MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE

2019, VOL. 22, NO. 1, 1–11

https://doi.org/10.1080/13674676.2018.1562429

Attachment style, attachment to God, religiosity, and moral

disengagement: a study on offenders
Giulio D’Urso , Irene Petruccelli and Ugo Pace
Faculty of Human and Social Science, “Kore” University of Enna, Enna, Italy

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The present study investigates religiosity, moral disengagement, Received 2 December 2018
attachment to God, and interpersonal attachment in 30 offenders Accepted 19 December 2018
within Italian jails. We administered a semi-structured interview to
KEYWORDS
collect data about family, social and medical history, and the Offenders; moral
manner in which the deviant act was carried out; the Moral disengagement; religiosity;
Disengagement Scale; the Attachment to God Inventory; the interpersonal attachment;
Revised Intrinsic/Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale; and the attachment to God
Attachment Style Questionnaire. Results show how intrinsic
religiosity negatively predicts moral disengagement; the
“Preoccupation with Relationships” Scale (anxious/ambivalent
attachment) predicts avoidant attachment to God; and the
“Secondariety for Relationship” Scale (dismissing attachment)
predicts personal extrinsic religiosity and negatively predicts
intrinsic religiosity. Studying these constructs in offenders is
important not only to increase the literature but also to
implement interventions aimed at reeducation focused on issues
relevant to personal adjustment.

Introduction
In literature, many studies have analysed religious beliefs and attitudes in groups of people
living in extended contexts or total institutions (e.g., prisons). In these studies, religion was
sometimes considered by prisoners to be a useful means of adjustment, a form of social
support (Eshuys & Smallbone, 2006; Koenig, 1995, 1998). It is relevant to clarify that
psychological literature differentiates between attachment to God and religiosity (Pace,
Zappulla, & Di Maggio, 2016). The former construct, which has been the subject of
more recent studies than the latter, is linked to the figurative bond with the divine
support sought (Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1990); religiosity is a construct that promotes
social action (Allport, 1961; Allport & Ross, 1967).
In particular, relatively to attachment to God, Bowlby’s (1969, 1973) model, according to
some authors, may explain how religion
can play an important role in many adult lives due to its ability to function as a relationship of
attachment. Although the evidence depicting religion as a haven of safety and comfort seems
persuasive (if the point weren’t obvious already), it is perhaps the secure base aspect of attach-
ment that is particularly interesting with respect to religion. (Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1990, p. 319)

CONTACT Giulio D’Urso durso.giulio@icloud.com

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. D’URSO ET AL.

In this sense, these authors conceptualise styles of attachment to God based on the model
proposed by Bowlby (1969, 1973) and attachment theorists. In this sense, God can act as a
secure base, as a substitutive figure that serves as support, reassurance, need protection, and
a source of aid during particularly stressful situations; in other words, the divine figure can
represent a safe place to deposit hopes, fears, desires, and problems with the feeling of
being welcomed, listened to, and consoled (Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1992; Pace, Cacioppo, &
Schimmenti, 2011). The study conducted by Kirkpatrick and Shaver (1992) showed how a
person’s relationship with God can take the form of an attachment relationship similar to
that found in investigations on a child’s perception of the caregiver according to the attach-
ment theory model (secure, avoidant, or ambivalent). In other words, the perceived relation-
ship with God is similar to the provisions offered by attachment relationships (Kirkpatrick,
1998). Cassibba, Granqvist, Costantini, and Gatto (2008) suggested that a personal relation-
ship with a spiritual reference figure (e.g., God) can be configured as attachment, even if this
figure does not have a physical body. Therefore, in line with attachment theory (Bowlby,
1973, 1969), which suggests that internal working models predict insecure and anxious
attachment styles, in literature, it is possible to distinguish two attachment styles to God:
avoidant (God is generally impersonal, distant, and often seems to have little or no interest in
my personal affairs and problems. I frequently have the feeling that He doesn’t care very much
about me, or that he might not like me) and anxious-ambivalent (God seems to be inconsist-
ent in His reactions to me; He sometimes seems very warm and responsive to my needs, but
sometimes not. I’m sure that He loves me and cares about me, but sometimes He seems to
show it in ways I don’t really understand). (Rowatt & Kirkpatrick, 2002, p. 639)

