God Image Inventory

Abstract

The God Image Inventory (GII) is a comprehensive 156-item psychometric assessment developed by Richard T. Lawrence (1991) to evaluate an individual's experiential, affective, and relational perception of the divine—termed the "God image"—in explicit contrast to their intellectualized theological beliefs ("God concept"). Rooted in psychoanalytic object relations theory and attachment theory, the instrument operationalizes the affective representation of God across three central self-other axes: control, belonging, and goodness. These axes yield six primary subscales of 22 items each: Influence (the degree to which the individual feels they can affect God), Providence (the degree to which God is perceived as actively managing human affairs), Presence (the felt availability and experiential closeness of God), Challenge (the perception of God as a secure base encouraging personal maturation and exploration), Acceptance (the subjective sense of being intrinsically lovable to God), and Benevolence (the perceived goodness, mercy, and compassion of God's character). Additionally, the GII incorporates two 12-item validity and control subscales: Faith (the strength of belief in God's ontological existence) and Salience (the existential centrality and operational relevance of God in everyday decision-making). Items are scored on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from Strongly Agree (1) to Strongly Disagree (4), with reverse scoring applied so that higher summed scores reflect greater maturity, security, or intensity on each respective dimension. Standardized on a national sample of 1,580 adult American Christians, the GII demonstrates robust internal consistency, with subscale Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging between .85 and .94 across validation cohorts. Although exploratory factor analysis yielded a 10-factor oblique solution indicating shared relational variance across subscales, convergent and discriminant validity were affirmed through expected correlations with measures of intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity, self-esteem, and locus of control. The GII remains a foundational psychometric instrument in the psychology of religion, clinical pastoral counseling, and empirical research on spiritual coping.

Keywords

God Image Inventory, God image, God concept, object relations theory, attachment to God, Richard T. Lawrence, spiritual development, religious coping, clinical pastoral psychology, psychometrics

Authors

The God Image Inventory was formulated and psychometrically validated by Richard T. Lawrence, Ph.D. The instrument originated through his doctoral dissertation at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. (1991), entitled The God Image Inventory: The Development, Validation, and Standardization of a Psychometric Instrument for Research, Pastoral and Clinical Use in Measuring the Image of God. Lawrence subsequently served in pastoral, clinical, and scholarly capacities, publishing refined psychometric adaptations including the 72-item God Image Scales (Lawrence, 1997) in the Journal of Psychology and Theology.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the God Image Inventory is to provide an empirically sound, theoretically anchored measure capable of capturing the experiential and affective dimensions of an individual's relationship with God. In clinical psychology, psychiatry, and pastoral counseling, practitioners frequently observe a profound disconnect between what clients profess to believe intellectually about God and how they emotionally experience God in moments of personal crisis, trauma, or moral failure. An individual may possess an orthodox, cognitively sophisticated theology affirming divine omnibenevolence and unconditional grace, yet simultaneously operate under a visceral, unconscious terror of divine abandonment, retaliatory persecution, or profound emotional detachment. The GII was designed specifically to measure this "felt sense" of God, making unconscious and pre-reflective object-relational dynamics accessible to empirical investigation and clinical intervention.

From a research perspective, the GII resolves historical ambiguities within the psychology of religion, which long relied on simplistic unidimensional measures such as church attendance frequency, doctrinal orthodoxy tests, or global religious commitment scales. Such instruments fail to distinguish healthy, secure spiritual attachments from pathological, anxious, or guilt-driven religious functioning. By segmenting the divine representation into discrete relational domains—encompassing agency, exploratory challenge, safe haven proximity, and intrinsic worth—the GII enables researchers to examine how specific configurations of the God image correlate with clinical indices such as self-esteem, depressive symptom severity, trauma recovery, interpersonal functioning, and personality structure.

In clinical and pastoral settings, the GII serves diagnostic, formulation, and evaluative purposes. It provides therapists with a diagnostic map of a client's spiritual attachment style, illuminating whether religious ideation functions as a defensive maneuver, a source of chronic neurotic guilt, or an empowering resource for psychological growth. Furthermore, the GII can be administered across the trajectory of psychotherapy or spiritual direction to track shifts in object-relational maturity, documenting transitions from punitive, distant divine representations toward more benevolent, secure, and differentiated relational experiences.

