THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION, 75(2), 145-157

Copyright © 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

RESEARCH

Religious Fundamentalism and

Attachment: Prediction of Homophobia
Jonathan P. Schwartz and Lori D. Lindley
Department of Psychology
Louisiana Tech University

This study examined the relationships among attachment, religious fundamentalism,

and homophobia. In a sample of 198 undergraduates from a "Bible-Belt" commu-
nity, secure attachment was associated with religious fundamentalism. The results in-
dicate that religious fundamentalism and sex were the only significant predictors of
homophobia. Consistent with previous research (Kite, 1994), males were signifi-
cantly more homophobic than females. Contrary to the hypotheses, attachment was
not predictive of homophobia and did not moderate the relationship between reli-
gious fundamentalism and homophobia.

Attachment theory has been proposed as a theoretical framework for investigating

and understanding religious beliefs and behavior (Kirkpatrick, 1992). Subsequent
research has supported the relationship between religiosity and attachment styles,
but findings have differed on how the two variables relate (Granqvist, 2002;
Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992). In addition, research has suggested that there is a re-
lationship between homophobia and religiosity, particularly religious fundamen-
talism (Herek, 1984; Hunsberger, 1996). It has also been found that the stance of
religious groups on different aspects of prejudice affects the attitudes of individu-
als in those groups (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis, 1993; Duck & Hunsberger,
1999). The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships among attachment,
religious fundamentalism, and homophobia.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Jonathan P. Schwartz, P.O. Box 10048, Ruston, LA 71272.
E-mail: schwartz@latech.edu
146 SCHWARTZ AND LINDLEY

ATTACHMENT THEORY

Attachment theory was constructed to explain observations of distress in infants

and young children when separated from their parental caregiver (Bowlby, 1973).
According to attachment theory, early experiences with caregivers have long-term
effects, as they become internal working models of oneself and how one relates to
others (Bartholomew, 1990; Bowlby, 1973; Collins & Read, 1990). Hazan and
Shaver (1987) investigated the effect of attachment styles on adult romantic rela-
tionships. Bartholomew also utilized Bowlby's conception of internal working
models of attachment to expand on Hazan and Shaver's research on adult attach-
ment styles and created a four-category classification scheme of attachment. Two
dimensions define Bartholomew's four attachment patterns: "positivity of a per-
son's model of self (self-model) and positivity of a person's model of others
(other-model)" (p. 32). The positivity of the self-model indicates the degree to
which a person has internalized a sense of his or her self-worth versus a feeling of
anxiety and uncertainty of the self's lovability. The self-model is therefore associ-
ated with the degree of anxiety and dependency on others' approval in close rela-
tionships. The positivity of the other-model indicates the degree to which others
are generally expected to be available and supportive. The other-model is therefore
associated with the tendency to seek out or avoid closeness in relationships. These
dimensions have been theorized to represent continua of anxiety and avoidance in
relationships (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). In this study, we examine both the
underlying dimensions of attachment (anxiety and avoidance) and Bartholomew's
four category model of attachment to yield continuous and discrete measures of at-
tachment respectively.
Although previous research has not focused on the relationship between attach-
ment and homophobia or other forms of prejudice, security of attachment has been
linked to caregiving of others in relationships (Collins & Feeney, 2000; Kunce &
Shaver, 1994). In addition, low scores on the attachment dimensions of anxiety and
avoidance, representing attachment security, have been related to higher empathie
responses (Mikulincer, Gillath, Halevy, Avihou, Avidan, & Eshkoli, 2001).
Finally, Mikulincer and Shaver (2001) found that securely attached individuals are
more accepting of people who do not belong to their in-group.

ATTACHMENT AND RELIGIOSITY

Granqvist (1998) investigated the relationship between attachment and religiosity

by examining parental religiousness. He found that for secure participants, high re-
ligiousness was associated with high levels of parental religiousness. Based on
those results, Granqvist and Hagekull (1999) suggested that in securely attached
individuals there is a socialization of religious standards held by the primary at-
 RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AND ATTACHMENT 147

tachment figure. In contrast, insecurely attached individuals sporadically attempt

to find security in their relationship with God as an emotional compensation.
Granqvist (2002) supported Granqvist and Hagekull's (1999) propositions, find-
ing that secure individuals were more likely to have a religiosity based on social-
ization from their parents whereas insecure individuals were more likely to have an
unstable religiosity.

