Lonely in church: The role of the God concept and attachment

Lonely in church: The role of the God concept and attachment | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Lonely in church: The role of the God concept and attachment Filip Meckovsky, Klara Malinakova, Peter Tavel This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8650761/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study aimed to investigate the relationship between religiosity and spirituality (R/S), the God concept, Attachment to God and loneliness among believers in the secular context of the Czech Republic. Data were collected from September 2023 to October 2024 on a sample of 5,202 participants aged 18 to 91 (31.1 ±14.2 years; 40.8% men). The Concept of God, Attachment to God (AGI), Loneliness (UCLA), Sensory Perception Sensitivity (SPSQ), Neuroticism and Extraversion (BFI) and religious attendance and affiliation were measured. The Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA, multiple linear regression and binomial logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Higher loneliness was associated with being a believer outside the church or a convinced atheist (OR = 1.30–1.33, p < .05), a negative concept of God (OR = 1.43, p < .05) and avoidant attachment to God (b = 0.09, p < .001). Lower loneliness was associated with a positive concept of God (OR = 0.76, p < .05), contrary to expectations, anxious attachment to God (b = -0.13, p < .001) and with regular church attendance (once or more times a week; OR = 0.61, p < .05) in the case of social loneliness. First, we found that church affiliation and regular attendance are associated with lower levels of loneliness, suggesting they serve as potential protective factors against loneliness. Second, our data indicate that believers are not a homogeneous group, as their level of loneliness depends on their concept of God and their attachment to God. Health sciences/Health care Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Loneliness Attachment to God God image Concept of God God’s representations Religiosity/Spirituality Introduction Despite being recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a critical determinant of health involved in recovery and well-being (Fisher, 2011 ; Katerndahl, 2008 ; Peng-Keller, 2022 ), the role of R/S is still rather overlooked in clinical public health practice (Saad et al., 2017 ). Religiosity and spirituality are distinct, yet related concepts often investigated together in research. Religiosity is typically defined as participation in organised religion, encompassing aspects like church membership and attendance (Koenig, 2012 ). In contrast, spirituality is understood as an individual’s subjective experience of connection to the transcendent (e.g., a relationship with God) and their search for meaning in life (Hill & Pargament, 2003 ). Both R/S have been linked to positive outcomes, such as increased life satisfaction (Yaden et al., 2022 ) and improved mental health (Koenig, 2012 ). Compared to other health-related aspects, the relationship between R/S and loneliness has received relatively little attention to date (Koenig et al., 2024 ; Lucchetti et al., 2021 ). Loneliness is the subjective feeling of a lack of close relationships and belonging to a group (De Jong Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 2006 ). It is proving to be a global problem (Surkalim et al., 2022 ) associated with serious health consequences (O’Sullivan et al., 2022 ) and with a risk of premature death comparable to obesity or substance abuse (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015 ). Active participation in religious activities significantly impacts the social dimensions of individuals’ lives (Koenig et al., 2024 ). This participation is associated with a greater sense of belonging (Baker & Miles-Watson, 2010 ), wider social networks (Lim & Putnam, 2010 ), greater social capital (Koenig, 2012 ), higher levels of civic engagement (Lewis et al., 2013 ), greater diversity of close friends (Porter & Emerson, 2013 ) and even participation in non-religious community groups (Chen et al., 2021 ). Therefore, religious practice is often recommended to the older generation, where it is shown to be an important protective factor (Gray, 2009 ; Kobayashi et al., 2009 ; O’Maoileidigh et al., 2023 ) and as an intervention against loneliness in different religious contexts (Pandya, 2021 ; Sedlackova et al., 2024 ; Wijesiri et al., 2019 ). In prospective studies, those with higher religious attendance showed a reduction in loneliness in the years that followed (Chen et al., 2021 ; Pawlikowski et al., 2019 ). However, a closer examination reveals that believers are not a homogeneous group. For instance, in the study of Hastings ( 2016 ), spiritual but not religious (SNR) and religious attendees demonstrate stronger social connectedness than religious non-attendees. Furthermore, social isolation varies by denomination: e.g., people practising faiths outside of Protestantism or Catholicism reported feeling more isolated than those with no religious affiliation (Yang & Nino, 2023 ). These results underscore the need for more nuanced research that emphasises differentiation by religious affiliation and attendance, as mentioned across studies (Gemar, 2024 ; Hastings, 2016 ; Rokach et al., 2012 ; Yang & Nino, 2023 ). Research on R/S has recently highlighted the need for detailed specification of the groups studied, acknowledging differences based on sociocultural (e.g., influence of religious and secular countries) and individual factors, such as attachment style or perception of God (Kosarkova et al., 2020 ; Malinakova et al., 2020 ). Among these individual factors, God representations could be viewed as a highly important explanatory mechanism in the relationship between R/S and mental health, with recommendations to focus on these cognitive and emotional aspects rather than solely behavioural ones (Stulp et al., 2019 ). The cognitive (doctrinal) concept of God includes theological and intellectual beliefs about God and God’s attributes. The emotional (experiential) component, or so-called God image, expresses an individual’s personal experiences and feelings towards God (Davis et al., 2013 ). A meta-analysis by Stulp et al. ( 2019 ) demonstrates that a positive representation of God correlates with higher well-being and lower distress, with some impacts independent of religious denomination. Furthermore, lower loneliness was associated with positive perceptions of God in adult Muslim believers (Kaya & Yazıcı Çelebi, 2025 ), secure attachment to God among university students (Kirkpatrick et al., 1999 ) and satisfaction with a relationship to God among hospice patients (Scott et al., 2014 ). These findings underscore the importance of exploring individual representations of God in R/S and loneliness research. The Czech Republic presents a unique and compelling setting for religious research. It is consistently identified as one of the world’s most secular countries, with a high rate (72–76%) of religiously unaffiliated individuals (Hackett et al., 2012 , 2025 ). Furthermore, it ranks among the countries with the highest levels of loneliness in the world (Surkalim et al., 2022 ). In such secular contexts, the characteristics of religious individuals, where belief is not the norm, can entail challenges like “swimming against the current”. These may include reduced social support, experiences of stigma and feelings of loneliness or societal disconnection. Notably, research by Hayward and Elliott ( 2014 ) found that R/S is linked to adverse health outcomes in secular countries, whereas it is associated with positive health outcomes in predominantly religious countries. This disparity can be attributed to differing social norms and government policies. Therefore, we aim to investigate the relationship between R/S, the concept of God, attachment to God and loneliness among believers in the secular context of the Czech Republic. Methods Participants and procedure The data was collected using an online survey developed at the researcher’s institution. The questionnaire was distributed using a snowball technique from September 2023 to October 2024. Respondents were recruited through contacts of university students [Institution Redacted] as part of the educational component of their studies. To ensure high data quality from the online questionnaire, the following exclusion criteria were applied: 1) inconsistent responses to repeated questions on age, height and weight with a tolerance of a two-unit difference; 2) missing responses for key variables of interest; 3) filling-in the questionnaire too quickly (under 18 minutes for a survey which generally lasted about 45 minutes); 4) showing identical answers across at least three different questionnaires used in the study; 5) repeated submissions by the same individual. Altogether, 11968 people participated in the data collection, and 6766 were excluded due to the above-mentioned criteria. Therefore, the final sample comprised 5202 participants aged 18 to 91 (mean age = 31.1 years, SD = 14.2; 40.8% male). At the outset of the survey, participants were provided with written information outlining the study’s purpose, the methods of data anonymisation and the confidential handling of all collected information. Participation in this research was optional. Before starting the survey, respondents had to give explicit consent to all key aspects of the informed consent agreement. Participants could only advance to the next question after completing the current one, but they had the option to withdraw from the study at any time without justification. Before the primary study, a pilot study was conducted among volunteers at [Institution Redacted]. Measures Concept of God The concept of God was assessed using 11 adjectives preceded by the question, “How well do you think each of the following words describes God?” These adjectives (e.g., critical, distant, loving, just) were taken from the Baylor Religion Survey (Bader et al., 2007 ). Respondents selected from the possible answers: “very well” (1); “not very well” (2); “not at all (3)”. Items were subsequently dichotomised differently for positive and negative attributes, since people may find it more difficult to report negative attributes of God. Thus, for a score on the positive aspect, the respondent had to answer only “very well” (1), whereas for the negative aspects, “very well” (1) and “not very well” (2). Previous research has shown that the representation of God is a complex construct and that the categories of positive and negative are too narrow and not necessarily contradictory, though they can also be complementary (Sharp et al., 2015 ; Sharp et al., 2021 ; Stulp et al., 2019 ). Therefore, for further statistical analysis, we considered the following classification using only adjectives with clear emotional connotations. Respondents were summed across positive (forgiving, kind, loving) and negative categories (critical, distant, punishing, angry), and their representation was divided into low (0–1 scores) and high (2 or more). Subsequently, four categories of perceptions of God were created: Positive (high positive, low negative), Negative (high negative, low positive), Complex (high positive, high negative) and Indifferent (low positive, low negative). Attachment to God Attachment to God was assessed using a Czech shortened version (see Supplementary material S1) of the Attachment to God Inventory (AGI) (Beck & McDonald, 2004 ). This scale is based on the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) measure (Brennan et al., 1998 ) and comprises two dimensions related to attachment to God: Anxiety (reflecting fear of abandonment and low self-worth) and Avoidance (reflecting discomfort with intimacy and strong self-reliance/independence). The original AGI consists of 28 items, with responses rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “Strongly Disagree” (1) to “Strongly Agree” (7). For this study, we utilised a shortened Czech adaptation containing seven items three assessing Avoidance and four assessing Anxiety. Items were selected based on theoretical assessment regarding their suitability to measure our construct of interest while avoiding potential conceptual confusion. The resulting short scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency in the present sample. Cronbach’s alpha for the Avoidance subscale was 0.65, and for the Anxiety subscale 0.80. Based on the conceptual structure of the original instrument, items were grouped into two dimensions reflecting Anxiety and Avoidance. For analytical purposes, separate summary scores were computed for each dimension. Sensory processing sensitivity To assess Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS), we administered the Sensory Processing Sensitivity Questionnaire (SPSQ) developed by Malinakova et al. ( 2021 ). This 16-item instrument is divided into two primary subscales: the Sensory Sensitivity subscale, which covers reactions to physical stimuli like lights, sounds and smells, and the Other Sensitivity subscale, focusing on emotional reactivity and sensitivity to life experiences, such as sudden changes, the pursuit of harmony and reactions to criticism. Participants were asked to rate their sensitivity to these stimuli on a 10-point scale, indicating “1 = compared to others, I am not sensitive to them at all” to “10 = much more sensitive than the people around me”, with “5 = about the same as the people around me”. Total scores on the SPSQ range from 16 to 160, with higher scores reflecting greater overall sensitivity. The SPSQ demonstrated good internal consistency in our sample, with a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85. Loneliness Perceived loneliness was measured using the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (De Jong Gierveld & Kamphuis, 1985 ). This 11-item scale differentiates between emotional loneliness (comprising six negatively worded items, indicative of a lack of intimate relationships) and social loneliness (consisting of 5 positively worded items, reflecting a missing social network). Due to the different number of items for social and emotional loneliness, items are transformed to make them comparable. For each item, participants selected from “1 = yes”, “2 = more or less” or “3 = no”, a response format recommended for online data collection (De Jong Gierveld & Van Tilburg, 2006 ). A point was awarded for responses, including the “more or less” category, that indicated loneliness. Total scores ranged from 0 to 11, with higher scores signifying increased loneliness. We utilised a version of the scale adapted for the Czech context (Buchta et al., 2024 ). The scale exhibited acceptable to good internal consistency in our study, with Cronbach’s alpha for Overall loneliness = 0.84, for Emotional loneliness = 0.81 and for Social loneliness = 0.75. For subsequent statistical analysis, scores were dichotomised: scores of 0–2 indicated “not lonely”, while scores of 3 or more were classified as “lonely” for the overall, emotional and social loneliness scales (De Jong Gierveld & Tilburg, 1999 ). Neuroticism, Extraversion To assess Neuroticism and Extraversion, we used the subscales from the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999 ). Each subscale contains eight items. Participants rated their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from “1 = strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree”. Final scores for each subscale ranged from 8 to 40, with higher scores indicating higher levels of Neuroticism and Extraversion. Both subscales demonstrated high internal consistency within our sample, with Cronbach’s alpha values of 0.86 for Neuroticism and 0.87 for Extraversion. Religious attendance Religious attendance was measured as the frequency of attending church or religious sessions using the question “How often do you attend church or religious sessions?” Possible responses were: “more than once a week”, “I try to attend once a week”, “often, but not every week”, “occasionally” and “never”. For dichotomisation, regular attendees were those who reported attending once or more times a week. Sociodemographic characteristics, including gender (male/female), age, family status, religiosity, employment status and education level, were collected through the questionnaire. Statistical analysis We first described the sociodemographic characteristics of the study sample (gender, employment status, educational level, family status, religiosity and religious attendance) and the variables of interest (overall, emotional and social loneliness). To compare group differences in loneliness, nonparametric tests were used due to deviations from normality: the Mann–Whitney U test for gender, employment and family status (with rank biserial correlation for effect size) and the Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA for education, religiosity and religious attendance. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted using the Dwass–Steel–Critchlow–Fligner method, which corrects for family-wise error rate. In the next step, we conducted a multiple linear regression examining the associations of Concept of God and Attachment to God with overall, emotional and social loneliness, controlling for gender, age, education, Neuroticism, Extraversion and Sensory Processing Sensitivity. Finally, binomial logistic regressions assessed the relationships between religious attendance, the Concept of God and loneliness using the same covariates. The assumptions for linear regression were assessed for autocorrelation (Durbin–Watson test), multicollinearity (VIF) and the normal distribution of residuals (Q–Q plot), and for logistic regression, the multicollinearity (VIF) was evaluated. Results Table 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample and compares loneliness across different groups. Statistically significant differences in loneliness were observed across gender, employment status, education level and family status. Specifically, men, unemployed individuals, those with only an elementary education and individuals without a partner reported higher levels of loneliness. No significant difference was observed in social loneliness in terms of employment status. Regarding religiosity, church members reported significantly lower levels of overall, emotional and social loneliness than convinced atheists and lower levels of social loneliness than believers outside the church. For religiosity attendance among believers, a significant difference was found only in social loneliness. Individuals who never attended religious services reported feeling more socially lonely than those who attended more than once a week. INSERT TABLE 1 HERE Table 2 displays the results of multiple linear regressions examining the associations between Concept of God and Attachment to God (independent variables) and Overall, Emotional and Social loneliness (dependent variables), adjusted for gender, age, education, Neuroticism, Extraversion and Sensory Processing Sensitivity. The results showed that those who perceived God as always-present, forgiving and loving reported lower scores in overall, emotional and social loneliness (β = -0.20 to -0.33; small to medium effect). A similar association was found for those who perceived God as fatherly, maternal and just (β = -0.13 to -0.19; small effect), except for the non-significant effect on social loneliness for the maternal concept. Conversely, higher levels of loneliness were observed in individuals who perceived God as distant (β = 0.12 to 0.22; small effect) across all three domains (overall, emotional and social). Similarly, a perception of God as critical and angry was linked to higher overall and emotional loneliness (β = 0.10 to 0.16; small effect), while the effect on social loneliness was not significant. Generally, the strongest associations were found for perceiving God as always present, forgiving and loving. Regarding attachment to God, the Anxiety dimension was associated with lower overall (β = -0.13; small effect) and emotional loneliness (β = -0.17; small effect), with no significant association for social loneliness. Conversely, the Avoidance dimension was linked to higher overall, emotional (β = 0.09; very small effect) and social loneliness (β = 0.05; very small effect). INSERT TABLE 2 HERE Table 3 presents the findings from binomial logistic regressions, examining how church affiliation, religious attendance and Concept of God relate to overall, emotional and social loneliness. All models were adjusted for gender, age, education, Neuroticism, Extraversion and Sensory Processing Sensitivity. Regarding church affiliation, when compared to church members, believers outside the church showed a higher likelihood of overall (OR = 1.30) and social loneliness (OR = 1.81), while non-believers showed a higher likelihood of social loneliness (OR = 1.74). Convinced atheists displayed higher odds across all dimensions, including overall (OR = 1.33), emotional (OR = 1.32) and social loneliness (OR = 1.92). Regarding religious attendance, regular attendees had a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing loneliness than non-religious individuals, but this was only observed for social loneliness (OR = 0.61). No significant association with loneliness was found for irregular attendees compared to non-religious individuals. When compared to non-religious individuals, those who positively perceived God were significantly less likely to experience overall (OR = 0.76) and emotional loneliness (OR = 0.68). Conversely, individuals who held a negative concept of God were more likely to report overall (OR = 1.43) and emotional loneliness (OR = 1.51). No significant associations were found between these concepts and social loneliness. A complex relationship to God was associated with a lower risk of social loneliness (OR = 0.71). However, no other significant associations were observed for this group or those with an indifferent concept of God. INSERT TABLE 3 HERE Discussion This study aimed to investigate the relationship between R/S, representations of God and loneliness among believers in the secular context of the Czech Republic. Our results showed that church affiliation, church attendance, Perceptions of God and Attachment to God were significantly associated with loneliness. Higher levels of loneliness were reported by believers who perceived God as negative (specifically as distant, critical and angry) and those with avoidant attachment to God. Conversely, lower loneliness was linked to church affiliation, regular church attendance (once or more times a week) perceiving God in a positive light (specifically as always present, forgiving, loving, fatherly, maternal and just) and, surprisingly, anxious attachment to God. Regarding church affiliation, church members reported lower levels of social loneliness than non-religious people, which aligns with the claim that religion provides a means of social connection and community (Rokach et al., 2012 ). However, church members reported lower social loneliness than believers outside the church, who are often referred to as “spiritual but not religious” (SBNR). This finding differs from research by Hastings ( 2016 ), who found similar levels of social connectedness among both religious attendees and SBNR individuals in the United States. This difference may be attributed to the specific atheistic environment in the Czech Republic, where low loneliness scores are reported by individuals who are both spiritual and religious in the sense of belonging to a specific church. Consequently, church affiliation holds particular significance in the Czech Republic, which ranks among the countries with the highest long-term rates of loneliness (Surkalim et al., 2022 ), with nearly half of respondents reporting moderate to severe loneliness in 2021 (Meckovsky et al., 2023 ). Regarding church attendance, individuals who attend services once or more times a week reported lower levels of social loneliness than non-believers. Moreover, within the religious group, those who never attend reported greater social loneliness than those who attend more frequently (more than once a week). These results are consistent with previous research linking higher religious attendance to lower loneliness (Chen et al., 2021 ; Pawlikowski et al., 2019 ), as active participation in religious activities fosters social support, the ability to maintain relationships and community engagement (Koenig et al., 2024 ). Our results show that research on R/S and loneliness depends on individuals’ perceptions of God, as in research on R/S and mental health (Stulp et al., 2019 ). Specifically, we found that lower loneliness scores were associated with perceiving God in a positive manner (as always present, forgiving, loving, fatherly, just and maternal); conversely, believers who perceived God as negative (as distant, angry and critical) reported higher levels of loneliness. The same pattern was observed in previous studies among Muslim and Christian believers (Kaya & Yazıcı Çelebi, 2025 ; Schwab & Petersen, 1990 ). Since a subjective perception of God correlates with feelings of loneliness, our findings support the idea that the Christian religion is primarily relational, with a subjective relationship with the divine being a central factor (Stulp et al., 2019 ). Finally, attachment style to God played a role in our study. An avoidant attachment to God was linked to higher levels of loneliness. Individuals with an avoidant attachment to God tend to rely on self-sufficiency instead of God and do not form an intimate relationship with God (Beck & McDonald, 2004 ). Therefore, they distance themselves emotionally from God and others, resulting in higher loneliness. Surprisingly, those with anxious attachment reported lower loneliness. This finding contrasts with theoretical assumptions, as anxious attachment is characterised by a preoccupation with the relationship and a fear of abandonment (Beck & McDonald, 2004 ). It also stands in contrast to previous findings, in which anxious attachment to God is generally associated with lower well-being (Stulp, 2011 ), specifically with negative affect and neuroticism (Rowatt & Kirkpatrick, 2002 ), lower life satisfaction (Joules, 2007 ) and lower emotional well-being (Calvert, 2010 ). Furthermore, it contradicts findings on interpersonal attachment, where insecure styles are associated with increased loneliness (Helm et al., 2020 ). A potential explanation is that God, as an ideal attachment figure, can serve as a perpetually present and available safe haven and secure base (Cherniak et al., 2021 ). For anxiously attached individuals, this spiritual relationship may serve a compensatory function, fulfilling a heightened need for closeness that is difficult to satisfy in human relationships, thereby mitigating feelings of loneliness. Our findings align with the notion that individuals with anxious attachment seek religion and a relationship with God for affect regulation more than secure ones – a phenomenon described as emotional compensation (Granqvist, 2002 ) or motivational correspondence (Hall et al., 2009 ). Strengths and limitations To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine in detail the relationship between attachment to God and the concept of God concerning loneliness. Another strength is its unique focus on religiosity within the highly secular context of the Czech Republic, where most people are unaffiliated, reflecting a broader trend toward increasing religious non-affiliation in other countries, such as the United States (Hout & Fischer, 2014 ). Finally, the large sample size enhances the accuracy of the findings by reducing the impact of random error. When generalising the results, it is important to consider the higher representation of women and younger to middle-aged individuals compared with the national representative sample. Although residuals from the linear regression for social loneliness showed mild departures from normality (Q–Q plot), the large sample size (n = 5202) makes the regression model robust to this minor violation, considering the Central Limit Theorem. Finally, the use of self-report tools also represents a limitation, as they can be biased by social desirability, although this is lessened by applying standardised measures. Finally, the cross-sectional design does not allow for causal inferences. Implications Firstly, our data are important at the societal level in combatting the “epidemic of loneliness” (Jeste et al., 2020 ). Although they cannot be causal, they suggest that church affiliation and regular attendance may serve as protective factors against loneliness. For professionals, such as clinicians, psychologists and pastors, our results underscore the importance of considering an individual’s concept of God and their attachment to God to better understand their behaviours and feelings. Finally, this research can also help believers better understand the connections between their feelings of loneliness and their relationships with God and other people. Our findings indicate that religious individuals are not a homogeneous group, as loneliness varies based on their concept of God and attachment to God. This highlights a critical dimension that should be included in future R/S and mental health research. Given the specific context of our study – a monotheistic tradition within the atheistic Czech Republic – further research is needed to determine if these patterns are valid in non-monotheistic or predominantly religious societies. Future studies should also aim to clarify causal effects. Conclusion Our data indicate that loneliness among religious individuals is a complex and multifaceted issue that depends on several factors. Higher levels of loneliness were reported by believers who perceived God as negative and those with avoidant attachment to God. Conversely, lower loneliness was linked to church affiliation, regular church attendance, perceiving God in a positive light and, surprisingly, anxious attachment to God. These results suggest that the religious affiliation, attendance, the concept of God and attachment to God may serve as essential factors in understanding and potentially addressing loneliness in religious populations. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Data availability The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository: https://osf.io/n6a98/overview?view_only=47fc2542f7674d16b20fd63b43bf005a Ethical approval The study's design received ethical approval on April 20, 2021, from the Ethics Committee of the Olomouc University Social Health Institute at Palacký University Olomouc (Approval No. 2021/3). This approval was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (40/2000 Coll.). Informed consent statement Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study during the data collection, which was conducted between September 2023 and October 2024. Due to the online nature of the survey, consent was obtained electronically. Prior to accessing the questionnaire, participants were presented with a detailed written description of the research purpose, procedures, data confidentiality measures, and their rights (including the right to withdraw at any time). To proceed to the survey questions, participants were required to actively confirm their understanding and voluntary participation by checking a mandatory box stating: "Yes, I agree to participate in the research study." The study protocol, including this consent procedure, was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Social Health, Palacký University Olomouc (ref. no. 2021/3). The process of obtaining consent was governed by the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (40/2000 Coll.). References Bader, C. D., Mencken, F. C., & Froese, P. (2007). American Piety 2005: Content and Methods of the Baylor Religion Survey. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 46 (4), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2007.00371.x Baker, C., & Miles-Watson, J. (2010). Faith and Traditional Capitals: Defining the Public Scope of Spiritual and Religious Capital—A Literature Review. Implicit Religion , 13 (1), 17–69. https://doi.org/10.1558/imre.v13i1.17 Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The Attachment to God Inventory, Tests of Working Model Correspondence, and an Exploration of Faith Group Differences. Journal of Psychology and Theology , 32 (2), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710403200202 Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). The Guilford Press. Buchta, O., Malinakova, K., Novák, L., Juklova, K., Meier, Z., & Tavel, P. (2024). Psychometric analysis of the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale in Czech Republic [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u78ey Calvert, S. J. (2010). Attachment to God as a source of struggle and strength: Exploring the association between Christians’ relationship with God and their emotional wellbeing [Massey University]. http://hdl.handle.net/10179/1699 Chen, Y., Kim, E. S., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2021). Religious-service attendance and subsequent health and well-being throughout adulthood: Evidence from three prospective cohorts. International Journal of Epidemiology , 49 (6), 2030–2040. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa120 Cherniak, A. D., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., & Granqvist, P. (2021). Attachment theory and religion. Current Opinion in Psychology , 40 , 126–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.08.020 Davis, E. B., Moriarty, G. L., & Mauch, J. C. (2013). God images and god concepts: Definitions, development, and dynamics. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality , 5 (1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029289 De Jong Gierveld, J. de, & Tilburg, T. van. (1999). Manual of the loneliness scale 1999 . Department of Social Research Methodology, Vrije Universiteit. De Jong Gierveld, J., & Kamphuis, F. (1985). The Development of a Rasch-Type Loneliness Scale. Applied Psychological Measurement , 9 (3), 289–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900307 De Jong Gierveld, J., & Van Tilburg, T. (2006). A 6-item scale for overall, emotional, and social loneliness—Confirmatory tests on survey data. Research on Aging , 28 (5), 582–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027506289723 Fisher, J. (2011). The Four Domains Model: Connecting Spirituality, Health and Well-Being. Religions , 2 (1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel2010017 Gemar, A. (2024). Religion and Loneliness: Investigating Different Aspects of Religion and Dimensions of Loneliness. Religions , 15 (4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15040488 Granqvist, P. (2002). Attachment and Religiosity in Adolescence: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 28 (2), 260–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202282011 Gray, A. (2009). The social capital of older people. Ageing & Society , 29 (1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X08007617 Hackett, C., Grim, B., Stonawski, M., Skirbekk, V., Potančoková, M., & Abel, G. (2012). The Global Religious Landscape: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World’s Major Religious Groups as of 2010 . https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4573.8884 Hackett, C., Stonawski, M., Tong, Y., Kramer, S., Shi, A. F., & Fahmy, D. (2025). How the Global Religious Landscape Changed From 2010 to 2020 . Pew Research Center. https://doi.org/10.58094/FJ71-NY11 Hall, T. W., Fujikawa, A., Halcrow, S. R., Hill, P. C., & Delaney, H. (2009). Attachment to God and Implicit Spirituality: Clarifying Correspondence and Compensation Models. Journal of Psychology and Theology , 37 (4), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710903700401 Hastings, O. P. (2016). Not a lonely crowd? Social connectedness, religious service attendance, and the spiritual but not religious. Social Science Research , 57 , 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.01.006 Hayward, R. D., & Elliott, M. (2014). Cross-National Analysis of the Influence of Cultural Norms and Government Restrictions on the Relationship Between Religion and Well-Being. Review of Religious Research , 56 (1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-013-0135-0 Helm, P. J., Jimenez, T., Bultmann, M., Lifshin, U., Greenberg, J., & Arndt, J. (2020). Existential isolation, loneliness, and attachment in young adults. Personality and Individual Differences , 159 , 109890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109890 Hill, P. C., & Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. American Psychologist , 58 (1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.64 Holt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., & Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 10 (2), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352 Hout, M., & Fischer, C. S. (2014). Explaining Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Political Backlash and Generational Succession, 1987-2012. Sociological Science , 1 , 423–447. https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a24 Jeste, D. V., Lee, E. E., & Cacioppo, S. (2020). Battling the Modern Behavioral Epidemic of Loneliness: Suggestions for Research and Interventions. JAMA Psychiatry , 77 (6), 553. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0027 John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2nd ed (pp. 102–138). Guilford Press. Joules, S. (2007). The mediating role of God attachment between religiosity and spirituality and psychological adjustment in young adults (Vol. 68, Issues 6-B, p. 4133). ProQuest Information & Learning. Katerndahl, D. A. (2008). Impact of Spiritual Symptoms and Their Interactions on Health Services and Life Satisfaction. The Annals of Family Medicine , 6 (5), 412–420. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.886 Kaya, F., & Yazıcı Çelebi, G. (2025). How does loneliness affect satisfaction with life? What is the role of the perception of God in this interaction? Frontiers in Psychology , 16 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1550108 Kirkpatrick, L. A., Shillito, D. J., & Kellas, S. L. (1999). Loneliness, Social Support, and Perceived Relationships with God. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 16 (4), 513–522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407599164006 Kobayashi, K. M., Cloutier-Fisher, D., & Roth, M. (2009). Making Meaningful Connections: A Profile of Social Isolation and Health Among Older Adults in Small Town and Small City, British Columbia. Journal of Aging and Health , 21 (2), 374–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264308329022 Koenig, H. G. (2012). Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications. International Scholarly Research Notices , 2012 (1), 278730. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/278730 Koenig, H. G., VanderWeele, T., & Peteet, J. R. (2024). Handbook of Religion and Health (3rd ed.). Oxford University PressNew York. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190088859.001.0001 Kosarkova, A., Malinakova, K., Van Dijk, J. P., & Tavel, P. (2020). Childhood Trauma and Experience in Close Relationships Are Associated with the God Image: Does Religiosity Make a Difference? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17 (23), 8841. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238841 Lewis, V. A., MacGregor, C. A., & Putnam, R. D. (2013). Religion, networks, and neighborliness: The impact of religious social networks on civic engagement. Social Science Research , 42 (2), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.09.011 Lim, C., & Putnam, R. D. (2010). Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction. American Sociological Review , 75 (6), 914–933. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410386686 Lucchetti, G., Koenig, H. G., & Granero Lucchetti, A. L. (2021). Spirituality, religiousness, and mental health: A review of the current scientific evidence. WORLD JOURNAL OF CLINICAL CASES , 9 (26), 7620–7631. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i26.7620 Malinakova, K., Novak, L., Trnka, R., & Tavel, P. (2021). Sensory Processing Sensitivity Questionnaire: A Psychometric Evaluation and Associations with Experiencing the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (24), 12962. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412962 Malinakova, K., Tavel, P., Meier, Z., Van Dijk, J. P., & Reijneveld, S. A. (2020). Religiosity and Mental Health: A Contribution to Understanding the Heterogeneity of Research Findings. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 17 (2), 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020494 Meckovsky, F., Furstova, J., Kosarkova, A., Meier, Z., Tavel, P., & Malinakova, K. (2023). Loneliness Is Associated With Problematic Internet Use but Not With the Frequency of Substance Use: A Czech Cross-Sectional Study. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH , 68 , 1606537. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2023.1606537 O’Maoileidigh, B., Kenny, R. A., Ward, M., & Scarlett, S. (2023). 166 Effect of religious attendance on loneliness, quality of life, stress and anxiety among older adults during COVID-19 in Ireland. Age and Ageing , 52 (Supplement_3), afad156.015. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afad156.015 O’Sullivan, R., Leavey, G., & Lawlor, B. (2022). We need a public health approach to loneliness. BMJ , o280. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o280 Pandya, S. P. (2021). Meditation program mitigates loneliness and promotes wellbeing, life satisfaction and contentment among retired older adults: A two-year follow-up study in four South Asian cities. Aging & Mental Health , 25 (2), 286–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1691143 Pawlikowski, J., Białowolski, P., Węziak-Białowolska, D., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2019). Religious service attendance, health behaviors and well-being—An outcome-wide longitudinal analysis. European Journal of Public Health , 29 (6), 1177–1183. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz075 Peng-Keller, S. (2022). Ennobling Ideas: The World Health Assembly Debates the ‘Spiritual Dimension’ (1983–1984) (pp. 42–61). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192865502.003.0003 Porter, J. R., & Emerson, M. O. (2013). Religiosity and Social Network Diversity: Decomposing the “Divided by Faith” Theoretical Framework. Social Science Quarterly , 94 (3), 732–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00926.x Rokach, A., Chin, J., & Sha’ked, A. (2012). Religiosity and coping with loneliness. Psychological Reports , 110 (3), 731–742. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.07.20.PR0.110.3.731-742 Rowatt, W. C., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00143 Saad, M., de Medeiros, R., & Mosini, A. C. (2017). Are We Ready for a True Biopsychosocial–Spiritual Model? The Many Meanings of “Spiritual.” Medicines , 4 (4), 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines4040079 Schwab, R., & Petersen, K. U. (1990). Religiousness: Its Relation to Loneliness, Neuroticism and Subjective Well-Being. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 29 (3), 335–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386462 Scott, L. O., Law, J. M., Brodeur, D. P., Salerno, C. A., Thomas, A., & McMillan, S. C. (2014). Relationship With God, Loneliness, Anger, and Symptom Distress in Patients With Cancer Who Are Near the End of Life. Journal of Hospice & Palliative Nursing , 16 (8), 482. https://doi.org/10.1097/NJH.0000000000000105 Sedlackova, K. B., Bartova, A., & Holmerova, I. (2024). Feeling Lonely, Isolated and Depressed. Older Adults’ Feelings in Long-term Term Facilities: A Scoping Review. Journal of Population Ageing , 17 (4), 861–914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12062-024-09463-8 Sharp, C. A., Davis, E. B., George, K., Cuthbert, A. D., Zahl, B. P., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., & Aten, J. D. (2021). Measures of God representations: Theoretical framework and critical review. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality , 13 (3), 340–357. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000257 Sharp, C., Rentfrow, P., & Gibson, N. (2015). One God but Three Concepts: Complexity in Christians’ Representations of God. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality , 9 , 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000053 Stulp, H. P. (2011). Is er een relatie tussen gehechtheid aan mensen en gehechtheid aan God? Psyche & Geloof , 22 (4), 187–201. Stulp, H. P., Koelen, J., Schep-Akkerman, A., Glas, G. G., & Eurelings-Bontekoe, L. (2019). God representations and aspects of psychological functioning: A meta-analysis. Cogent Psychology , 6 (1), 1647926. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2019.1647926 Surkalim, D. L., Luo, M., Eres, R., Gebel, K., van Buskirk, J., Bauman, A., & Ding, D. (2022). The prevalence of loneliness across 113 countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ , e067068. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-067068 Wijesiri, H. S. M. S. K., Samarasinghe, K., & Edberg, A.-K. (2019). Loneliness among older people living in care homes in Sri Lanka. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OLDER PEOPLE NURSING , 14 (4), e12253. https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12253 Yaden, D. B., Batz-Barbarich, C. L., Ng, V., Vaziri, H., Gladstone, J. N., Pawelski, J. O., & Tay, L. (2022). A Meta-Analysis of Religion/Spirituality and Life Satisfaction. JOURNAL OF HAPPINESS STUDIES , 23 (8), 4147–4163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00558-7 Yang, S., & Nino, M. (2023). Political Views, Race and Ethnicity, and Social Isolation: Evidence from the General Social Survey. Societies , 13 (11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13110236 Tables Tables 1 to 3 are available in the supplementary files section Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementarymaterialsS1.docx Tables.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 18 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 13 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 07 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 05 Mar, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 24 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 24 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8650761","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":621092350,"identity":"25ed2eed-4dca-4222-b84a-006f9f993dfe","order_by":0,"name":"Filip Meckovsky","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Palacký University, Olomouc","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Filip","middleName":"","lastName":"Meckovsky","suffix":""},{"id":621092351,"identity":"25417047-1419-429c-9a00-008e609d89b2","order_by":1,"name":"Klara Malinakova","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Palacký University, Olomouc","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Klara","middleName":"","lastName":"Malinakova","suffix":""},{"id":621092352,"identity":"2c86b34c-0dcc-4891-bfeb-3189d0a0df2d","order_by":2,"name":"Peter Tavel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Palacký University, Olomouc","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Peter","middleName":"","lastName":"Tavel","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-20 15:45:39","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8650761/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8650761/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":106973675,"identity":"5124f23e-4bae-43f0-8ef1-48306b7340cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 10:28:53","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":535481,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8650761/v1/d75e143b-3fa2-4336-9744-681a13200602.pdf"},{"id":106971430,"identity":"03d767a6-f938-4534-bf8e-ae5d68c7ab21","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 10:19:12","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":15981,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementarymaterialsS1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8650761/v1/f3d3e4a0d00262b13687de23.docx"},{"id":106971460,"identity":"8491c8fd-1dc0-469a-92b5-6b989834f6c7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-04-15 10:19:25","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":42410,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8650761/v1/f4d5731a2270231a9ce3f7f1.