For a long time, the literature underlined how religious beliefs have a compensatory func-
tion for personal lack of secure interpersonal attachments (Kirkpatrick, 1997). Specifically,
many studies have emphasized how appropriate attachments to significant figures are a posi-
tive predictor of a healthy attachment to God (Beck & McDonald, 2004; Granqvist & Kirkpatrick,
2008; Kirkpatrick, 1999, 2005). In other words, the relationship patterns manifested in interper-
sonal attachment with significant figures are also related to the link to God.
Indeed, a substantial amount of research has suggested that a relationship of trust
toward parents and other significant persons is related to a secure relationship with
God, which has the same positive characteristics of the relationships established with care-
givers (e.g., Dickie et al., 1997; McDonald, Beck, Norsworthy, & Allison, 2005; Pace et al.,
2014). Therefore, a recent investigation conducted by Crea, Baiocco, Ioverno, and Buzzi
(2015), involving adolescent participants, suggested that insecure interpersonal attach-
ment predicts insecure and anxious attachment to God.
Regarding the construct of religiosity, Allport (1961), explaining those mechanisms that
are sometimes justified by religion (e.g., prejudice, goodness, tolerance, etc.), underlined
the existence of two religious sentiments: intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. Allport and
Ross (1967) highlighted how extrinsic religiosity is characterised as “religion that primarily
serves other more ultimate ends rather than central religious beliefs per se” (p. 434). It
improves self-confidence, derived from the infantile needs of security, comfort, and ethno-
centrism. A person who has a strong extrinsic religiosity turns to God without departing
from his/her own self. Intrinsic religiosity allows people to use religion for their own pur-
poses and needs. However, religious beliefs are embraced selectively in the most appro-
priate way for collimating with personal needs. Intrinsic religiosity also functions to satisfy
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 3

the needs of security, social affirmation, and self-esteem (Passanisi, Craparo, & Pace, 2017;
Zappulla, Pace, Lo Cascio, Guzzo, & Huebner, 2013). This type of religiosity, which is lived in
depth, considers faith as having value in itself, transcends personal interests, and implies
commitment and sacrifice. Therefore, from intrinsic religiosity, a person receives a charge
toward a constant overcoming of him/herself. This type of religiosity allows the individual
to feel the stimuli coming from the outside and to consequently transform the level of per-
sonality. It provokes in the person a total acceptance of self from which springs a progress-
ive self-transcendence. Intrinsic religiosity motivates a person to pursue an involved and
committed religious life. Intrinsic religiosity leads people to find in faith one of the main
reasons for living. In other words, having married a creed, people are strongly committed
to following and internalising it (Fizzotti, 2008).
An important study conducted by Koenig (1995), carried out on groups of prisoners,
framed intrinsic religion as a factor linked to personal adjustment. The same study
suggested that religious background and intrinsic religiosity influence behaviours, beliefs,
and internal forces that serve for psychosocial adjustment. In other words, religion rep-
resents a relevant factor to the adjustment and behaviour of prisoners. Therefore, religion
can be seen as an instrument that promotes social action, as well as moral disengagement.
If, on the one hand, religion serves to maintain a proper relationship with the self, moral dis-
engagement helps to modulate the self declined in various contexts and situations.
Therefore, moral disengagement can be connected to the instrumental use of religion.
In particular, the literature suggested that offenders use strategies to break free from the
ethical code imposed by society (D’Urso, Petruccelli, & Pace, 2018; Passanisi & Pace, 2017;
Petruccelli et al., 2017a, 2017b). Moral disengagement, indeed, represents a self-regulatory
mechanism that Bandura (1986, 1999) defined to explain how people become free of the
self-sanctions and added guilt that would succeed when behaviour infringes on internal
and ethical values.
In line with Bandura’s (1999) theory, it is possible to highlight how a person’s moral dis-
engagement can be conveyed and, therefore, can come from various sources. In other
words, moral disengagement can be derived from socially learned cognitive and social
characteristics, as well as being a factor that a person can use to use justify deviant action
(D’Urso, Petruccelli, Costantino, Zappulla, & Pace, 2018a, 2018b). In particular, for
offenders, it is possible that some social constructs (e.g., beliefs) can be considered risk
factors for moral disengagement because they can influence the thinking according to
which the deviant action can be justified. The literature, however, has poorly investigated
the relationship between religiosity and moral disengagement. Therefore, in line with Kirk-
patrick (1997), who suggested that the construct of religiosity should also include beliefs,
values, and spiritual experiences, and in line with literature that has considered religion as
an agent of social control (Durkheim, 1951), the present study (1) aims to investigate the
relationship between religiosity (intrinsic and extrinsic) and moral disengagement in
detained and sentenced persons. In particular, we expect that extrinsic religiosity, which
generally serves to justify one’s actions, is more connected to moral disengagement, in
line with the literature (e.g., Baiocco et al., 2015; Dickie et al., 1997; McDonald et al., 2005).
Additionally, the study (2) aims to verify if the type of interpersonal attachment is connected
to the type of attachment to God. Specifically, an adequate interpersonal attachment is
expected to be a positive predictor of a secure attachment to God. Finally, the study (3)
aims to verify if there exists a connection between religiosity and adult attachment.
4 G. D’URSO ET AL.