Psychological Construct

The fundamental psychological construct evaluated by the GII is the God image, defined as an intuitive, affective, and dynamic internal representation of the divine formed through early interpersonal experiences, emotional memories, and attachment dynamics. Lawrence distinguished this construct sharply from the God concept, which denotes an intellectualized, abstract, and cognitive set of theological formulations acquired through formal cultural instruction and religious education.

Lawrence hypothesized that the God image is inexorably bound to the self-image, drawing upon the principle that relational representations are inherently dyadic: an internal working model of an attachment figure cannot exist without a corresponding internal working model of the self in relation to that figure. Building upon Ana-María Rizzuto's (1979) clinical framework, Lawrence structured the God image around three core existential themes of self-experience: Control, Belonging, and Goodness. Each theme was bifurcated into a self-oriented question and a God-oriented question, resulting in six primary dimensions:

1. The Theme of Control

The control dimension addresses psychological agency, omnipotence, and the negotiation of power between the individual and God.

• Influence (I; 22 items): Reflects a more primitive, self-centered focus on control, encapsulated by the internal inquiry: "How much can I control God?" This subscale assesses the respondent's belief that their personal actions, ritual compliance, and petitions can direct divine intervention. High scores represent a confident sense of spiritual efficacy and responsive prayer, whereas low scores reflect feelings of prayerful helplessness or magical disillusionment.
• Providence (Pr; 22 items): Reflects a more reflective, God-centered focus on control, encapsulated by the question: "How much does God control me and my world?" This subscale measures the degree to which an individual views God as actively governing the universe, guiding personal circumstances, and exercising benevolent sovereignty over human history. Low scores indicate a deistic worldview where God is an inactive spectator.

2. The Theme of Belonging

The belonging dimension operationalizes attachment security, physical and emotional proximity, and the relational space between self and divinity.

• Presence (P; 22 items): Grounded in the developmental transition of early infancy, this subscale addresses the primitive question: "Is God there for me?" Corresponding to Bowlby's "safe haven" concept and Winnicott's holding environment, Presence captures the felt immediacy, intimate accessibility, and emotional proximity of God. Low scores reflect profound spiritual isolation, alienation, and perceived divine abandonment.
• Challenge (C; 22 items): Corresponding to Bowlby's "secure base" construct, this subscale addresses the exploratory question: "Does God want me to grow?" It measures whether God is experienced as encouraging autonomy, intellectual inquiry, mature self-actualization, and constructive engagement with the broader world. Low scores suggest an image of God that fosters neurotic dependency, infantilism, or fear of worldly contamination.

3. The Theme of Goodness

The goodness dimension captures moral worth, loveability, and the affective tone of relational acceptance.

• Acceptance (A; 22 items): Centers on the primitive, self-evaluative question: "Am I good enough for God to love?" This subscale gauges the individual's felt assurance of unconditional divine love versus toxic guilt, self-loathing, and performance-based terror of divine rejection. High scores indicate a resilient internal sense of being accepted despite flaws and moral failings.
• Benevolence (B; 22 items): Centers on the theological and reflexive evaluation: "Is God the sort of Being who would want to love me?" It evaluates the perceived essential nature of God as compassionate, patient, universally merciful, and forgiving, as opposed to petty, vindictive, punitive, or persecutory.

4. Control and Validity Scales

To contextualize the six primary subscales, Lawrence introduced two interpretive control scales:

• Faith (F; 12 items): Evaluates the respondent's cognitive certainty regarding God's objective existence and the stability of their core theological convictions.
• Salience (S; 12 items): Evaluates the functional importance and existential weight of the individual's relationship with God in navigating daily life, decision-making, and self-identity.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the God Image Inventory rests at the intersection of psychoanalytic object relations theory and developmental attachment theory. Its primary conceptual progenitor is Ana-María Rizzuto, whose seminal work The Birth of the Living God (1979) overturned classical Freudian views of religion. Whereas Sigmund Freud conceptualized God strictly as an exalted parental figure born of infantile helplessness and wish-fulfillment, Rizzuto demonstrated that the God image is a dynamic, lifelong internal object representation synthesized from psychic introjects of both parents, siblings, significant others, and cultural narratives.