RELIGIOSITY AND HOMOPHOBIA

Religiosity has been studied in terms of religious fundamentalism, characterized

by the belief that there is one religion that contains the inherent truth (Hunsberger,
1996). Religious fundamentalism has been identified as a promising construct in
examining the relationship between religiosity and prejudice (Altemeyer &
Hunsberger, 1992). Research on religiosity has found that extrinsic religiosity (re-
ligiosity motivated by extrinsic gains) and religious fundamentalism are both re-
lated to prejudice (Donahue, 1985; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; McFarland, 1989).
Altemeyer (2003) found that individuals high in religious fundamentalism re-
ported strong early training in identifying with their religion. He suggested that the
early emphasis on family religion may be related to "us-them" discriminations
(Altemeyer, 2003, p. 17). Batson et al. (1993) suggested that religious communi-
ties typically condemn (proscribe) prejudices such as racism, but prejudices such
as homophobia are typically tolerated or mildly encouraged (nonproscribed).
Duck and Hunsberger (1999) tested Batson et al. 's hypotheses with participants
who viewed their church as disapproving of racism and as having a weak approval
of negative attitudes toward homosexuality. It appears from their finding that per-
ception of the religion's attitudes on prejudice (racism and homophobia) affects in-
dividuals' attitudes, particularly those with intrinsic (internally motivated) religi-
osity. Duck and Hunsberger found the strongest relationships were between
right-wing authoritarianism, intrinsic religiosity, and prejudice.
Religious fundamentalism has been found to relate to right-wing authoritari-
anism (rigid traditional attitudes), discrimination, and hostility toward homosex-
uality (Duck & Hunsberger, 1999; Hunsberger, 1996; Kirkpatrick, 1993;
McFarland, 1989). Religious fundamentalists have been characterized as
closed-minded and unwilling to question beliefs or consider other points of view
(English, 1996; Hunsberger, Pratt, & Prancer, 1994). Furthermore, research on
homophobia has found that one of the best predictors of homophobia is tradi-
tional attitudes (Altemeyer, 1996; Basow, 2000). Laythe, Finkel, and Kirkpatrick
(2001) found that when right-wing authoritarianism was statistically controlled,
religious fundamentalism was negatively related to racial prejudice but posi-
tively related to homophobia.
148 SCHWARTZ AND LINDLEY

THE CURRENT STUDY

In this study we attempted to investigate the complicated relationships among at-

tachment, religiosity, and homophobia in a Southern Christian college sample. Be-
cause this study is conducted in a "Bible Belt" community in which there is wide-
spread adherence to fundamentalist Christianity (Twenge, 1997), we hypothesized
that participants with a secure attachment style would have higher scores on reli-
gious fundamentalism than participants with insecure attachment styles (preoccu-
pied, dismissing, and fearful). This hypothesis is based on the concept of social-
ized correspondence (Granqvist & Hagekull, 1999), which is the adoption by
securely attached individuals of religious standards held by their primary attach-
ment figure.
Religious fundamentalism has been found to be related to homophobia and neg-
ative attitiudes toward gays and lesbians. We hypothesized that attachment will
moderate the relationship between religious fundamentalism and homophobia.
First, we hypothesized that insecure attachment (high anxiety and avoidance) will
be related to homophobia. Secondly, low religious fundamentalism combined with
secure attachment (low anxiety and avoidance) will be negatively predictive of ho-
mophobia. In contrast, high religious fundamentalism with secure attachment (low
anxiety and avoidance) will be positively predictive of homophobia. This hypothe-
sis is based on previous research that has found secure attachment to be related to
acceptance of people from other groups (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2001) and the so-
cialization of parental religiosity (Granqvist & Hagekull, 1999). It is important to
note that we are assuming that homophobia is a nonproscribed prejudice among
our sample based on the findings of Duck and Hunsberger (1999), and the fact that
this study was conducted in a "Bible Belt" community. This is the first known
study to examine the relationships among attachment, religiosity, and homopho-
bia. With no prior empirical evidence this hypothesis is exploratory.
In addition, previous research has demonstrated that there is a significant sex
difference in homophobia (Kite, 1994; VanderStoep & Green, 1988, Young,
Gallaher, Marriott, & Kelly, 1993). We also examined sex differences in the pre-
diction of homophobia.