Considering, that the literature emphasizes that intrinsic religion is characterised by exclu-
sive faith and therefore an intense bond with God (Allport & Ross, 1967), secure attachment
is expected to be positively associated with religiosity, especially intrinsic religiosity.

Method
Procedure and participants
After permission from the Department of Penitentiary Administration (DPA) was
obtained, the penitentiary heads were contacted, followed by the educational sector
of the penitentiary in order to identify detainees who could be asked to participate in
the research. All participants were informed about the aim of the study and assured
that it would be completely anonymous. After the participants accepted, they signed
an informed consent form in order to guarantee their privacy and the anonymity of
their personal information. After a semi-structured interview was conducted with every
participant, the Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ), the Revised Intrinsic/Extrinsic
Religious Orientation Scale (ROS I-E/R), and the Moral Disengagement Scale (MDS)
were individually administered to all participants. All procedures that involved human
participants were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional
and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later
amendments or comparable ethical standards.
The participants of this study were 30 volunteer young-adult offenders (Mage = 20.23;
SDage = 1.32; age range = 18–22) that were recruited in Italian penal institutes. Regarding
their family background, 10 participants came from a very religious family, two participants
had a violent father, three participants had parents with an authoritarian educational style,
four participants had unloving parents, seven participants had a poor and/or traumatic
childhood, and four participants had protective parents.

Measure
The semi-structured interview was extrapolated and structured using a template based on a
research form model for collecting information relating to an offence developed by De Leo,
Petruccelli, and Pedata (2004). It is not a diagnostic instrument but rather a form of data col-
lection previously used in some research areas. The information collected refers to family,
social and medical histories, and the manner in which the deviant act was perpetrated.
The Moral Disengagement Scale (MDS; Caprara, Barbaranelli, Vicino, & Bandura, 1996)
measures the mechanisms of moral disengagement and is made up of eight subscales
assessing the eight mechanisms identified by Bandura (1986): moral justification, euphe-
mistic labeling, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of
responsibility, disregarding or distorting the consequences, dehumanization, and attribu-
tion of blame. It is composed of 32 items (“A kid who only suggests breaking rules should
not be blamed if other kids go ahead and do it”; “Damaging some property is no big deal
when you consider that others are beating people up”). Participants were asked to rate
their agreement with items using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “completely dis-
agree” (1) to “completely agree” (5). For the present study we used the scale related to
general moral disengagement (α = .89).
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 5

