This final chapter of thesis considers the limitations, potential therapeutic applications and contributions of the present study. Lastly, recommendations for future research are addressed.
Limitations of the Present Study
Findings of the present study make several salient contributions to the existing literature on ATG. Nonetheless, there are a number of limitations of the study that are important to note. These relate to issues of measurement, generalisability of findings, sample size, and the study time-frame.
Measurement limitations
Perhaps the most significant limitation of the present study is with regard to potential problems with the measure of ATG-avoidance used. Due to the way in which items were worded, it appears that the ATGS-avoidance subscale may not purely assess the intended construct. It is possible that low ATGS-avoidance scores partially tap unhealthy dependence on God, and may be associated with negative psychological traits. Similarly, high scores may not purely tap genuine ATG-avoidance, and may be associated with positive psychological factors. The uncertainty as to how accurately the subscale measures ATG-avoidance limits the ability to derive conclusions regarding the effects of ATG-avoidance on emotional wellbeing and, by extension, limits exploration of mechanisms for this effect. It should also be noted that one item from the RK-avoidance subscale was inadvertently omitted from the questionnaire. However, this error is unlikely to have affected findings given that all RK-Avoidance items were excluded from the final measure, on the basis of the subscale’s poor content validity and functioning in statistical analyses. Recommendations for how
measurement of ATG-avoidance might be improved in future studies are provided later.
A second potential measurement-related limitation of the present study relates to the use of self-report measures, which may be susceptible to response biases such as social desirability. These biases may inflate correlations between ATG and emotional wellbeing in cross-sectional analyses. However, conclusions of the present study are largely based on prospective analyses, which should be less affected by this problem, given that predictions of change over time are relatively impervious to the effects of response bias (Kirkpatrick, 1998). The effects of social desirability bias may also be reduced by the anonymous nature of the study. Nonetheless, findings may have been strengthened through the use of alternate measurement methods such as interview- based assessment of ATG. This would allow less conscious representations of ATG to be assessed through the implicit information gained from the structure of participants’ discourse, in addition to the explicit content of their descriptions (Proctor, 2006). As such, this may provide more accurate assessment of participants’ internal experience of their relationship with God (Proctor et al., in press).
Generalisability of findings
Findings of the present study should be viewed as directly relevant only to the Christian experience of ATG. Findings cannot be assumed to generalise to other faith groups, given differences in the way in which peoples from different faith traditions experience their relationship with God (e.g., Granqvist, Ivarsson, Broberg, &
Hagekull, 2007; Koenig, 1995; Monteiro, 2005; Tarakeshwar, Pargament, & Mahoney, 2003). Other demographic characteristics of the sample that may influence the
generalisability of findings include the predominance of (i) Pentecostal and Evangelical denominations, (ii) younger adults, (iii) participants residing in New Zealand, and (iv) participants reporting a high level of religious commitment. The ethnic makeup of the sample, which was not assessed for ethical reasons relating to confidentiality, may likewise have influenced generalisability of findings. While no published research to date suggests that the relationships between ATG and emotional wellbeing is affected by these demographic characteristics, this possibility cannot be ruled out without explicit testing.
The generalisability of study findings is likely to be influenced by the low mean levels of ATG-anxiety and avoidance reported by the sample. Findings of the study are less representative of the effects of high ATG-anxiety and avoidance, and it is likely that the magnitude of relationships between ATG and emotional wellbeing
would differ in a sample exhibiting less secure ATG. For example, the positive effect of ATG-avoidance on emotional wellbeing may have been partly due to the low mean levels of ATG-avoidance, which are more likely to reflect unhealthy dependence on God. Findings regarding the moderating effect of ATG on the relationship between negative events and emotional wellbeing may also have been influenced by levels of ATG-anxiety/avoidance. Specifically, the ‘preoccupied’ ATG group in these analyses included participants who exhibited relatively low levels of ATG-anxiety. In a sample with higher ATG-anxiety, the more conventional method of classifying ATG groups could have been used, and this may have resulted in better detection of the true
‘vulnerability’ effect of preoccupied ATG. The low ATG-anxiety and avoidance scores in the present study are likely to partly reflect the self-selecting nature of the sample. However, it should be noted that these levels are similar to those reported in other Christian samples (R. Beck & McDonald, 2004; Joules, 2007; Reinert, 2005; Rowatt & Kirkpatrick, 2002). Furthermore, attachment anxiety and avoidance scores also tend to be low on human attachment measures in non-clinical samples (e.g., Mallinckrodt & Wei, 2005; Wei et al., 2003; Wei et al., 2006; Wei, Vogel et al., 2005), and this does not preclude detection of significant relationships with mental health.
Sample size
Ratios of participants to free parameters were below the recommended minimum of 5:1 (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2006; R. L. Worthington & Whittaker, 2006) in some analyses, particularly where cross-lagged models were tested in separate groups. Possible consequences of this include less accurate parameter estimates and fit indices, and reduced power for testing the significance of parameter estimates
(Jackson, 2003; MacCallum et al., 1996). Thus it is possible that the magnitude of effects may have been less accurate in some of the group analyses, and that some genuine effects may not have been detected due to lower power. However, it has been argued that achieving an adequate sample size may be more important than the
participant-to-free parameter ratio (Jackson, 2003). All analyses met the
recommendations of a minimum sample size of 100 (Russell, 2002; R. L. Worthington & Whittaker, 2006), with the majority of group analyses conducted in sample sizes of 200 or more. Furthermore, there was no evidence of improper solutions (a potential indicator that the participant-to-parameter ratio was inadequate for the analysis; Vandenberg and Self, 1993), and significant effects were found in the smallest
samples, demonstrating that power was adequate at least to detect these effects. Also, the cross-lagged analyses conducted in gender/negative events groups were compared with the findings of smaller models which had higher participant-to-free parameter ratios. The findings of these models were consistent with the larger models, with the exception of differences caused by suppression effects. This provides some suggestion that the validity of findings may not have been compromised by the low sample sizes in these analyses.
Some models in the present study were tested in groups too small to permit the use of bootstrapping to correct for multivariate non-normality. Given that non-
normality can result in underestimation of standard errors, it is possible that the statistical significance of effects may have been overestimated in these groups,
potentially leading to Type I error. However, the chance of Type I error is counteracted by the small sample sizes used in these analyses. Furthermore, the significant effects in these groups were of similar magnitude to significant effects in models where
bootstrapping was used. Given that non-normality has little effect on the magnitude of parameter estimates, this provides another indicator that the validity of significance tests was not compromised in samples where bootstrapping could not be applied. Nonetheless, larger samples would have provided more accurate estimation of effects, particularly in analyses of smaller groups such as males. A larger sample would also have allowed more extensive testing of gender differences. For example, it is likely that gender differences would have been found with regard to the moderating effect of ATG in the relationship between negative events on emotional wellbeing, as well as the mediating role of religious coping. Such gender differences could not be assessed in the present study given inadequate sample size.
Time frame
Effects of ATG on emotional wellbeing (and vice versa) may depend on the time period over which they are measured. For example, if effects typically occur quickly and last briefly, they would be best detected over short time periods. If effects occur more gradually, longer study periods may be required. In the present study, the period between Times 1 and 2 responses varied from three to seven months, so cross- lagged coefficients represent average effects occurring over this period. These
averages may potentially obscure time-related differences in the magnitude of effects. Studies of human attachment have found significant effects of attachment style on