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

Participants were 198 students (122 women, 96 men) in psychology classes at a
mid-sized Southern university who received extra credit points for their voluntary
participation. Two participants identified themselves as Buddhist, 180 as Chris-
tian, one as Muslim, five indicated no religious affiliation, eight indicated "other,"
 RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AND ATTACHMENT 149

and two did not provide a response. Of the Christian participants, the denomina-
tions most commonly reported were Baptist (44.9%), Catholic (14.6%), and Meth-
odist (11.1%). Thirty-one of the participants were African American, two were
American Indian, 162 were Caucasian, one was Middle Eastern, and two indicated
"other." One participant indicated Hispanic ethnicity. A majority of the partici-
pants were single (84.3%) and between the ages of 18 and 21 (81.2%). Sev-
enty-two participants were first-year students, 43 were sophomores, 41 were ju-
niors, 39 were seniors, one was a graduate student and two indicated "other."
Participants were administered a battery of self-report inventories (described later)
in groups of 20-40.

Measures
Relationship Questionnaire (RQ). The RQ (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991) is a two-item measure of adult attachment. The first item consists of four
paragraphs, each of which describes one of Bartholomew's (1990) four attachment
styles (Secure, Fearful, Preoccupied, Dismissing). Participants are instructed to in-
dicate which paragraph best describes the way they generally are in close relation-
ships. The second item comprises the same four paragraphs; however, participants
are instructed to rate each style according to the extent to which it corresponds to
their general relationship style. A 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at
all like me) to 7 (very much like me) is used. The RQ can be used to categorize in-
dividuals into the most appropriate attachment style according to the first item, us-
ing the second item as a consistency check (Kemp & Neimeyer, 1999). The attach-
ment styles identified on the RQ have been found to be theoretically consistent
with self-report and friend's report of self-esteem and sociability (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991). Griffin and Bartholomew (1994) found evidence of construct,
discriminate, and convergent validity of the RQ in the three separate studies. The
four attachment styles correlated appropriately with instruments measuring posi-
tive or negative view of self and others. In addition, attachment self-classifications
have demonstrated moderate stability over 8-month and 4-year intervals
(Bartholomew, 1990; Kikpatrick & Hazan, 1994; Sharfe & Bartholomew, 1994).

Adult Attachment Scale (AAS). The AAS (Collins & Read, 1990) was de-
signed to measure the three dimensions underlying Hazan and Shaver's (1987)
three adult attachment styles, secure, avoidant, and anxious. The AAS comprises
18 items to which participants respond on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me) regarding their orientation to close
relationships. Rather than categorizing participants, the AAS is designed to obtain
scores on three underlying attachment dimensions. Currently the majority of re-
search on attachment utilizes the two dimensions of anxiety and avoidance.
150 SCHWARTZ AND LINDLEY

Brennan et al., (1998) constructed the Experience in Close Relationships Scale

(ECR) to measure the two dimensions of attachment. Factor analysis studies have
demonstrated that the ECR and AAS form similar factor solutions. Based on the
previous research of Granqvist (2002), the items were separated to form the di-
mensions of anxiety and avoidance. In the current study, internal consistency
reliabilities were as follows: .69 for Anxiety, .75 for Avoidance.

Homophobia Scale. This 25-item scale was designed to assess the cogni-
tive, affective, and behavioral components of homophobia (Wright, Adams, &
Bernât, 1999). Participants respond to statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale has three
subscales that were developed through factor analysis, Behavior/Negative Affect
(10 items), Affect/Behavioral Aggression (10 items), and Cognitive Negativism (5
items). Internal consistency reliability for the entire scale has been reported at .94,
and 1-week test-retest reliability has been reported at .96. Concurrent validity was
evaluated through correlation with Hudson and Ricketts's (1980) Index of Homo-
phobia (r = .66, ρ < .01; Wright et al., 1999).
In the current study, internal consistency reliabilities as measured by
Cronbach's alpha were .89 for Behavior/Negative Affect, .79 for Affect/Behav­
ioral Aggression, .37 for Cognitive Negativism, and .91 for the entire Homophobia
Scale. To examine the appropriateness of using the subscales with our sample, a
factor analysis of the items was performed. A principle components analysis with
direct oblimin rotation was used to coincide with the original development of the
scale (Wright et al., 1999) and the number of factors was constrained to three. The
factors that emerged in our analysis did not correspond with the subscales of the
Homophobia Scale. For this reason and because the internal consistency of the
whole scale was superior to the internal consistency of any one subscale, the
subscales were not used in this study.