The Attachment to God Inventory (AGI; Beck & McDonald, 2004) is a self-report question-
naire composed of 28 items rated on a five-point Likert scale (from 1 = “never true”, to 5
= “always true”), which consists of a measure of attachment to God, based on the classic
model of attachment styles. It is composed of 28 items that measure two dimensions:
Anxiety about Abandonment and Avoidance of Intimacy. Indeed, it is divided in two
scales of anxiety of abandonment (e.g., “I worry a lot about my relationship with God”;
α = .91) and avoidance of intimacy (e.g., “I do not feel a profound need to be near God”;
α = .88). High scores on the first scale describe the need for self-affirmation and indepen-
dence of the subject but also the difficulty of having an intimate and emotionally involving
relationship with God. High values on the Avoidance of Intimacy Scale describe the fear of
feeling to be abandoned by God and desire to be accepted by Him but also feelings of
anger and jealousy toward a perceived God who is not always reliable.
The Revised Intrinsic/Extrinsic Religious Orientation Scale (ROS I-E/R; Gorsuch & McPherson,
1989), is a self-report measure of two dimensions of religiosity. This questionnaire contains 14
questions rated on a five-point Likert-type scale (1 = “strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”).
Two final total scores represent two categories: extrinsic or intrinsic religiosity. There are six
questions that measure the two-extrinsic dimensions of religiosity (personal, e.g., “I mainly
pray for help and protection”; α = .90), and social, e.g., “I attend the church / mosque
because it helps me to meet other people”; α = .92) and eight questions that measure intrinsic
religiosity (e.g., “it is important for me to spend time in meditation and prayer”; α = .85).
The Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Fossati et al., 2003) is a self-report question-
naire aimed at evaluating adult attachment. The questionnaire consists of 40 items (eval-
uated on a six-point Likert scale), which constitute five scales: (1) Confidence/Faith Scale,
which reflects a style of secure attachment (α = .80). (2) “Discomfort with Intimacy” Scale,
which characterises the fundamental element of avoiding attachment as proposed by
Hazan and Shaver (1987; α = .78). (3) “Need of Approval” Scale, which reflects the need
for acceptance and confirmation by others and corresponds to the fearful and worried
attachment styles of Bartholomew (1990; α = .85). (4) “Preoccupation with Relationship”
Scale, which refers to an anxious and addictive tendency in relationships, which is the
nuclear feature of the conceptualisation of anxious / ambivalent attachment proposed
by Hazan and Shaver (1987; α = .87). (5) “Secondariety for Relationship” Scale, which out-
lines the type of dismissing attachment, as proposed by Bartholomew (1990; α = .82).

Results
We conducted a series of regression analyses using SPSS version 22. All results are shown
in Table 1.

Relationship between religiosity and moral disengagement

The regression analyses showed that only intrinsic religiosity negatively predicts moral dis-
engagement (R 2 = .27, F (2,29) = 10,19; p < .05; ß = −.52, t = −3.20).

Relationship between attachment style and attachment to God

The first model of regression - in which we inserted the ASQ Scales as predictors and
avoidant attachment to God as the dependent variable - showed significant results
6 G. D’URSO ET AL.

(R 2 = .20, F(2,29) = 3.33; p < .05) with the “Preoccupation with Relationships” Scale as the
only positive predictor of avoidant attachment to God (ß = .44; t = 2.38; p < .05).
The second model of regression - in which we inserted the ASQ Scales as predictors and
anxious attachment to God as the dependent variable - did not show significant results.

