institute for Research on Psychology and Spirituality.
R
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER — APA DIVISION 36
T
he following persons were
approved at the 2003 Executive
Committee Meeting to receive
Division 36 awards for 2004. Recipients
will be presented their awards at the
2004 APA Convention.
1. Margaret Gorman Early Career Award:
Israelia Silberman, Columbia University,
Women’s College of Yeshvia University
Israelia Silberman holds a Ph.D. with
distinction in social–personality from
Columbia University (1999). She is currently an Associate Research Scientist
in the Department of Psychology at
Columbia and Assistant Professor in the
Department of Jewish Studies of Stern
College at Women’s College of Yeshvia
University. Israelia has begun an impressive list of publications in quality journals,
including Social Cognition, the International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, and the Journal of Social Issues, for
which she is currently editing a special
issue on Religion as a Meaning System.
2. William Bier Award:
Naomi R. Goldenberg, University of Ottawa
Naomi Goldenberg is currently Professor
of Religious Studies, at the University of
Ottawa. She is very active in the American
Academy of Religion. For four years, she
was a member of the steering committee
of the section on Social Sciences and
Religion. Naomi has many widely cited
book chapters and articles, particularly
in the areas of psychoanalysis, feminism,
and religion. Her major books include:
Changing of the Gods: Feminism and
the End of Traditional Religions (1979);
The End of God (1982); and Resurrecting
the Body: Feminism, Religion and Psychoanalysis.
2004mmmm
Division 36
Award
Recipients
3. Distinguished Service Award:
Edward P. Shafranske, Pepperdine University
Ed Shafranske holds two doctoral degrees:
a Ph.D. from the U.S. International University, and a Ph.D. from the Southern California Psychoanalytic Institute. He maintains a private practice and is Professor
of Psychology at Pepperdine University.
His many years of outstanding service to
Division 36 began as Newsletter Editor,
after which time he served as Council
Representative and President (two terms:
1993–1994, 2001–2002). Ed also is a past
William Bier Award recipient and has
contributed numerous publications that
have well represented the mission of
Division 36, including Religion and the
Clinical Practice of Psychology (1996),
published by the American Psychological
Association.
mmmmAnnouncementsmmmm
WEBSITE
To keep updated on the most recent events concerning Division 36, be sure to visit our webpage often at <http://www.apa.org/divisions/div36/>. You are encouraged offer comments
and suggestions to the Jim Casebolt, our Webmaster, to help further its development.
NEW LISTSERVE
All Division 36 members are encouraged to sign up on the new listserve at Division 36’s website. Important and timely information of interest to our membership is often communicated via
the listserve, so be sure to visit our website at <http://www.apa.org/divisions/div36/> and sign
up NOW.
JOURNAL DISCOUNT FOR MEMBERSHIP
Division 36 Members receive a 20% discount on subscriptions to the International Journal for
the Psychology of Religion. For more information, please visit the journal’s website at
<http://pippo.ingentaselect.com/erlbaum/10508619/>.
9
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER — APA DIVISION 36
Call for
2005 Award
Nominations
P
lease submit award nominations
for the year 2005 (to be selected in
2004) to Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Division 36 Awards Chair, Department of Psychology, 350 Holt Hall, The University of
Tennessee at Chattanooga, 615 McCallie
Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37403
The recipient will be presented with
$100.00 and a plaque at the Division’s
annual meeting, and will be invited to
present his or her research as part of the
Division 36 program at the same APA
convention.
Deadline for nominations: March 31.
Below are descriptions for each award:
4. Virginia Sexton Mentoring Award
1. William C. Bier Award
This award is offered annually to an
individual who has made an outstanding
contribution through publication and professional activity to the dissemination of
findings on religious and allied issues,
or who has made a notable contribution
to the integration of these findings with
those of other disciplines, notably philosophy, sociology, and anthropology.
The recipient is presented with a plaque
at the Division’s annual meeting.
Deadline for nominations: March 31.
2. Distinguished Service Award
This award is offered to individuals who
have made an outstanding contribution
to Division 36 through service and leadership.
Recipients are presented with a plaque
at the Division’s annual meeting.
Deadline for nominations: March 31.
3. Margaret Gorman Early Career Award
This award is offered to an individual
whose innovative research in the psychology of religion is marked by scholarly excellence and has implications for theory,
practice, or further research. The recipient
of the award must have completed the
master’s or doctoral degree within five
years of the submission deadline and must
be the sole or first author of the paper.
Entries must either come from or be sponsored by a member, associate or affiliate
of Division 36. Both unpublished and
published papers are eligible.
10
This award is offered to individuals who
have contributed to the psychology of
religion by mentoring others who also
have become active in the field.
Recipients are presented with a plaque
at the Division’s annual meeting.
Deadline for nominations: March 31.
5. Research Seed Grant
This grant is awarded to provide recognition and assistance to scholars in the psychology of religion who are in the early
stages of their careers. Applicants should
be engaged in graduate study or have
completed the doctoral degree or a terminal master’s degree within the past five
years. The proposed research should
address a significant issue in the psychology of religion, show sophistication in research methods and design, and promise
to make a contribution to theory, further
research, or practice. Proposals must be
no longer than 10 pages of double-spaced
type and should indicate the purpose of
the proposed study and its significance
for the psychology of religion. They also
should describe the research design and
indicate how the grant, if awarded, will
be used.
Awards up to $250 will be granted, and
winning proposals will be described in
the Division 36 Newsletter.
Deadline for applications: March 31.