Religious Fundamentalism Scale. This unidimensional 20-item scale

(Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992) was designed to measure religious fundamental­
ism across a variety of religions, with higher scores indicating higher levels of reli­
gious fundamentalism. Participants respond to statements on a 9-point Likert-type
scale ranging from -4 (very strongly disagree) to +4 (very strongly agree).
Altemeyer and Hunsberger reported a Cronbach's alpha of .92 and correlations
ranging from .60 to .75 with a scale of Christian orthodoxy. Hunsberger (1996) re­
ported high internal consistency of the measure for samples from four religious af­
filiations, Hindu (a = .91), Muslim (a = .94), Jewish (a = .85), and Christian (a =
.92). In the current study internal consistency reliability was .90.
Using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 9, Hunsberger (1996) reported the
mean score in a general Christian sample of 431 participants to be 85.0 (SD =
33.0). In a sample of "Fundamentalist" Christians (n = 20), a mean score of 130.6
 RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AND ATTACHMENT 151

was reported (SD = 22.0; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992). Adjusting for the dif­
ferences in scoring, the mean score in the current study is 111.3 (SD = 31.4), indi­
cating high levels of religious fundamentalism in this sample.

Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. This 33-item true-false scale

was designed to identify individuals who tend to describe themselves in an overly
positive light, especially in terms of what is considered socially acceptable
(Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). Internal consistency reliability was reported as a
KR-20 coefficient of .88. Test-retest reliability over a 1-month period was .88.
This scale is included in the current study because many of the constructs being
measured carry socially prescribed value; inclusion of this scale can allow for eval­
uation of the degree to which findings are due to a socially desirable response set.
In the current study, internal consistency reliability was .76.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses
The means and standard deviations obtained in this study are consistent with the
means and standard deviations obtained in other studies employing the same
scales. Preliminary analyses indicated significant gender differences on homopho­
bia [i(196) = 5.37, ρ < .001], and anxiety 0(184) = 2.75, ρ < .01], with men scoring
higher than women.
Participants were assigned to attachment categories based on the first item on
the RQ. Participants whose responses to the two items on the RQ were inconsistent
were excluded from analyses regarding Bartholomew's (1990) four attachment
styles. Eighty-seven (53.0%) were assigned to the secure category, 37 (22.6%)
were assigned to the fearful category, 17 (10.4%) were assigned to the preoccupied
category, and 23 (14.0%) were assigned to the dismissing category. These percent­
ages are consistent with previous research (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991;
Kemp & Neimeyer, 1999).

Religiosity and Attachment

To test the hypothesis that participants with secure attachment styles are higher on
religious fundamentalism than participants with insecure attachment styles (preoc­
cupied, dismissing, and fearful), a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted. Results indicated significant differences among the attachment catego­
ries, F(3, 162) = 3.02, MSE = 1045.36, ρ < .05. Post hoc tests using Tukey's HSD
test revealed that secure individuals scored higher than dismissing individuals, but
that no other categories were significantly different from each other. Means and
152 SCHWARTZ AND LINDLEY

standard deviations by attachment category for religious fundamentalism are pre-

sented in Table 1.

Religiosity and Homophobia

Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to examine the hypothesis that
attachment moderates the relationship between religious fundamentalism and ho-
mophobia (see Table 3). Because of significant mean sex differences on homopho-
bia and anxiety, and because social desirability was correlated with several of the
variables to be included (see Table 2), sex (dummy-coded) and social desirability
were entered in the first step as background. Religious fundamentalism, anxiety,
and avoidance were entered on the second step. Finally, the cross-products of ho-
mophobia-anxiety and homophobia-avoidance were entered on the third step. Sex
was a significant predictor of homophobia, and continued to explain a high propor-
tion of variance in the prediction of homophobia through all three steps of the anal-
yses (see Table 3). Social desirability was not a significant predictor. Of the vari-
ables added in the second step, only religious fundamentalism contributed to the
prediction of homophobia (ß = A4, ρ < .001). None of the cross-products entered
in the third step contributed to the prediction of homophobia; therefore, the hy­
pothesis that the relationship between religious fundamentalism and homophobia
is moderated by attachment style was not supported.