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Lonely in church: The role of the God concept and attachment","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eDespite being recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as a critical determinant of health involved in recovery and well-being (Fisher, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Katerndahl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; Peng-Keller, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), the role of R/S is still rather overlooked in clinical public health practice (Saad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Religiosity and spirituality are distinct, yet related concepts often investigated together in research. Religiosity is typically defined as participation in organised religion, encompassing aspects like church membership and attendance (Koenig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, spirituality is understood as an individual\u0026rsquo;s subjective experience of connection to the transcendent (e.g., a relationship with God) and their search for meaning in life (Hill \u0026amp; Pargament, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Both R/S have been linked to positive outcomes, such as increased life satisfaction (Yaden et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR60\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and improved mental health (Koenig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCompared to other health-related aspects, the relationship between R/S and loneliness has received relatively little attention to date (Koenig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Lucchetti et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Loneliness is the subjective feeling of a lack of close relationships and belonging to a group (De Jong Gierveld \u0026amp; Van Tilburg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). It is proving to be a global problem (Surkalim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) associated with serious health consequences (O\u0026rsquo;Sullivan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and with a risk of premature death comparable to obesity or substance abuse (Holt-Lunstad et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eActive participation in religious activities significantly impacts the social dimensions of individuals\u0026rsquo; lives (Koenig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). This participation is associated with a greater sense of belonging (Baker \u0026amp; Miles-Watson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), wider social networks (Lim \u0026amp; Putnam, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e), greater social capital (Koenig, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e), higher levels of civic engagement (Lewis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), greater diversity of close friends (Porter \u0026amp; Emerson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e) and even participation in non-religious community groups (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, religious practice is often recommended to the older generation, where it is shown to be an important protective factor (Gray, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Kobayashi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; O\u0026rsquo;Maoileidigh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and as an intervention against loneliness in different religious contexts (Pandya, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Sedlackova et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Wijesiri et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In prospective studies, those with higher religious attendance showed a reduction in loneliness in the years that followed (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pawlikowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, a closer examination reveals that believers are not a homogeneous group. For instance, in the study of Hastings (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), spiritual but not religious (SNR) and religious attendees demonstrate stronger social connectedness than religious non-attendees. Furthermore, social isolation varies by denomination: e.g., people practising faiths outside of Protestantism or Catholicism reported feeling more isolated than those with no religious affiliation (Yang \u0026amp; Nino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These results underscore the need for more nuanced research that emphasises differentiation by religious affiliation and attendance, as mentioned across studies (Gemar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Hastings, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e; Rokach et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Yang \u0026amp; Nino, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR61\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on R/S has recently highlighted the need for detailed specification of the groups studied, acknowledging differences based on sociocultural (e.g., influence of religious and secular countries) and individual factors, such as attachment style or perception of God (Kosarkova et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Malinakova et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Among these individual factors, God representations could be viewed as a highly important explanatory mechanism in the relationship between R/S and mental health, with recommendations to focus on these cognitive and emotional aspects rather than solely behavioural ones (Stulp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). The cognitive (doctrinal) concept of God includes theological and intellectual beliefs about God and God\u0026rsquo;s attributes. The emotional (experiential) component, or so-called God image, expresses an individual\u0026rsquo;s personal experiences and feelings towards God (Davis et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). A meta-analysis by Stulp et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrates that a positive representation of God correlates with higher well-being and lower distress, with some impacts independent of religious denomination. Furthermore, lower loneliness was associated with positive perceptions of God in adult Muslim believers (Kaya \u0026amp; Yazıcı \u0026Ccedil;elebi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e), secure attachment to God among university students (Kirkpatrick et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) and satisfaction with a relationship to God among hospice patients (Scott et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). These findings underscore the importance of exploring individual representations of God in R/S and loneliness research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Czech Republic presents a unique and compelling setting for religious research. It is consistently identified as one of the world\u0026rsquo;s most secular countries, with a high rate (72\u0026ndash;76%) of religiously unaffiliated individuals (Hackett et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, it ranks among the countries with the highest levels of loneliness in the world (Surkalim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). In such secular contexts, the characteristics of religious individuals, where belief is not the norm, can entail challenges like \u0026ldquo;swimming against the current\u0026rdquo;. These may include reduced social support, experiences of stigma and feelings of loneliness or societal disconnection. Notably, research by Hayward and Elliott (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e) found that R/S is linked to adverse health outcomes in secular countries, whereas it is associated with positive health outcomes in predominantly religious countries. This disparity can be attributed to differing social norms and government policies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTherefore, we aim to investigate the relationship between R/S, the concept of God, attachment to God and loneliness among believers in the secular context of the Czech Republic.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants and procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe data was collected using an online survey developed at the researcher\u0026rsquo;s institution. The questionnaire was distributed using a snowball technique from September 2023 to October 2024. Respondents were recruited through contacts of university students [Institution Redacted] as part of the educational component of their studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo ensure high data quality from the online questionnaire, the following exclusion criteria were applied: 1) inconsistent responses to repeated questions on age, height and weight with a tolerance of a two-unit difference; 2) missing responses for key variables of interest; 3) filling-in the questionnaire too quickly (under 18 minutes for a survey which generally lasted about 45 minutes); 4) showing identical answers across at least three different questionnaires used in the study; 5) repeated submissions by the same individual. Altogether, 11968 people participated in the data collection, and 6766 were excluded due to the above-mentioned criteria. Therefore, the final sample comprised 5202 participants aged 18 to 91 (mean age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;31.1 years, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14.2; 40.8% male).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the outset of the survey, participants were provided with written information outlining the study\u0026rsquo;s purpose, the methods of data anonymisation and the confidential handling of all collected information. Participation in this research was optional. Before starting the survey, respondents had to give explicit consent to all key aspects of the informed consent agreement. Participants could only advance to the next question after completing the current one, but they had the option to withdraw from the study at any time without justification. Before the primary study, a pilot study was conducted among volunteers at [Institution Redacted].\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConcept of God\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe concept of God was assessed using 11 adjectives preceded by the question, \u0026ldquo;How well do you think each of the following words describes God?\u0026rdquo; These adjectives (e.g., critical, distant, loving, just) were taken from the Baylor Religion Survey (Bader et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). Respondents selected from the possible answers: \u0026ldquo;very well\u0026rdquo; (1); \u0026ldquo;not very well\u0026rdquo; (2); \u0026ldquo;not at all (3)\u0026rdquo;. Items were subsequently dichotomised differently for positive and negative attributes, since people may find it more difficult to report negative attributes of God. Thus, for a score on the positive aspect, the respondent had to answer only \u0026ldquo;very well\u0026rdquo; (1), whereas for the negative aspects, \u0026ldquo;very well\u0026rdquo; (1) and \u0026ldquo;not very well\u0026rdquo; (2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious research has shown that the representation of God is a complex construct and that the categories of positive and negative are too narrow and not necessarily contradictory, though they can also be complementary (Sharp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Sharp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Stulp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, for further statistical analysis, we considered the following classification using only adjectives with clear emotional connotations. Respondents were summed across positive (forgiving, kind, loving) and negative categories (critical, distant, punishing, angry), and their representation was divided into low (0\u0026ndash;1 scores) and high (2 or more). Subsequently, four categories of perceptions of God were created: Positive (high positive, low negative), Negative (high negative, low positive), Complex (high positive, high negative) and Indifferent (low positive, low negative).