Relationship between attachment style and religiosity

The first model of regression - in which we inserted the ASQ Scales as predictors and per-
sonal extrinsic religiosity as the dependent variable - showed significant results (R 2 = .30, F
(2,29) = 3.21; p < .05), with the “Secondariety’ for Relationship” Scale as a positive predictor
(ß = .50; t = 2.02; p = < .05).
The second model of regression - in which we inserted the ASQ Scales as predictors and
social extrinsic religiosity as the dependent variable - did not show significant results.
The third model of regression - in which we inserted the ASQ Scales as predictors and
intrinsic religiosity as the dependent variable - showed significant results (R 2 = .20, F (2,29)
= 2.94; p = .05), with the “Secondariety for Relationship” Scale as a negative predictor (ß =
−.71; t = .2.90; p = < .05).

Table 1. Results of the models.

Independent Intrinsic
variables religiosity Preoccupation with relationships Secondariety for relationship
Anxious Avoidant Personal Social
Dependent Moral attachment to attachment to extrinsic extrinsic Intrinsic
variables disengagement God God religiosity religiosity religiosity
β −.52* .05 .44* .50* .20 −.71*
R2 .27 .00 .20 .30 .00 .20
Note: * p < . 05.

Discussion and conclusions

Our study, carried out on a group of offenders charged with crime, wished to investigate,
primarily, whether religiosity influences moral disengagement. We expected that extrinsic
religiosity would be connected to moral disengagement because, probably, the detainees,
having committed crimes, could use religiosity as a way to justify their own deviant action
(s) and therefore exhibit, in line with Bandura’s (1999) model, mechanisms of moral disen-
gagement. Instead, contrary to our first hypothesis, the results show that only intrinsic reli-
giosity negatively predicts moral disengagement. The data deserve attention because they
suggest that low levels of intrinsic religiosity, which is the most profound and frames the
faith or relationship with God fundamental to one’s own existence, explain high levels of
moral disengagement. In other words, people who have an authentic and profound faith
are not used to using mechanisms that help them break free from social rules. Probably,
perpetrators of crimes, who had the opportunity to reflect on their actions during their
imprisonment, also helped by their religiousness, understood that it was no longer necess-
ary to use mechanisms that justified their deviant actions. Therefore, in line with the con-
struct of intrinsic religiosity (Allport, 1961; Allport & Ross, 1967), it is possible that the
person, living an intrinsic religiosity, which is strongly linked to commitment and
sacrifice and configuring faith as a value, can be in a state of complete acceptance of
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 7