TABLE 1
Means for Religious Fundamentalism by Attachment Category

Attachment η M SD

Secure 87 16.77a 27.86

Fearful 36 5.25a,b 30.75
Preoccupied 17 9.71a,b 42.43
Dismissing 23 ^.30b 41.33

Note. Means in the same column that do not share subscripts differ at/? < .05 in the Tukey honestly
significant difference comparison.

TABLE 2
Correlations Among Homophobia, Religious Fundamentalism,
Attachment, and Social Desirability

Variable 1 2 3 4 5

1. Homophobia — 59*** -.23* -.08 .20*

2. Religious Fundamentalism .30** — -.16 -.08 .18
3. Avoidance .14 -.37** — 42*** -.30**
4. Anxiety .02 -.13 .36** — -.27**
5. Social Desirability -.07 .15 -.18 -.38** —
Notes. Correlations above the diagonal are for women. Correlations below the diagonal are for
men. For women, ns range from 111 to 121. For men, ns range from 67 to 76.
 RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AND ATTACHMENT 153

TABLE 3
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for the Prediction of
Homophobia (N = 175)

Variable Β SE Β β

Sex 14.53 2.69 .38***

Social desirability .40 .25 .11
ep2
Sex 14.74 2.47 .38***
Social desirability .13 .24 .04
Religious fundamentalism .26 .04 44***
Avoidance .24 .23 .07
Anxiety .03 .21 .01
ep3
Sex 14.95 2.49 39***
Social desirability .12 .24 .03
Religious fundamentalism .09 .18 .14
Avoidance .18 .25 .06
Anxiety .01 .22 .00
RF χ Avoidance .00 .01 .16
RF χ Anxiety .00 .01 .14

Notes. R 2 = .16 for Step 1; M2 = .18 for Step 2; AR2 = .01 for Step 3 (allps < .001).
***p<.001.

DISCUSSION

This study examined the complex and multidimensional relationships among at­
tachment, religiosity, and homophobia in a Southern university sample. Religious
fundamentalism, characterized by a belief in one true religion and closed minded-
ness to other views, and sex were the strongest predictors of homophobia. These
findings are consistent with previous research linking religious fundamentalism to
homophobia (Hunsberger, 1996; Kirkpatrick, 1993; Laythe et al. 2001 ; McFarland,
1989), and reporting higher levels of homophobia in men than women (Kite, 1994).
Research and theory has suggested that male gender role socialization may contrib­
ute to homophobic beliefs (O'Neil, 1981 ; Parrott, Adams, & Zeichner, 2002). Con­
trary to the hypothesis, the results indicate that the relationship between religious
fundamentalism and homophobia is not moderated by attachment.
Previous research suggests that security of attachment is related to empathie
and caring responses to others, even to those in an out-group (Collins & Feeney,
2000; Mikulincer et al., 2001; Mikulincer & Shaver 2001). The results of this
study, however, indicate that attachment is not related to homophobia and does not
moderate the relationship between religious fundamentalism and homophobia.
Caution should be taken in interpreting this finding because it is based on an ex­
ploratory hypothesis. It may be that attachment is not an important variable in the
prediction of homophobia. This finding might also be related to the high rate of re-
154 SCHWARTZ AND LINDLEY

