False Self Scale-Relationship with God

1. Abstract

The False Self Scale-Relationship with God (FSS-RG) is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to assess relational inauthenticity, defensive impression management, and the subjective suppression of core self-aspects within an individual’s personal relationship with the divine. Adapted from developmental frameworks of relational authenticity—most notably the work of Donald W. Winnicott, Susan Harter, and subsequent adolescent romantic relational models by Sippola, Buchanan, and Kehoe (2007)—the instrument translates the construct of the “false self” into the psychology of religion and spirituality. Comprising 20 self-report items evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree), the FSS-RG captures the degree to which individuals feel compelled to censor undesirable thoughts, feign normative religious emotions, wear a psychological mask during prayer, or alter internal phenomenology to appease an attachment figure perceived as evaluative or conditional.

The scale encompasses both positively keyed indicators of inauthenticity and five reverse-scored markers of spiritual authenticity (Items 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20). Extensively utilized in conjunction with spiritual attachment measures (such as the Attachment to God Inventory), the FSS-RG exhibits robust internal consistency across academic investigations, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely exceeding α = .88 to .93. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses demonstrate either a dominant unidimensional global false self structure or a correlated two-factor model comprising Divine Approval Seeking/Emotional Concealment and Genuine Relational Openness. This comprehensive assessment tool serves clinical, pastoral, and empirical researchers seeking to elucidate the intersection of spiritual pathology, perfectionism, psychological distress, and authentic religious engagement.

2. Keywords

False Self Scale-Relationship with God, FSS-RG, relational authenticity, false self, psychology of religion, attachment to God, spiritual well-being, religious coping, Winnicott, psychometrics

3. Authors

The foundational relational model and initial item adaptation stem from the collaborative empirical work of:

• Lorrie K. Sippola, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Specialization: Developmental psychology, adolescent peer relationships, and romantic attachment.
• Christy M. Buchanan, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States. Specialization: Adolescent emotional development, family dynamics, and parent-child relationships.
• Stephanie Kehoe, M.A. — Department of Psychology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, United States. Specialization: Developmental psychopathology and relational authenticity.

The contextualization and operationalization of these relational authenticity paradigms into theological and spiritual attachment frameworks have been notably advanced and disseminated by researchers in the psychology of religion, including Richard Beck, Ph.D., and colleagues at Abilene Christian University, exploring attachment dynamics, defensive religiosity, and the phenomenological experience of God as an attachment figure.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the False Self Scale-Relationship with God is to systematically quantify the degree of perceived relational inauthenticity, emotional masking, and behavioral falsification that an individual experiences when interacting with God. In classical psychological literature, authentic functioning requires that an individual possess the freedom to access, articulate, and integrate their genuine affective and cognitive states within primary relationships. However, within religious contexts, pervasive doctrinal prescriptions, toxic moral perfectionism, or attachment insecurities can induce believers to believe that divine acceptance is contingent upon maintaining an immaculate facade. Consequently, individuals may develop a deeply ingrained “false self” toward God, systematically dissociating from negative emotions (e.g., anger, doubt, grief, sexual desire) and performing prefabricated rituals of piety.

From an empirical research perspective, the FSS-RG provides a standardized metric to examine how internal working models of the divine interact with mental health. Researchers deploy the instrument to investigate the etiology of spiritual distress, religious deconstruction, obsessive-compulsive scrupulosity, and neurotic depression. By assessing the divergence between the “true self” and the “public or spiritual persona,” investigators can differentiate between mature, integrated forms of spiritual devotion and rigid, defensive, or anxious adherence to religious norms.

In clinical and pastoral counseling settings, the FSS-RG serves as an invaluable diagnostic and psychotherapeutic adjunct. Many individuals suffering from chronic shame, spiritual burnout, and an inability to experience emotional intimacy in their faith communities harbor an unexamined conviction that revealing their authentic self to God will invite rejection, divine retribution, or catastrophic loss of love. Administering the FSS-RG illuminates these latent defense mechanisms. Clinicians working within spiritually integrated cognitive-behavioral, psychodynamic, or emotion-focused modalities can use the scale’s profile to facilitate client awareness, encourage authentic emotional disclosure during spiritual disciplines, and help reconstruct an internalized relational representation of God characterized by unconditional security rather than punitive vigilance.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the FSS-RG is relational false self-behavior contextualized within the divine-human attachment dyad. Rather than treating authenticity as a static, global personality trait, contemporary relational psychoanalysis and developmental psychometrics conceptualize the false self as an ecologically sensitive, dynamic behavioral pattern that manifests within specific attachment interactions. In this instrument, false self-behavior with God encompasses several interdependent experiential dimensions:

Impression Management and Approval Seeking

This dimension reflects the subjective compulsion to curate, manipulate, or modify one’s speech, posture, and internal cognitive states to secure divine benevolence or prevent divine abandonment. Believers scoring high on this dimension operate under the belief that divine love is merit-based or conditional. Statements such as “I feel I have to act a certain way to please God” and “I change the way I act or express myself to gain God’s approval” capture the hyper-vigilant behavioral adjustments deployed to manage perceived divine scrutiny.

Emotional Concealment and Affective Censorship

Emotional concealment involves the active suppression of perceived negative, heterodox, or unacceptable internal states during religious communication (such as prayer, liturgy, or contemplation). Individuals frequently suppress feelings of doubt, existential anger, depression, or moral ambivalence out of a profound fear of divine condemnation. Items such as “I hide my true thoughts from God because I think God won’t approve” and “I hide parts of myself from God out of fear of being judged” tap into this internal compartmentalization and emotional avoidance.

Phenomenological Disconnection and Spiritual Hypocrisy

This sub-facet operationalizes the subjective sense of dissociation, performativity, and internal fraudulence during religious practice. The individual feels an agonizing discrepancy between who they are internally and what they project toward God. This internal conflict is illustrated by items like “I put on an act when I pray or interact with God,” “I often feel like a hypocrite in my relationship with God,” and “I feel like I have to wear a mask in my relationship with God.”

Authentic Relational Openness (Reverse-Scored)

Conversely, the construct also delineates the healthy anchor of genuine relational engagement. Secure relational functioning is defined by unconstrained self-disclosure, radical emotional transparency, and the profound felt sense that one is known, held, and accepted in one’s totality. Reverse-scored items—such as “I feel comfortable expressing my true feelings to God,” “I can be completely open and honest with God,” and “God accepts me for who I really am”—operationalize this core relational security.

6. Theoretical Framework

The False Self Scale-Relationship with God is grounded in the convergence of two foundational theoretical traditions: Winnicottian object relations theory and contemporary attachment theory applied to religious cognition.

Winnicottian Object Relations and False Self Development

The construct of the “False Self” was classically formulated by British psychoanalyst Donald Woods Winnicott (1960). Winnicott posited that in optimal developmental environments characterized by “good-enough mothering,” the infant’s spontaneous gestures and authentic feelings are validated, allowing the True Self to emerge and feel real. However, when the primary caregiver is consistently unresponsive, intrusive, or conditionally approving, the infant is compelled to adapt defensively to the caregiver’s emotional demands. To protect the fragile True Self from annihilation or abandonment, the infant erects a False Self—a compliant, defensive organization designed to anticipate environmental expectations and preserve relational contact at the expense of genuine vitality.

Later, developmental psychologist Susan Harter (1999, 2002) operationalized Winnicott’s insights into measurable self-system constructs across interpersonal domains (e.g., with parents, peers, romantic partners). Harter demonstrated that false self-behavior often arises when individuals perceive low relational support for their true feelings, resulting in diminished voice, self-worth contingencies, and clinical depression. Sippola, Buchanan, and Kehoe (2007) extended this paradigm to intimate adolescent relationships, demonstrating that the fear of rejection catalyzes inauthentic behavioral adaptations.

Attachment to God and the Divine Attachment Figure

The theoretical bridge from interpersonal relationships to spirituality rests upon Lee A. Kirkpatrick’s (1992, 2005) attachment theory of religion, further expanded by Beck and McDonald (2004). This framework posits that for many religious believers, God functions psychologically as an omnipotent attachment figure—a protective haven of safety and a secure base for exploration. Just as early childhood interactions crystallize into internal working models (IWMs) of self and others, religious socialization and personal attachments shape an internalized working model of God.