his/her self and his/her actions. Consequently, the prisoner does not feel the need to justify
his/her actions, because he/she already feels better by having deeply devoted him/herself
to faith and religion. Additionally, it is not a coincidence that inmates often find refuge in
faith and religion, a useful means to expiate their faults and sometimes also to reduce rates
of recidivism (e.g., Froese & Bader, 2010; Thomas & Zaitzow, 2006).
Secondly, we verified whether the quality of interpersonal attachment was related to an
attachment to God. Contrary to our hypothesis, the “Preoccupation with Relationships”
Scale, which indicates a tendency toward interpersonal anxious ambivalent attachment,
predicts avoidant attachment to God. In line with attachment theory (Ainsworth, Blehar,
Waters, & Wall, 2015), it is possible that this style of attachment can lead a person to
develop a fear of abandonment, as well as feelings of distrust. However, these feelings
can lead a person to develop internal working models based on avoidance and distrust
of other possible attachment figures (e.g., God).
Moreover, following the conceptualisation of Hazan and Shaver (1987), anxious/
ambivalent attachment is characterised by an obsessive attitude toward the partner
and extreme jealousy. Therefore, the person worried about the relationship might not
recognise the other’s willingness and thus lives inclined toward separation anxiety. A
person with an avoidant attachment to God generally does not care about his/her relation-
ship with God. Therefore, it is possible that a person who is too worried about the relation-
ship, who therefore lives with the fear of losing the secure base in the interpersonal
relationship, does not bother to keep alive a link with the divine figure. In particular, an
offender, who is mostly worried about losing the bonds established outside the prison,
can be less attached to God and cannot find comfort from other relationships (e.g., with
the divine figure).
Finally, we tested the role of interpersonal attachment in intrinsic religiosity and extrin-
sic religiosity. Our results highlight how the “Secondariety for Relationship” Scale, which
indicates a tendency to a dismiss attachment, negatively predicts intrinsic religiosity
and positively predicts personal extrinsic religiosity. The dismissing style, as theorised
by Bartholomew (1990), is characterised by a positive self-model and a model that per-
ceives the other as negative. People who tend to fall into this category have adequate
self-confidence but, at the same time, are inclined to devalue relationships and avoid inti-
macy and are disinterested in the opinions of others, even when they are negative; they
prefer to feel less involved because they do not want to remain too enmeshed in interper-
sonal relationships. Indeed, intimate relationships are often lacking in proximity and com-
munication. Therefore, referring to our results, it is possible that a person who is not
already inclined toward affective interpersonal involvement and also devaluing toward
relationships does not feel the need to manifest a strong religiosity and therefore a
deep bond with faith (intrinsic religiosity). Furthermore, our relevant data suggest that
high scores on the “Secondariety for Relationship” Scale are related to personal extrinsic
religiosity. These data could indicate that the offender, to maintain a positive image of
him/herself, to try to maintain a bond, and to feel protected and/or helped, can leverage
personal extrinsic religiosity, which is what the person often “exploits” to satisfy his/her
needs (Allport, 1961; Allport & Ross, 1967).
The present study, as well as extending literature, suggests that religiosity, attachment to
God, and interpersonal attachment are constructs connected to each other, although rele-
gated to a limited group of offenders. However, this study underlines that it is important to
8 G. D’URSO ET AL.

pay attention to the offender, who is sometimes forgotten in prisons, to understand how his/
her mental functioning changes throughout the course of his/her detention, as well as the
protective factors he/she clings to during adjustment. Sometimes, indeed, attachment to
God and religiosity can be seen as protective factors linked to a better detention path, as
well as connected to adequate social-relational norms. Furthermore, this contribution
suggests the importance of focusing on the constructs studied to implement intervention
strategies aimed at reeducation. Educating for religiosity and for the possible creation of
a bond with God can represent a possible way for social reintegration for convicted
offenders. In other words, if the offenders are guided by religious belief, they will probably
develop characteristics - sometimes dormant – that are closely linked to pro-sociality and
altruistic thinking. Religiosity must be understood in the deepest sense. Therefore, the
link with one’s own God may compensate for the social and cognitive problems of the
offenders. Religiosity becomes a tool to reflect on one’s actions and on distorted beliefs,
to reduce violence and deviant instincts, and to prevent crimes from being committed
again (Benda, 2002). Indeed, several studies have underlined that implementing religious
paths in prisons is useful to prevent relapse (Froese & Bader, 2010).
However, the present study presents some limitations. The first is linked to the use of
self-report questionnaires. It is possible that the information was influenced by the social
desirability of the participants. Future studies could investigate the same constructs with
implicit measurement tools. Subsequently, despite the difficulties associated with finding
offenders, the small number of participants does not allow for the generalisation of results
to the entire prison population. Furthermore, the variables studied were evaluated at the
same time; it would be advisable to check the results obtained in several waves, as well as
to consider the duration of the detention and the role of intergroup support as variables
(Pace, D’Urso, & Zappulla, 2018, 2019). Moreover, it could be useful to verify if the attach-
ment to God could be influenced by the psychological condition derived from the
detention.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID
Giulio D’Urso http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1144-7222

References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. N. (2015). Patterns of attachment: A psychological
study of the strange situation. London: Psychology Press.
Allport, G. W. (1961). The individual and his religion. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. doi:10.1037/h0021212
Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373. doi:10.1521/jscp.1986.4.3.359
Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 9