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER — APA DIVISION 36
2004 Division 36 Mid-Winter Conference
2nd Annual Mid-Winter Research Conference on Religion and Spirituality
Hosted by Division 36 (Psychology of Religion) of the APA
and the Department of Pastoral Counseling at Loyola College in Maryland
Spirituality and Religion as Universal Aspects of Human Experience
• Dates of Conference: March 19-20, 2004
• Registration Due 3/5/04
• Friday Evening Buffet Dinner and Social ($25 additional with limited seating)
• Location: Columbia Graduate Center of Loyola College in Maryland.
Invited Speakers Include:
Barbara Fredrickson, P. Scott Richards, Justin Barrett, Jan Sinnott,
Michael McCullough, and Richard Lerner
The psychology of religion and spirituality involves basic psychological processes of interest
to professionals in many areas. The major purpose of the conference is to examine these
constructs as universal aspects of human psychology and to demonstrate their utility for
understanding people across cultures and contexts.
o YES! Enclosed is my check ( payable to Loyola College) for the conference
___Div 36 Member/Affiliate
___Student (Div 36)
___ Loyola Affiliate
___ Student: Other
___Non-Member
___Student (Loyola)
_____Attending Buffet
Name__________________________________________________________________________________________
Address ________________________________________________________________________________________
City _____________________________________ State _______ Zip _____________Phone____________________
Affiliation ___________________________________________________Total Amount Enclosed _______________
Mid Winter Meeting • Dr. Ralph L. Piedmont
Loyola College in Maryland • 8890 McGaw Road, Suite 380 • Columbia, MD 21045
Phone 410.617-7628 • FAX 410.617-7644
E-mail: [email protected]
MEETING REGISTRATION: The early registration fee for the conference is $50 for Members of Division 36
and Loyola College Affiliates, $60 for Non-members, and $25 for Students. Fees must be received by March 5,
2004. Registration at the door is $55 for Members, $65 for Non-members, and $30 for Students.
HOTEL RESERVATIONS: Hotels adjacent to the Graduate Center are (deadline for hotel registration to obtain
conference rate is March 1, 2004):
Wellesley Inn & Suites – 8890 Stanford Blvd – Columbia MD 21045 (410) 872-2994. Rate $89 + tax; $80 + tax for Students.
Courtyard of Marriott – 8910 Stanford Blvd –Columbia MD 21045 (410) 290-0002. Rate $89 double, $79 single + tax.
Please ask for the “Midwinter Spirituality Conference” Rate at each Hotel
11
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER — APA DIVISION.36
Welcome
Division 36
would like
to extend
a welcome
to our
most recent
members…
Fellow
Frank Budd (SC)
Regular
Members
Mary Cancellare (NY)
Thomas Cummings (HI)
Carlo Diclimente (MD)
Jack Hanford (MI)
Bruce Hartung (MO)
Carolyn Jones (AZ)
Lela Joscelyn (WI)
Rebecca Joslin (TN)
Jaswant Khanna (TN)
Patrick Koga (CA)
John Lancaster (AL)
Don MacDonald (WA)
Brian McCorkle (MA)
Mark Miguel (NJ)
Beverly Musgrave (NY)
Susan O’Donnell (OR)
Mark Rye (OH)
Suthakaran Veerasmy (IN)
Marcia Webb (WA)
Karyn Williams (AL)
Edward Yelinek (PA)
Associate
Members
Douglas Bushong (MI)
Ana Carrillo (MA)
William Culp (PA)
Robert Murray (Australia)
Joseph Rainey (MI)
Janine York (PA)
Student
Affiliate
Members
Becky Boober (ME)
Sandra Brookhart (CA)
Diane Bryan (TX)
Russel Carleton (IL)
Hwei-Jane Chen (MO)
Joshua Childers (VA)
Shoshana Dayanim (NY)
Melissa De Los Santos (AE)
Rebecca Eldredge (IL)
Adrian Genaro (NJ)
Kevin Harris (IN)
Lynne Hill (CO)
Debra Horn (OR)
Deborah Hoyles (IL)
Thomas Jerrells (CA)
Russel Kosits (NH)
Brian Kuhlman (FL)
Kathleen Kunster (CA)
Katherine Kurek (IN)
Brad Larner (MI)
Keith Leas (IN)
Jana McNair (NJ)
Sylvia McQueany (MO)
Anna Palamar (CA)
Maureen Pohle (WI)
Peter Rothschild (MA)
Nicole Ryan (MD)
Joanne Sanders-Reio (KY)
Elisa Joy Seibert (PA)
Kimberly Sibille (FL)
Elizabeth Thorpe (MI)
Stephanie Townsend (IL)
Tim Weber (TX)
Michael Zaccariello (OH)
Professional
Affiliate
Members
Adam Cohen (NC)
Nils Holm (Finland)
Stephen Manning (AK)
Alejandro Tapia (Mexico)
Joseph Tloczynski (PA)
PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION NEWSLETTER
EDITOR: W. Paul Williamson, Ph.D., Henderson State University
The Newsletter is the official publication of the American Psychological Association Division 36, Psychology of Religion. The Newsletter invites articles,
interviews, book reviews and announcements relevant to the interdisciplinary focus of psychology and religion. Individual and institutional subscriptions within North America are $5.00/yearly; outside of North America: $10.00/yearly. Editorial and subscription inquiries should be addressed to:
W. Paul Williamson, Ph.D., Editor, Division 36 Newsletter; Department of Psychology; Henderson State University; 1100 Henderson Street; HSU Box
7854; Arkadelphia, AR 71999. Phone: (870) 230-5119 E-mail: [email protected]
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
DIVISION 36
750 First Street NE
Washington, D.C. 20002–4242
RETURN REQUESTED
NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATION
U.S. POSTAGE
PAID
WASHINGTON, D.C.
PERMIT NO. 6348