Rizzuto posited that the God representation occupies the transitional space articulated by Donald W. Winnicott (1953). Winnicott theorized that early psychological development requires an intermediate area of experiencing between primary subjective omnipotence and objective reality. In this potential space, the child utilizes "transitional objects" (such as a blanket or teddy bear) to manage anxiety, separation, and the paradox of belonging. Rizzuto extended this concept to spiritual life, arguing that God is an "ideal transitional object" that remains available across the lifespan. The God representation is constructed, deconstructed, and reconstructed to preserve a tolerable tension between affectively laden experiences of self and others. Lawrence incorporated this insight, asserting that because the God image resides in the transitional sphere, it is fundamentally affective and experiential rather than propositional.

To structure the developmental nuances of the God image, Lawrence integrated attachment theory, formulated by John Bowlby (1969) and applied to religion by Lee A. Kirkpatrick (1986, 1992). Attachment theory identifies two essential functions fulfilled by a primary attachment figure: acting as a Safe Haven to which the vulnerable individual can retreat for comfort, soothing, and protection in times of threat; and serving as a Secure Base from which the individual is emboldened to explore the environment, take calculated risks, and develop competence.

Lawrence mapped these attachment functions directly onto his belonging subscales: Presence operationalizes God as the ultimate Safe Haven ("Is mother/God there when I need comforting?"), while Challenge operationalizes God as the Secure Base ("Does God empower me to go out into the world and mature?"). By grounding the GII in these universal developmental themes—control, belonging, and goodness—Lawrence established a measurement paradigm that transcends rigid chronological developmental stages, positing that these core questions remain active and measurable across the entire adult lifespan.

Validity

Construct, convergent, and discriminant validity for the God Image Inventory were established through Lawrence's (1991) standardization study involving 1,580 adult respondents, alongside subsequent clinical and empirical investigations.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Lawrence evaluated validity by correlating the GII subscales with several established psychometric instruments measuring related psychological and religious constructs:

• Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Religiosity: Utilizing Allport and Ross's Religious Orientation Scale, Lawrence hypothesized that extrinsic religiosity (using religion as a means to social or personal ends) would correlate negatively with mature God image dimensions. As predicted, the Extrinsic scale exhibited negative correlations across all GII subscales. Conversely, intrinsic religiosity (living one's faith as an ultimate end) correlated most strongly with the Salience scale (r = .76), reflecting the existential centrality of the relationship, and second-highest with the Presence scale (r = .69), confirming that an experiential sense of God's relational proximity is intrinsically rewarding.
• Self-Esteem: Based on the theoretical dyad linking God image to self-image, Lawrence predicted a robust positive association between global self-esteem (measured via the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale) and the Acceptance subscale. This hypothesis was strongly corroborated, yielding a correlation of r = .54. Individuals who possess an internal sense of worthiness before God simultaneously exhibit higher general self-worth.
• Locus of Control and God Control: Measures assessing personal efficacy versus external divine control demonstrated predictable convergent patterns with the Influence and Providence subscales, confirming that these dimensions accurately track theological agency dynamics.
• Anomalies and Discriminant Nuances: Several empirical findings deviated from initial hypotheses. Lawrence anticipated that an Achievement orientation scale would correlate positively with Challenge; however, Achievement correlated negatively across all GII scales, reaching statistical significance only with Providence. This indicated that secular achievement drives may conflict with traditional theological reliance on divine providence. Furthermore, an Altruism scale failed to discriminate between Benevolence and other GII subscales, demonstrating a narrow, uniformly modest correlation range (r = .22 to .26) across the inventory.

Subsequent Validity Evidence

In subsequent clinical research, Key (1995) examined the impact of inpatient psychiatric treatment on object relations maturity, self-esteem, and the God image, utilizing the GII. Key demonstrated that therapeutic gains in object-relational maturity and structural self-esteem directly corresponded to significant increases in GII Acceptance and Presence scores, affirming the inventory's clinical sensitivity to psychological change. Similarly, Knapp (1993) utilized the GII to document personality transformation and shifts in God representations among recovering individuals in Alcoholics Anonymous, demonstrating that 12-step spiritual awakenings correlated with marked elevations in Providence and Benevolence.

Reliability

The God Image Inventory demonstrates high internal consistency and temporal stability across diverse adult populations.