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eAttachment to God\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAttachment to God was assessed using a Czech shortened version (see Supplementary material S1) of the Attachment to God Inventory (AGI) (Beck \u0026amp; McDonald, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). This scale is based on the Experiences in Close Relationships (ECR) measure (Brennan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e) and comprises two dimensions related to attachment to God: Anxiety (reflecting fear of abandonment and low self-worth) and Avoidance (reflecting discomfort with intimacy and strong self-reliance/independence). The original AGI consists of 28 items, with responses rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from \u0026ldquo;Strongly Disagree\u0026rdquo; (1) to \u0026ldquo;Strongly Agree\u0026rdquo; (7). For this study, we utilised a shortened Czech adaptation containing seven items three assessing Avoidance and four assessing Anxiety. Items were selected based on theoretical assessment regarding their suitability to measure our construct of interest while avoiding potential conceptual confusion. The resulting short scale demonstrated acceptable internal consistency in the present sample. Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha for the Avoidance subscale was 0.65, and for the Anxiety subscale 0.80. Based on the conceptual structure of the original instrument, items were grouped into two dimensions reflecting Anxiety and Avoidance. For analytical purposes, separate summary scores were computed for each dimension.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSensory processing sensitivity\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess Sensory Processing Sensitivity (SPS), we administered the Sensory Processing Sensitivity Questionnaire (SPSQ) developed by Malinakova et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This 16-item instrument is divided into two primary subscales: the Sensory Sensitivity subscale, which covers reactions to physical stimuli like lights, sounds and smells, and the Other Sensitivity subscale, focusing on emotional reactivity and sensitivity to life experiences, such as sudden changes, the pursuit of harmony and reactions to criticism. Participants were asked to rate their sensitivity to these stimuli on a 10-point scale, indicating \u0026ldquo;1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;compared to others, I am not sensitive to them at all\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;10\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;much more sensitive than the people around me\u0026rdquo;, with \u0026ldquo;5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;about the same as the people around me\u0026rdquo;. Total scores on the SPSQ range from 16 to 160, with higher scores reflecting greater overall sensitivity. The SPSQ demonstrated good internal consistency in our sample, with a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha of 0.85.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLoneliness\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003ePerceived loneliness was measured using the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale (De Jong Gierveld \u0026amp; Kamphuis, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e). This 11-item scale differentiates between emotional loneliness (comprising six negatively worded items, indicative of a lack of intimate relationships) and social loneliness (consisting of 5 positively worded items, reflecting a missing social network). Due to the different number of items for social and emotional loneliness, items are transformed to make them comparable. For each item, participants selected from \u0026ldquo;1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;yes\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;more or less\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;no\u0026rdquo;, a response format recommended for online data collection (De Jong Gierveld \u0026amp; Van Tilburg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). A point was awarded for responses, including the \u0026ldquo;more or less\u0026rdquo; category, that indicated loneliness. Total scores ranged from 0 to 11, with higher scores signifying increased loneliness. We utilised a version of the scale adapted for the Czech context (Buchta et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). The scale exhibited acceptable to good internal consistency in our study, with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha for Overall loneliness\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.84, for Emotional loneliness\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.81 and for Social loneliness\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.75. For subsequent statistical analysis, scores were dichotomised: scores of 0\u0026ndash;2 indicated \u0026ldquo;not lonely\u0026rdquo;, while scores of 3 or more were classified as \u0026ldquo;lonely\u0026rdquo; for the overall, emotional and social loneliness scales (De Jong Gierveld \u0026amp; Tilburg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eNeuroticism, Extraversion\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess Neuroticism and Extraversion, we used the subscales from the Big Five Inventory (John \u0026amp; Srivastava, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Each subscale contains eight items. Participants rated their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from \u0026ldquo;1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree\u0026rdquo;. Final scores for each subscale ranged from 8 to 40, with higher scores indicating higher levels of Neuroticism and Extraversion. Both subscales demonstrated high internal consistency within our sample, with Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha values of 0.86 for Neuroticism and 0.87 for Extraversion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eReligious attendance\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReligious attendance was measured as the frequency of attending church or religious sessions using the question \u0026ldquo;How often do you attend church or religious sessions?\u0026rdquo; Possible responses were: \u0026ldquo;more than once a week\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;I try to attend once a week\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;often, but not every week\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;occasionally\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;never\u0026rdquo;. For dichotomisation, regular attendees were those who reported attending once or more times a week.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSociodemographic characteristics, including gender (male/female), age, family status, religiosity, employment status and education level, were collected through the questionnaire.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe first described the sociodemographic characteristics of the study sample (gender, employment status, educational level, family status, religiosity and religious attendance) and the variables of interest (overall, emotional and social loneliness). To compare group differences in loneliness, nonparametric tests were used due to deviations from normality: the Mann\u0026ndash;Whitney U test for gender, employment and family status (with rank biserial correlation for effect size) and the Kruskal\u0026ndash;Wallis one-way ANOVA for education, religiosity and religious attendance. Post-hoc comparisons were conducted using the Dwass\u0026ndash;Steel\u0026ndash;Critchlow\u0026ndash;Fligner method, which corrects for family-wise error rate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn the next step, we conducted a multiple linear regression examining the associations of Concept of God and Attachment to God with overall, emotional and social loneliness, controlling for gender, age, education, Neuroticism, Extraversion and Sensory Processing Sensitivity. Finally, binomial logistic regressions assessed the relationships between religious attendance, the Concept of God and loneliness using the same covariates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe assumptions for linear regression were assessed for autocorrelation (Durbin\u0026ndash;Watson test), multicollinearity (VIF) and the normal distribution of residuals (Q\u0026ndash;Q plot), and for logistic regression, the multicollinearity (VIF) was evaluated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 presents the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample and compares loneliness across different groups. Statistically significant differences in loneliness were observed across gender, employment status, education level and family status. Specifically, men, unemployed individuals, those with only an elementary education and individuals without a partner reported higher levels of loneliness. No significant difference was observed in social loneliness in terms of employment status. Regarding religiosity, church members reported significantly lower levels of overall, emotional and social loneliness than convinced atheists and lower levels of social loneliness than believers outside the church. For religiosity attendance among believers, a significant difference was found only in social loneliness. Individuals who never attended religious services reported feeling more socially lonely than those who attended more than once a week.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eINSERT TABLE 1 HERE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2 displays the results of multiple linear regressions examining the associations between Concept of God and Attachment to God (independent variables) and Overall, Emotional and Social loneliness (dependent variables), adjusted for gender, age, education, Neuroticism, Extraversion and Sensory Processing Sensitivity. The results showed that those who perceived God as always-present, forgiving and loving reported lower scores in overall, emotional and social loneliness (β = -0.20 to -0.33; small to medium effect). A similar association was found for those who perceived God as fatherly, maternal and just (β = -0.13 to -0.19; small effect), except for the non-significant effect on social loneliness for the maternal concept. Conversely, higher levels of loneliness were observed in individuals who perceived God as distant (β = 0.12 to 0.22; small effect) across all three domains (overall, emotional and social). Similarly, a perception of God as critical and angry was linked to higher overall and emotional loneliness (β = 0.10 to 0.16; small effect), while the effect on social loneliness was not significant. Generally, the strongest associations were found for perceiving God as always present, forgiving and loving.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding attachment to God, the Anxiety dimension was associated with lower overall (β = -0.13; small effect) and emotional loneliness (β = -0.17; small effect), with no significant association for social loneliness. Conversely, the Avoidance dimension was linked to higher overall, emotional (β = 0.09; very small effect) and social loneliness (β = 0.05; very small effect).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eINSERT TABLE 2 HERE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 3 presents the findings from binomial logistic regressions, examining how church affiliation, religious attendance and Concept of God relate to overall, emotional and social loneliness. All models were adjusted for gender, age, education, Neuroticism, Extraversion and Sensory Processing Sensitivity. Regarding church affiliation, when compared to church members, believers outside the church showed a higher likelihood of overall (OR = 1.30) and social loneliness (OR = 1.81), while non-believers showed a higher likelihood of social loneliness (OR = 1.74). Convinced atheists displayed higher odds across all dimensions, including overall (OR = 1.33), emotional (OR = 1.32) and social loneliness (OR = 1.92).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding religious attendance, regular attendees had a significantly lower likelihood of experiencing loneliness than non-religious individuals, but this was only observed for social loneliness (OR = 0.61). No significant association with loneliness was found for irregular attendees compared to non-religious individuals.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen compared to non-religious individuals, those who positively perceived God were significantly less likely to experience overall (OR = 0.76) and emotional loneliness (OR = 0.68). Conversely, individuals who held a negative concept of God were more likely to report overall (OR = 1.43) and emotional loneliness (OR = 1.51). No significant associations were found between these concepts and social loneliness. A complex relationship to God was associated with a lower risk of social loneliness (OR = 0.71). However, no other significant associations were observed for this group or those with an indifferent concept of God.