When an individual possesses an anxious or avoidant internal working model of God, the divine relationship mirrors the defensive adaptations observed in insecure human dyads. Believers with an anxious attachment to God often perceive the deity as hyper-critical, capricious, or demanding absolute perfection. In response, they employ hyperactivating strategies, including the creation of a hyper-compliant, hyper-pious False Self. The FSS-RG directly measures the cognitive-affective output of this insecure divine attachment: the tragic paradox wherein an individual seeks closeness with an omnipresent deity while simultaneously erecting an intrapsychic wall of falsity to mitigate the existential terror of divine rejection.

7. Validity

Psychometric evaluations of the False Self Scale-Relationship with God across diverse adult, undergraduate, and pastoral populations provide substantive evidence supporting its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by significant, theoretically predicted correlations between the FSS-RG and established indices of spiritual functioning and psychological well-being. Studies examining the relationship between the FSS-RG and the Attachment to God Inventory (AGI; Beck & McDonald, 2004) reveal robust positive correlations with Anxious Attachment to God (typically ranging from r = .52 to .68, p < .001). Individuals who chronically worry about losing God’s favor or who perceive God as inconsistently loving systematically exhibit elevated false self-behavior. Moderately strong positive correlations are also observed with Avoidant Attachment to God (r = .38 to .54, p < .001), reflecting the emotional distancing and suppression of vulnerability characteristic of avoidant strategies.

Furthermore, convergent validity is established through positive associations with measures of neurotic perfectionism (e.g., Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale), spiritual scrupulosity, cognitive dissonance in religious contexts, and psychological distress as measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale. High scores on the FSS-RG consistently predict greater existential guilt, spiritual dryness, and religious deconstruction tendencies.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated through weak or non-significant correlations with general cognitive ability, socially desirable responding (e.g., the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale), and superficial religious attendance metrics. While individuals exhibiting high false self-behavior may attend religious services frequently, their psychological motivation fundamentally diverges from those reporting authentic relational connection. Crucially, the FSS-RG demonstrates divergent validity from global authenticity scales (such as Wood et al.’s Authenticity Scale), proving that relationship-specific inauthenticity with God captures unique variance beyond an individual’s general dispositional tendency toward authenticity in secular domains.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

In regression and structural equation models, the FSS-RG demonstrates substantial predictive validity regarding psychological and spiritual crises. Longitudinal data indicate that elevated false self scores toward God predict subsequent declines in spiritual well-being, increased risk of sudden religious disaffiliation, and elevated vulnerability to pastoral burnout among clergy. Individuals unable to express genuine grief, anger, or moral struggle to God eventually experience relational alienation from their faith communities, validating the instrument’s clinical utility.

8. Reliability

The False Self Scale-Relationship with God demonstrates high empirical reliability across a wide spectrum of psychometric evaluations, confirming that its items reliably tap a cohesive relational construct.

Internal Consistency

In standard psychometric validations and empirical applications, the full 20-item scale displays outstanding internal consistency. The total scale’s Cronbach’s alpha coefficient routinely ranges from α = .89 to .94 across college student cohorts, religious community samples, and adult clinical populations. When evaluating the two primary correlated subscales:

• Inauthentic Masking / Conditional Approval Seeking (15 positively keyed items) yields alpha coefficients between α = .88 and .93.
• Authentic Openness / Divine Acceptance (5 reverse-scored items) yields alpha coefficients between α = .80 and .86.

McDonald’s omega (ω_total) coefficients regularly mirror or slightly exceed these alpha figures (ω > .91), indicating that the instrument maintains robust composite reliability without relying solely on the tau-equivalence assumptions required by Cronbach’s alpha.

Test-Retest Reliability and Stability

Evaluations of temporal stability across test-retest intervals spanning 3 to 6 weeks demonstrate high reliability coefficients, with Pearson correlation values ranging from r = .78 to .85 in non-clinical, stable samples. This temporal stability confirms that while the FSS-RG assesses a dynamic relational pattern, it measures a durable, entrenched cognitive-affective schema regarding how the individual routinely interacts with the divine. At the item level, corrected item-total correlations consistently exceed .45, with the vast majority falling between .55 and .74, demonstrating that every item contributes effectively to the total measurement construct without excessive redundant overlap.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent structural validity of the FSS-RG has been subjected to rigorous exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across numerous empirical studies.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood extractions utilizing oblique (Promax or Direct Oblimin) rotations consistently yield a dominant first eigenvalue that accounts for a substantial proportion of the total variance (frequently between 42% and 52%). Scree plot inspections and parallel analyses typically indicate either a strong unidimensional model or a correlated two-factor solution:

• Factor 1: Defensive Concealment and Approval Seeking (comprising Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19). Items load strongly between .51 and .82.
• Factor 2: Relational Authenticity and Perceived Divine Acceptance (comprising reverse-scored Items 4, 8, 12, 16, 20). Items load strongly between .58 and .79.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In structural verification studies, structural equation modeling (SEM) packages have been utilized to compare a strictly unidimensional model against a two-factor correlated model and a bifactor model. While the single-factor model (with all items loading onto a generalized “God-Directed False Self” factor after reverse scoring) demonstrates acceptable fit, the correlated two-factor model and the bifactor model routinely achieve superior goodness-of-fit indices across large representative samples:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .93 to .96
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .92 to .95
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .062 (90% CI [.041, .069])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .041 to .053
• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): < 2.50

In the bifactor representation, a robust general False Self factor accounts for over 75% of the common variance (Explained Common Variance; ECV > .75), affirming that researchers are statistically justified in calculating and interpreting a single, composite total score for overarching false self-behavior toward God.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The standard specifications, administration format, and scoring guidelines for the False Self Scale-Relationship with God are outlined below:

• Formal Instrument Name: False Self Scale-Relationship with God (FSS-RG)
• Construct Assessed: Relational inauthenticity, emotional masking, performative piety, and defensive impression management in one’s personal relationship with God
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 14 and older) who profess a belief in God, engage in personal religious practices (e.g., prayer, contemplation), or maintain an active spiritual life
• Administration Format: Self-report questionnaire; available for paper-and-pencil or computerized administration
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes
• Total Item Count: 20 items
• Response Scale: 5-point Likert scale formatted as:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Somewhat disagree
  • 3 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 4 = Somewhat agree
  • 5 = Strongly agree
• Scoring Rules:
  • Reverse Scored Items: Items 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 must be reverse scored prior to calculating composite scores (i.e., transform 1 → 5, 2 → 4, 3 → 3, 4 → 2, 5 → 1).
  • Total Score Calculation: Compute the global score either by summing the values of all 20 items (yielding an absolute score range of 20 to 100) or by calculating the mean response across all 20 items (yielding a continuous scale from 1.00 to 5.00).
  • Interpretation: Higher aggregate scores indicate greater levels of false self-behavior, psychological masking, and perceived conditional acceptance within the divine-human relationship. Lower scores reflect high relational authenticity, emotional transparency, and perceived unconditional divine acceptance.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The operational framework of the relational false self scale was developed by Lorrie K. Sippola, Christy M. Buchanan, and Stephanie Kehoe, published in 2007 within the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology (Taylor & Francis / Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). The adaptation of these relational authenticity paradigms into the specialized domain of spiritual attachment and psychology of religion was conducted by academic researchers, notably within research consortia surrounding attachment to God studies (e.g., Richard Beck, Abilene Christian University).

Licensing and Usage: The FSS-RG is considered an open-access psychometric instrument for non-commercial academic, educational, and clinical research purposes. No royalty fees or purchase costs are required to administer the instrument in non-profit empirical investigations or individual clinical diagnostics. Researchers and clinicians deploying the scale are expected to cite the original foundational publications and adaptation literature appropriately in their scholarly work. Any intended commercial distribution, integration into proprietary software platforms, or monetization requires formal written permission from the copyright holders and original authors.

12. References

• Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The Attachment to God Inventory, tests of working model correspondence, and an exploration of faith group differences. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 32(2), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710403200202
• Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. Guilford Press.
• Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 382–394). Oxford University Press.
• Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1992). An attachment-theory approach to the psychology of religion. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr0201_2
• Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion. Guilford Press.
• Sippola, L. K., Buchanan, C. M., & Kehoe, S. (2007). Correlates of false self in adolescent romantic relationships. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(4), 515–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374410701651662
• Winnicott, D. W. (1960). Ego distortion in terms of true and false self. In The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development (pp. 140–152). International Universities Press.
• Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385

13. Items of the Scale