ligious fundamentalism in this sample. Previous research has linked religious fun-
damentalism to an early emphasis on the family religion possibly creating an
in-group and out-group mentality (Altemeyer, 2003). Perhaps in a population in
which religious fundamentalism is so pervasive, the tolerance associated with se-
cure attachment is not as influential on individuals' attitudes toward others.
Supporting the postulate presented here, for participants in this study, means on
the religious fundamentalist scale were substantially higher than in previous stud-
ies using Christian samples (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Hunsberger, 1996).
Assuming this is a representative sample, it appears that high levels of religious
fundamentalism in this and similar "Bible Belt" college communities are norma-
tive. Given the strong relationship between religious fundamentalism and homo-
phobia, it is interesting to note that the correlation between homophobia and social
desirability was significant for women. In addition, there was a negative correla-
tion between avoidant attachment and homophobia in women. In a community
where religious fundamentalism is the norm, it may be difficult to have differing
views and maintain close intimate relationships.
The hypotheses regarding the relationship between attachment and religious
fundamentalism were also partially supported. Participants who were categorized
in the secure attachment style scored higher on religious fundamentalism than par-
ticipants categorized in the dismissing attachment style. In a culture where reli-
gious fundamentalism is the norm, these findings are consistent with the conjec-
ture that individuals with a secure attachment style tend to adopt their parents'
beliefs. Conversely, individuals with a dismissing attachment style may be more
likely to reject their parents' beliefs. The dismissing attachment style stems from
early experiences with primary attachment figures in which children learn that
they cannot depend on others (Bowlby, 1973). Individuals with a dismissing at-
tachment style are focused on self-sufficiency and may avoid and deny their need
for relationships as well as socially and emotionally withdraw (Bartholomew,
1990).
Several limitations of this study warrant mentioning. Given the contextual nature
of this research, the generalizability of the results is admittedly restricted. The sam-
ple comprised mostly White Southern university students in a "Bible Belt" commu-
nity with a narrow age range, and the findings may not be generalizable to university
students in other regions. Further limitations of this study include the low sample
sizes in some of the four attachment categories. This portion of the study could have
been improved by having a larger number of participants in each attachment style. In
addition, the assumptions that homophobia is nonproscribed in this sample and that
religious fundamentalism was socialized from parents were not directly tested and
are postulated based on the findings and previous research. Finally, self-report mea-
sures were utilized in this study and may not be true representations of the underlying
constructs. Whereas religiosity denotes allegiance to organized religion and its prac-
tices and beliefs, spirituality has been defined as an individual's relationship with a
 RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AND ATTACHMENT 155

higher being (Grimm, 1994; Rose, Westfeld, & Ansley, 2001) and may be a truer
measure of healthy religious experience. Future research could investigate if religi­
osity affects the proposed relationship between attachment and healthy adult coping
(Lopez, 1995), particularly focused on socialized values stemming from religiosity.
In addition, future research could be conducted with samples that represent a wider
range of religious orientations. Finally, future research should examine the interac­
tion of other variables with religious fundamentalism to attempt to account for more
variance in predicting homophobia.

REFERENCES
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (2003). Why do religious fundamentalists tend to be prejudiced? The International Jour­
nal for the Psychology of Religion, 13, 17-28.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and preju­
dice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113-133.
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 7, 147-178.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four cate­
gory model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.
Basow, S. A. (2000). Predictors of homophobia in female college students. Sex Roles: A Journal of Re­
search, 63,933-941.
Batson, C. D., Shoenrade, P., & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social-psychologi­
cal perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.
Brennan, Κ. Α., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An
integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relation­
ships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.
Collins, N. L., & Feeney, B. C. (2000). A safe haven: An attachment theory perspective on support giving
and caregiving in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,1053-1073.
Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dat­
ing couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1964). The approval motive: Studies in evaluative dependence. New
York: Wiley.
Donahue, M. J., (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48,400-419.
Duck, R. J., & Hunsberger, B. (1999). Religious orientation and prejudice: The role of religious pro­
scription, right-wing authoritarianism, and social desirability. The International Journal for the Psy­
chology of Religion, 9, 157-179.
English, F. (1996). The lure of fundamentalism. Transactional Analysis, 26, 23-30.
Granqvist, P. (1998). Religiousness and perceived childhood attachment: On the question of compensa­
tion or correspondence. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 350-367.
Granqvist, P. (2002). Attachment and religiosity in adolescence: Cross-sectional and longitudinal eval­
uations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 260-270.
Granqvist, P., & Hagekull, B. (1999). Religiousness and perceived childhood attachment: Profiling so­
cialized correspondence and emotional compensation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
38, 254-273.
156 SCHWARTZ AND LINDLEY