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 7(2), 147–178. doi:10.1177/0265407590072001
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, 92–103. doi:10.1177/009164710403200202
Benda, B. B. (2002). Religion and violent offenders in boot camp: A structural equation model. Journal
of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(1), 91–121. doi:10.1177/002242780203900104
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Volume 1. Attachment. London: The Hogarth Press and the
Institute of Psycho-Analysis.
Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Vicino, S., & Bandura, A. (1996). La misura del disimpegno morale [The
assessment of moral disengagement]. Rassegna di Psicologia, 13(1), 93–105.
Crea, G., Baiocco, R., Ioverno, S., & Buzzi, G. (2015). Attachmet to God, attachment to parents/peers,
and religious attitude among Italian adolescents. Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 19(3), 393–410.
Cassibba, R., Granqvist, P., Costantini, A., & Gatto, S. (2008). Attachment and god representations
among lay Catholics, priests, and religious: A matched comparison study based on the adult
attachment interview. Developmental Psychology, 44(6), 1753–1763. doi:10.1037/a0013772
De Leo, G., Petruccelli, I., & Pedata, L. T. (2004). I minori devianti e l’influenza del gruppo nelle azioni
violente [Deviant adolescents and the influence of groups on violent action]. Terapia Familiare, 75,
21–44.
Dickie, J. R., Eshleman, A. K., Merasco, D. M., Shepard, A., Wilt, M. V., & Johnson, M. (1997). Parent-child
relationships and children’s images of God. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 25–43.
doi:10.2307/1387880
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. New York, NY: Free Press.
D’Urso, G., Petruccelli, I., Costantino, V., Zappulla, C., & Pace, U. (2018a). The role of moral disengage-
ment and cognitive distortions toward children among sex offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and
Law. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13218719.2018.1506718
D’Urso, G., Petruccelli, I., Grilli, S., & Pace, U. (2018b). Risk factors related to cognitive distortions
toward women and moral disengagement: A study on sex offenders. Sexuality & Culture.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s12119-018-9572-9
D’Urso, G., Petruccelli, I., & Pace, U. (2018). Drug use as risk factor of moral disengagement: A study on
drug traffickers and offenders against other persons. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 25(3), 417–
424. doi:10.1080/13218719.2018.1437092
Eshuys, D., & Smallbone, S. (2006). Religious affiliations among adult sexual offenders. Sexual Abuse: A
Journal of Research and Treatment, 18(3), 279–288. doi:10.1177/107906320601800306
Fizzotti, E. (2008). Introduzione alla psicologia della religione [Introduction to the psychology of reli-
gion]. Milano, Italy: Franco Angeli.
Fossati, A., Feeney, J. A., Donati, D., Donini, M., Novella, L., Bagnato, M., … Maffei, C. (2003). On the
dimensionality of the attachment style questionnaire in Italian clinical and nonclinical participants.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20(1), 55–79. doi:10.1177/02654075030201003
Froese, P., & Bader, C. (2010). America’s four Gods: What we say about God–and what that says about
us. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised and single-item
scales. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 348–354. doi:10.2307/1386745
Granqvist, P., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2008). Attachment and religious representations and behavior. In J.
Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications
(2nd ed., pp. 906–933). New York, NY: Guilford.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). A longitudinal study of changes in religious beliefs and behavior as a function
of individual differences in adult attachment style. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36,
207–217. doi:10.2307/1387553
10 G. D’URSO ET AL.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1998). God as a substitute attachment figure: A longitudinal study of adult attach-
ment style and religious change in college students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24
(9), 961–973. doi:10.1177/0146167298249004
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1999). Attachment and religious representations and behavior. In J. Cassidy & P. R.
Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 803–822).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2005). Attachment, evolution, and the psychology of religion. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1990). Attachment theory and religion: Childhood attachments, reli-