Internal Consistency

In the original standardization study (N = 1,580), Lawrence (1991) computed Cronbach's alpha coefficients for all eight subscales, derived from recomputations of the initial 490-item prototype pool. Across the six primary 22-item subscales and the two 12-item control subscales, internal consistency coefficients ranged from .86 to .94:

• Presence: α = .94
• Providence: α = .91
• Acceptance: α = .90
• Benevolence: α = .89
• Influence: α = .88
• Salience: α = .91
• Faith: α = .89
• Challenge: α = .86

To eliminate potential capitalization on chance resulting from item-reduction recomputations, Lawrence (1991) subsequently administered the finalized 156-item instrument to an entirely new cross-validation sample. The resulting Cronbach's alpha values proved virtually identical, spanning from α = .85 (Challenge) to α = .94 (Presence), establishing extraordinary measurement precision and scale homogeneity across independent cohorts.

Temporal and Interscale Stability

Lawrence evaluated the stability of the instrument by examining interscale correlation matrices across two independent administrations. The average absolute difference between the correlation coefficients across the two occasions was a negligible .03. Interscale correlations ranged from a low of r = .44 (between Providence and Benevolence) to a high of r = .84 (between Presence and Influence). This consistent pattern of interrelationships confirmed strong structural and temporal stability. Standard errors of measurement across the subscales remain low, supporting confident individual-level score interpretation in clinical diagnostics.

Factor Analysis

Lawrence (1991) conducted an extensive exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to empirically scrutinize the underlying latent structure of the 156 items. Rather than imposing orthogonal constraints, Lawrence utilized oblique rotation, allowing latent factors to correlate in alignment with psychoanalytic assumptions regarding the interpenetration of self and object representations.

Exploratory Factor Structure

Contrary to the eight theoretically hypothesized dimensions (six primary subscales plus two control scales), the exploratory factor analysis yielded 10 empirical factors with eigenvalues exceeding unity. Detailed item-loading examinations revealed the following structural characteristics:

• Factor Overlap: Seven of the ten extracted factors contained significant item loadings from at least two different theoretical subscales. This structural cross-loading reflects the inherent psychological intimacy between relational constructs. For instance, items assessing the felt closeness of God (Presence) loaded substantially alongside items measuring responsive prayer (Influence), corroborating the high bivariate correlation observed between these two scales (r = .84).
• Thematic Clusters: Despite the emergence of ten empirical factors, the three foundational axes—Control, Belonging, and Goodness—cohered distinctly within the factor space. Items tapping punitive divine perceptions from the Benevolence and Acceptance scales aligned onto distinct "harsh/rejecting" latent factors, while items assessing growth and autonomy from the Challenge scale segregated into distinct exploratory factors.
• Implications for the Long Form: Lawrence concluded that while the 156-item GII possesses rich qualitative and clinical utility, its empirical factor structure exhibits considerable multicollinearity and shared method variance across related domains.

Subsequent Factor Refinement: The 72-Item God Image Scales (1997)

Recognizing that a 156-item instrument presents practical hurdles for research and that the original factor structure displayed cross-scale redundancy, Lawrence pursued psychometric refinement in 1997. By conducting rigorous confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses on the primary item pool, Lawrence eliminated cross-loading and psychometrically redundant statements, producing the shortened 72-item God Image Scales (Lawrence, 1997). This refined version preserved the six primary subscales with 12 items each, yielding a substantially cleaner orthogonal and oblique factor structure with enhanced model fit indices, while maintaining internal consistency coefficients above .80 for all subscales.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The complete God Image Inventory is structured as follows:

• Instrument Name: God Image Inventory (GII)
• Alternative Formats: God Image Scales (GIS; 72-item research short form)
• Author: Richard T. Lawrence, Ph.D. (1991)
• Theoretical Basis: Object Relations Theory (Ana-María Rizzuto; D. W. Winnicott) and Attachment Theory (John Bowlby; Lee Kirkpatrick)
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or digital self-administered questionnaire
• Target Population: Adults (standardized on adult American Christians across sex, age, educational attainment, and marital status)
• Administration Time: Approximately 30 to 45 minutes for the full 156-item inventory
• Total Number of Items: 156 items
  • 6 Primary Subscales (22 items each = 132 items):
    • Influence (I): Items 5, 17, 31, 36, 47, 56, 67, 68, 72, 75, 78, 83, 86, 88, 91, 97, 120, 131, 143, 146, 149, 152.
    • Providence (Pr): Items 11, 12, 23, 25, 48, 64, 65, 69, 70, 74, 76, 87, 92, 104, 106, 119, 122, 124, 126, 130, 139, 140.
    • Presence (P): Items 1, 3, 6, 19, 21, 33, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 58, 96, 115, 123, 125, 127, 128, 132, 135, 150.
    • Challenge (C): Items 7, 8, 13, 14, 27, 28, 49, 52, 54, 57, 62, 66, 79, 89, 93, 94, 99, 103, 116, 129, 145, 151.
    • Acceptance (A): Items 4, 15, 18, 20, 22, 30, 32, 34, 37, 46, 51, 55, 63, 84, 85, 90, 110, 134, 138, 141, 153, 156.
    • Benevolence (B): Items 10, 29, 45, 50, 53, 59, 71, 80, 81, 82, 95, 107, 109, 114, 118, 133, 136, 137, 144, 147, 154, 155.
  • 2 Interpretive Control Subscales (12 items each = 24 items):
    • Faith (F): Items 9, 16, 26, 41, 60, 98, 100, 105, 112, 121, 142, 148.
    • Salience (S): Items 2, 24, 38, 61, 73, 77, 101, 102, 108, 111, 113, 117.
• Response Scale: 4-point Likert scale:
  • SA = Strongly Agree (1)
  • A = Agree (2)
  • D = Disagree (3)
  • SD = Strongly Disagree (4)
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Items designated with an asterisk (*) in psychometric scoring keys are negatively worded and must be reverse-scored prior to subscale summation (i.e., SA = 4, A = 3, D = 2, SD = 1).
  • For positively worded items, values are inverted during analysis so that higher summed scores reflect a greater degree of the positive trait or maturity (e.g., SA = 4, A = 3, D = 2, SD = 1), ensuring intuitive interpretation.
  • Each of the eight subscales is calculated independently by summing its constituent item responses.
  • Score Ranges:
    • Six Primary Subscales (22 items each): 22 to 88 points.
    • Two Control Subscales (12 items each): 12 to 48 points.
  • Normative Reference Values: In the national adult Christian standardization sample (N = 1,580), subscale means ranged from 36.1 (Salience, SD = 8.1) to 73.3 (Benevolence, SD = 10.4). Standard deviations across the instrument ranged from 7.0 (Faith) to 12.5 (Presence).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The God Image Inventory was developed by Richard T. Lawrence in 1991 as part of his doctoral dissertation at The Catholic University of America. Lawrence subsequently published an overview and psychometric refinement of the scale in the Journal of Psychology and Theology in 1997. The instrument is intended for academic research, pastoral counseling, and clinical psychological assessment. Qualified researchers and clinicians may administer the scale for non-commercial educational and empirical investigations. Commercial reproduction, mass digital distribution, or incorporation into fee-based software platforms requires formal licensing and permission from the author or copyright holding entities.

References

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.

Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (1996). The Spiritual Assessment Inventory: A psychometric evaluation of a measure of spiritual development. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 24(3), 233–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164719602400306

Hall, T. W., & Edwards, K. J. (2002). The Spiritual Assessment Inventory: A theoretical and empirical update. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 30(4), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710203000405

Key, T. L. (1995). Impact of inpatient psychiatric treatment on object relations maturity, self-esteem and God image (Doctoral dissertation, Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55(11-B), 5568.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1986, October). Developmental psychology and religion: Potential application of attachment theory for the psychology of religion [Conference presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion, Washington, DC, United States.

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

Knapp, C. L. (1993). Personality transformation and belief in God: An object relations understanding of the spiritual awakening program of Alcoholics Anonymous (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Andover Newton Theological School, Newton Centre, MA.

Lawrence, R. T. (1991). The God Image Inventory: The development, validation, and standardization of a psychometric instrument for research, pastoral and clinical use in measuring the image of God (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC.

Lawrence, R. T. (1997). Measuring the image of God: The God Image Inventory and the God Image Scales. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 25(2), 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164719702500206

Rizzuto, A.-M. (1979). The birth of the living God: A psychoanalytic study. University of Chicago Press.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400876136

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976

Winnicott, D. W. (1953). Transitional objects and transitional phenomena—A study of the first not-me possession. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 34(2), 89–97.

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)