Griffen, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Models of the self and others: Fundamental dimensions under­
lying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 430-445.
Grimm, D. W. (1994). Therapist spiritual and religious values in psychotherapy. Counseling and
Values, 38, 154-164.
Hazan, C , & Shaver, R. S. (1987). Romantic love conceptualizations as an attachment process. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511-524.
Herek, G. M. (1984). Attitudes towards lesbians and gay men: A factor analytic study. Journal of Ho­
mosexuality, 10, 39-51.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. (1996). "Some of my best friends": Intergroup contact, concealable
stigma, and heterosexuals' attitude toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22,412-424.
Hunsberger, B. (1996). Religious fundamentalism, right-wing authoritarianism, and hostility toward
homosexuals in non-Christian religious groups. The International Journal for the Psychology of Re­
ligion, 6, 39-49.
Hunsberger, B., Pratt, M., & Prancer, S. (1994). Religious fundamentalism and religious doubts: Con­
tent, connection, and complexity of thinking. The International Journal for the Psychology of Reli­
gion, 33, 335-346.
Kemp, Μ. Α., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1999). Interpersonal attachment: Experiencing, expressing, and cop­
ing with stress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 388-394.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1989). A psychometric analysis of the Allport-Ross and Feagin measures of intrin­
sic-extrinsic religious orientation. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 1, 1-31.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1992). An attachment-theory approach to the psychology of religion. The Interna­
tional Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2, 3-28
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993). Fundamentalism, Christian orthodoxy, and intrinsic religious orientation as
predictors of discriminatory attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 256-268.
Kirkpatrick, L. Α., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four-year pro­
spective study. Personal Relationships, 1, 123-142.
Kirkpatrick, L. Α., & Shaver, P. R. (1992). An attachment-theoretical approach to romantic love and re­
ligious belief. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 1, 266-275.
Kite, M. (1994). When perceptions meet reality: Individual differences in reactions to lesbians and gay
men. In B. Green & G. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical ap­
plications (pp. 25^8). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kunce, L. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). An attachment-theoretical approach to caregiving in romantic rela­
tionships. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol. 5, pp.
205-237). London: Kingsley.
Laythe, B., Finkel, D., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2001). Predicting prejudice from religious fundamental­
ism and right-wing authoritarianism: A multiple-regression approach. Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 40, 1-10.
Lopez, F. G. (1995). Contemporary attachment theory: An introduction with implications for counsel­
ing psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 23, 395-415.
McFarland, S. G. (1989). Religious orientations and the targets of discrimination. Journalfor the Scien­
tific Study of Religion, 28, 324-336.
Mikulincer, M., Gillath, O., Halevy, V., Avihou, N., Avidan, S., & Eshkoli, N. (2001). Attachment the­
ory and reactions to others' needs: Evidence that activation of the sense of attachment security pro­
motes empathie responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1205-1224.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2001). Attachment theory and intergroup bias: Evidence that priming
the secure base schema attenuates negative reactions to out-groups. Journal of Personality and So­
cial Psychology, 81, 97-115.
O'Neil, J. M. (1981). Male sex-role conflicts, sexism, and masculinity: Psychological implications for
men, women, and the counseling psychologist. The Counseling Psychologist, 9, 61-81.
 RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM AND ATTACHMENT 157

Parrot, D J , Adams, H E , & Zeichner, A (2002) Homophobia Personality and attitudinal correlates
Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1269-1278
Plugge-Foust, C , & Strickland, G (2000) Homophobia, irrationality, and Christian ideology Does a
relationship exist Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 25, 240-244
Rose, Ε M , Westfeld, J S , & Ansley, Τ Ν (2001) Spiritual issues in counseling Clients' beliefs and
preferences Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 61-71
Sharie, E , & Bartholomew, Κ (1994) Reliability and stability of adult attachment patterns Personal
Relationships, 1, 23-43
Twenge, J M (1997) Attitudes towards women, 1970-1995 A meta-analysis Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 21, 35-51
VanderStoep, S W, & Green, C W (1988) Religiosity and homonegatism A path-analytic study Ba­
sic and Applied Social Psychology, 9, 135-147
Wright, L W, Adams, Η Ε , & Bernât, J (1999) Development and validation of the Homophobia
Scale Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 21, 337-347
Young, R Κ, Gallaher, Ρ E , Marno«, S , & Kelly, J (1993) Reading about AIDS and cognitive cop­
ing style Their effects on fear of AIDS and homophobia Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23,
911-924
Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.