gious belief, and conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 315–334. doi:10.2307/
1386461
Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Shaver, P. R. (1992). An attachment theoretical approach to romantic love and
religious belief. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 266–275. doi:10.1177/
0146167292183002
Koenig, H. G. (1995). Religion and older men in prison. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 10
(3), 219–230. doi:10.1002/gps.930100308
Koenig, H. G. (1998). Religious attitudes and practices of hospitalized medically ill older adults.
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 13(4), 213–224. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1166
(199804)13:4<213::AID-GPS755>3.0.CO;2-5
McDonald, A., Beck, R., Norsworthy, L., & Allison, S. (2005). Attachment to God and parents-testing the
correspondence vs. compensation hypotheses. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 24, 21–28.
Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.462.7961&rep=
rep1&type=pdf
Pace, U., Cacioppo, M., & Schimmenti, A. (2011). Spiritualità, religiosità e attaccamento nell’adatta-
mento psicologico in adolescenza [Spirituality, religiosity and attachment in psychological adap-
tation in adolescence]. Infanzia e Adolescenza, 10(3), 169–180. Retrieved from http://eprints.bice.
rm.cnr.it/8960/
Pace, U., D’Urso, G., & Zappulla, C. (2018). Negative eating attitudes and behaviors among adoles-
cents: The role of parental control and perceived peer support. Appetite, 121, 77–82. doi:10.
1016/j.appet.2017.11.001
Pace, U., D’Urso, G., & Zappulla, C. (2019). Internalizing problems as a mediator in the relationship
between lack of control and internet abuse in adolescence: A three-wave longitudinal study.
Computer in Human Behavior, 92, 47–54. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.10.030
Pace, U., Zappulla, C., & Di Maggio, R. (2016). The mediating role of perceived peer support in the
relation between quality of attachment and internalizing problems in adolescence: A longitudinal
perspective. Attachment and Human Development, 18, 508–524. doi:10.1080/14616734.2016.
1198919
Pace, U., Zappulla, C., Guzzo, G., Di Maggio, R., Laudani, C., & Cacioppo, M. (2014). Internet addiction,
temperament, and the moderator role of family emotional involvement. International Journal of
Mental Health and Addiction, 12, 52–63. doi:10.1007/s11469-013-9468-8
Passanisi, A., Craparo, G., & Pace, U. (2017). Magical thinking and decision-making strategies among
late adolescent regular gamblers: A mediation model. Journal of Adolescence, 59, 51–58. doi:10.
1016/j.adolescence.2017.05.016
Passanisi, A., & Pace, U. (2017). The unique and common contributions of impulsivity and decision-
making strategies among young adult Italian regular gamblers. Personality and Individual
Differences, 105, 24–29. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.029
Petruccelli, I., Barbaranelli, C., Costantino, V., Gherardini, A., Grilli, S., Craparo, G., & D’Urso, G. (2017b).
Moral disengagement and psychopathy: A study on offenders in Italian jails. Psychiatry, Psychology
and Law, 24(5), 670–681. doi:10.1080/13218719.2017.1291291
Petruccelli, I., Simonelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., Grilli, S., Tripodi, M. F., & D’Urso, G. (2017a). Moral disen-
gagement strategies in sex offenders. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(3), 470–480. doi:10.1080/
13218719.2016.1252291
 MENTAL HEALTH, RELIGION & CULTURE 11

Rowatt, W., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2002). Two dimensions of attachment to God and their relation to
affect, religiosity, and personality constructs. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(4),
637–651. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00143
Thomas, J., & Zaitzow, B. H. (2006). Conning or conversion? The role of religion in prison coping. The
Prison Journal, 86(2), 242–259. doi:10.1177/0032885506287952
Zappulla, C., Pace, U., Lo Cascio, V., Guzzo, G., & Huebner, E. S. (2013). Factor structure and convergent
validity of the long and abbreviated versions of the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction
Scale in an Italian sample. Social Indicators Research, 118, 57–69. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0418-4
Copyright of Mental Health, Religion & Culture is the property of Routledge and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.