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eINSERT TABLE 3 HERE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cbr clear=\"all\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to investigate the relationship between R/S, representations of God and loneliness among believers in the secular context of the Czech Republic. Our results showed that church affiliation, church attendance, Perceptions of God and Attachment to God were significantly associated with loneliness. Higher levels of loneliness were reported by believers who perceived God as negative (specifically as distant, critical and angry) and those with avoidant attachment to God. Conversely, lower loneliness was linked to church affiliation, regular church attendance (once or more times a week) perceiving God in a positive light (specifically as always present, forgiving, loving, fatherly, maternal and just) and, surprisingly, anxious attachment to God.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding church affiliation, church members reported lower levels of social loneliness than non-religious people, which aligns with the claim that religion provides a means of social connection and community (Rokach et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). However, church members reported lower social loneliness than believers outside the church, who are often referred to as \u0026ldquo;spiritual but not religious\u0026rdquo; (SBNR). This finding differs from research by Hastings (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), who found similar levels of social connectedness among both religious attendees and SBNR individuals in the United States. This difference may be attributed to the specific atheistic environment in the Czech Republic, where low loneliness scores are reported by individuals who are both spiritual and religious in the sense of belonging to a specific church. Consequently, church affiliation holds particular significance in the Czech Republic, which ranks among the countries with the highest long-term rates of loneliness (Surkalim et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), with nearly half of respondents reporting moderate to severe loneliness in 2021 (Meckovsky et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding church attendance, individuals who attend services once or more times a week reported lower levels of social loneliness than non-believers. Moreover, within the religious group, those who never attend reported greater social loneliness than those who attend more frequently (more than once a week). These results are consistent with previous research linking higher religious attendance to lower loneliness (Chen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Pawlikowski et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), as active participation in religious activities fosters social support, the ability to maintain relationships and community engagement (Koenig et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur results show that research on R/S and loneliness depends on individuals\u0026rsquo; perceptions of God, as in research on R/S and mental health (Stulp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Specifically, we found that lower loneliness scores were associated with perceiving God in a positive manner (as always present, forgiving, loving, fatherly, just and maternal); conversely, believers who perceived God as negative (as distant, angry and critical) reported higher levels of loneliness. The same pattern was observed in previous studies among Muslim and Christian believers (Kaya \u0026amp; Yazıcı \u0026Ccedil;elebi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Schwab \u0026amp; Petersen, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). Since a subjective perception of God correlates with feelings of loneliness, our findings support the idea that the Christian religion is primarily relational, with a subjective relationship with the divine being a central factor (Stulp et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, attachment style to God played a role in our study. An avoidant attachment to God was linked to higher levels of loneliness. Individuals with an avoidant attachment to God tend to rely on self-sufficiency instead of God and do not form an intimate relationship with God (Beck \u0026amp; McDonald, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, they distance themselves emotionally from God and others, resulting in higher loneliness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSurprisingly, those with anxious attachment reported lower loneliness. This finding contrasts with theoretical assumptions, as anxious attachment is characterised by a preoccupation with the relationship and a fear of abandonment (Beck \u0026amp; McDonald, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2004\u003c/span\u003e). It also stands in contrast to previous findings, in which anxious attachment to God is generally associated with lower well-being (Stulp, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e), specifically with negative affect and neuroticism (Rowatt \u0026amp; Kirkpatrick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e), lower life satisfaction (Joules, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) and lower emotional well-being (Calvert, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, it contradicts findings on interpersonal attachment, where insecure styles are associated with increased loneliness (Helm et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). A potential explanation is that God, as an ideal attachment figure, can serve as a perpetually present and available safe haven and secure base (Cherniak et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). For anxiously attached individuals, this spiritual relationship may serve a compensatory function, fulfilling a heightened need for closeness that is difficult to satisfy in human relationships, thereby mitigating feelings of loneliness. Our findings align with the notion that individuals with anxious attachment seek religion and a relationship with God for affect regulation more than secure ones \u0026ndash; a phenomenon described as emotional compensation (Granqvist, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) or motivational correspondence (Hall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStrengths and limitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to examine in detail the relationship between attachment to God and the concept of God concerning loneliness. Another strength is its unique focus on religiosity within the highly secular context of the Czech Republic, where most people are unaffiliated, reflecting a broader trend toward increasing religious non-affiliation in other countries, such as the United States (Hout \u0026amp; Fischer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e). Finally, the large sample size enhances the accuracy of the findings by reducing the impact of random error.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen generalising the results, it is important to consider the higher representation of women and younger to middle-aged individuals compared with the national representative sample. Although residuals from the linear regression for social loneliness showed mild departures from normality (Q\u0026ndash;Q plot), the large sample size (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5202) makes the regression model robust to this minor violation, considering the Central Limit Theorem. Finally, the use of self-report tools also represents a limitation, as they can be biased by social desirability, although this is lessened by applying standardised measures. Finally, the cross-sectional design does not allow for causal inferences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eImplications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirstly, our data are important at the societal level in combatting the \u0026ldquo;epidemic of loneliness\u0026rdquo; (Jeste et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Although they cannot be causal, they suggest that church affiliation and regular attendance may serve as protective factors against loneliness. For professionals, such as clinicians, psychologists and pastors, our results underscore the importance of considering an individual\u0026rsquo;s concept of God and their attachment to God to better understand their behaviours and feelings. Finally, this research can also help believers better understand the connections between their feelings of loneliness and their relationships with God and other people.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOur findings indicate that religious individuals are not a homogeneous group, as loneliness varies based on their concept of God and attachment to God. This highlights a critical dimension that should be included in future R/S and mental health research. Given the specific context of our study \u0026ndash; a monotheistic tradition within the atheistic Czech Republic \u0026ndash; further research is needed to determine if these patterns are valid in non-monotheistic or predominantly religious societies. Future studies should also aim to clarify causal effects.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eOur data indicate that loneliness among religious individuals is a complex and multifaceted issue that depends on several factors. Higher levels of loneliness were reported by believers who perceived God as negative and those with avoidant attachment to God. Conversely, lower loneliness was linked to church affiliation, regular church attendance, perceiving God in a positive light and, surprisingly, anxious attachment to God. These results suggest that the religious affiliation, attendance, the concept of God and attachment to God may serve as essential factors in understanding and potentially addressing loneliness in religious populations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository: https://osf.io/n6a98/overview?view_only=47fc2542f7674d16b20fd63b43bf005a\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study's design received ethical approval on April 20, 2021, from the Ethics Committee of the Olomouc University Social Health Institute at Palacký University Olomouc (Approval No. 2021/3). This approval was in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (40/2000 Coll.).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed consent statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study during the data collection, which was conducted between September 2023 and October 2024. Due to the online nature of the survey, consent was obtained electronically. Prior to accessing the questionnaire, participants were presented with a detailed written description of the research purpose, procedures, data confidentiality measures, and their rights (including the right to withdraw at any time). To proceed to the survey questions, participants were required to actively confirm their understanding and voluntary participation by checking a mandatory box stating: \"Yes, I agree to participate in the research study.\" The study protocol, including this consent procedure, was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Institute of Social Health, Palacký University Olomouc (ref. no. 2021/3). The process of obtaining consent was governed by the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (40/2000 Coll.).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBader, C. D., Mencken, F. C., \u0026amp; Froese, P. (2007). American Piety 2005: Content and Methods of the Baylor Religion Survey. \u003cem\u003eJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e46\u003c/em\u003e(4), 447\u0026ndash;463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2007.00371.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBaker, C., \u0026amp; Miles-Watson, J. (2010). Faith and Traditional Capitals: Defining the Public Scope of Spiritual and Religious Capital\u0026mdash;A Literature Review. \u003cem\u003eImplicit Religion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 17\u0026ndash;69. https://doi.org/10.1558/imre.v13i1.17\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBeck, R., \u0026amp; McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The Attachment to God Inventory, Tests of Working Model Correspondence, and an Exploration of Faith Group Differences. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychology and Theology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e32\u003c/em\u003e(2), 92\u0026ndash;103. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710403200202\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBrennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., \u0026amp; Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In \u003cem\u003eAttachment theory and close relationships\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 46\u0026ndash;76). The Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBuchta, O., Malinakova, K., Nov\u0026aacute;k, L., Juklova, K., Meier, Z., \u0026amp; Tavel, P. (2024).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePsychometric analysis of the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale in Czech Republic\u003c/em\u003e [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u78ey\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCalvert, S. J. (2010). \u003cem\u003eAttachment to God as a source of struggle and strength: Exploring the association between Christians\u0026rsquo; relationship with God and their emotional wellbeing\u003c/em\u003e [Massey University]. http://hdl.handle.net/10179/1699\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eChen, Y., Kim, E. S., \u0026amp; VanderWeele, T. J. (2021). Religious-service attendance and subsequent health and well-being throughout adulthood: Evidence from three prospective cohorts. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Epidemiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e49\u003c/em\u003e(6), 2030\u0026ndash;2040. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyaa120\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCherniak, A. D., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., \u0026amp; Granqvist, P. (2021). Attachment theory and religion. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e, 126\u0026ndash;130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.08.020\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDavis, E. B., Moriarty, G. L., \u0026amp; Mauch, J. C. (2013). God images and god concepts: Definitions, development, and dynamics. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Religion and Spirituality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(1), 51\u0026ndash;60. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029289\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDe Jong Gierveld, J. de, \u0026amp; Tilburg, T. van. (1999). \u003cem\u003eManual of the loneliness scale 1999\u003c/em\u003e. Department of Social Research Methodology, Vrije Universiteit.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDe Jong Gierveld, J., \u0026amp; Kamphuis, F. (1985). The Development of a Rasch-Type Loneliness Scale. \u003cem\u003eApplied Psychological Measurement\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(3), 289\u0026ndash;299. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168500900307\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDe Jong Gierveld, J., \u0026amp; Van Tilburg, T. (2006). A 6-item scale for overall, emotional, and social loneliness\u0026mdash;Confirmatory tests on survey data. \u003cem\u003eResearch on Aging\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(5), 582\u0026ndash;598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027506289723\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFisher, J. (2011). The Four Domains Model: Connecting Spirituality, Health and Well-Being. \u003cem\u003eReligions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel2010017\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGemar, A. (2024). Religion and Loneliness: Investigating Different Aspects of Religion and Dimensions of Loneliness. \u003cem\u003eReligions\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(4), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15040488\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGranqvist, P. (2002). Attachment and Religiosity in Adolescence: Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Evaluations. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e28\u003c/em\u003e(2), 260\u0026ndash;270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202282011\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGray, A. (2009). The social capital of older people. \u003cem\u003eAgeing \u0026amp; Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 5\u0026ndash;31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X08007617\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHackett, C., Grim, B., Stonawski, M., Skirbekk, V., Potančokov\u0026aacute;, M., \u0026amp; Abel, G. (2012). \u003cem\u003eThe Global Religious Landscape: A Report on the Size and Distribution of the World\u0026rsquo;s Major Religious Groups as of 2010\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.4573.8884\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHackett, C., Stonawski, M., Tong, Y., Kramer, S., Shi, A. F., \u0026amp; Fahmy, D. (2025). \u003cem\u003eHow the Global Religious Landscape Changed From 2010 to 2020\u003c/em\u003e. Pew Research Center. https://doi.org/10.58094/FJ71-NY11\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHall, T. W., Fujikawa, A., Halcrow, S. R., Hill, P. C., \u0026amp; Delaney, H. (2009). Attachment to God and Implicit Spirituality: Clarifying Correspondence and Compensation Models. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychology and Theology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e37\u003c/em\u003e(4), 227\u0026ndash;244. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710903700401\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHastings, O. P. (2016). Not a lonely crowd? Social connectedness, religious service attendance, and the spiritual but not religious. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e57\u003c/em\u003e, 63\u0026ndash;79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.01.006\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHayward, R. D., \u0026amp; Elliott, M. (2014). Cross-National Analysis of the Influence of Cultural Norms and Government Restrictions on the Relationship Between Religion and Well-Being. \u003cem\u003eReview of Religious Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(1), 23\u0026ndash;43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13644-013-0135-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHelm, P. J., Jimenez, T., Bultmann, M., Lifshin, U., Greenberg, J., \u0026amp; Arndt, J. (2020). Existential isolation, loneliness, and attachment in young adults. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e159\u003c/em\u003e, 109890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.109890\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHill, P. C., \u0026amp; Pargament, K. I. (2003). Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality: Implications for physical and mental health research. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e58\u003c/em\u003e(1), 64\u0026ndash;74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.64\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHolt-Lunstad, J., Smith, T. B., Baker, M., Harris, T., \u0026amp; Stephenson, D. (2015). Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review. \u003cem\u003ePerspectives on Psychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 227\u0026ndash;237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614568352\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHout, M., \u0026amp; Fischer, C. S. (2014). Explaining Why More Americans Have No Religious Preference: Political Backlash and Generational Succession, 1987-2012. \u003cem\u003eSociological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 423\u0026ndash;447. https://doi.org/10.15195/v1.a24\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJeste, D. V., Lee, E. E., \u0026amp; Cacioppo, S. (2020). Battling the Modern Behavioral Epidemic of Loneliness: Suggestions for Research and Interventions.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJAMA Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e77\u003c/em\u003e(6), 553. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2020.0027\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJohn, O. P., \u0026amp; Srivastava, S. (1999).\u0026nbsp;The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In \u003cem\u003eHandbook of personality: Theory and research, 2nd ed\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 102\u0026ndash;138). Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eJoules, S. (2007). \u003cem\u003eThe mediating role of God attachment between religiosity and spirituality and psychological adjustment in young adults\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 68, Issues 6-B, p. 4133). ProQuest Information \u0026amp; Learning.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKaterndahl, D. A. (2008). Impact of Spiritual Symptoms and Their Interactions on Health Services and Life Satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eThe Annals of Family Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(5), 412\u0026ndash;420. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.886\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKaya, F., \u0026amp; Yazıcı \u0026Ccedil;elebi, G. (2025). How does loneliness affect satisfaction with life? What is the role of the perception of God in this interaction? \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1550108\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKirkpatrick, L. A., Shillito, D. J., \u0026amp; Kellas, S. L. (1999). Loneliness, Social Support, and Perceived Relationships with God. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social and Personal Relationships\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(4), 513\u0026ndash;522. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407599164006\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKobayashi, K. M., Cloutier-Fisher, D., \u0026amp; Roth, M. (2009). Making Meaningful Connections: A Profile of Social Isolation and Health Among Older Adults in Small Town and Small City, British Columbia. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Aging and Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(2), 374\u0026ndash;397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264308329022\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKoenig, H. G. (2012). Religion, Spirituality, and Health: The Research and Clinical Implications. \u003cem\u003eInternational Scholarly Research Notices\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2012\u003c/em\u003e(1), 278730. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/278730\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKoenig, H. G., VanderWeele, T., \u0026amp; Peteet, J. R. (2024). \u003cem\u003eHandbook of Religion and Health\u003c/em\u003e (3rd ed.). Oxford University PressNew York. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190088859.001.0001\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKosarkova, A., Malinakova, K., Van Dijk, J. P., \u0026amp; Tavel, P. (2020). Childhood Trauma and Experience in Close Relationships Are Associated with the God Image: Does Religiosity Make a Difference? \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(23), 8841. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17238841\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLewis, V. A., MacGregor, C. A., \u0026amp; Putnam, R. D. (2013). Religion, networks, and neighborliness: The impact of religious social networks on civic engagement. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(2), 331\u0026ndash;346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.09.011\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLim, C., \u0026amp; Putnam, R. D. (2010). Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Sociological Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(6), 914\u0026ndash;933. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122410386686\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLucchetti, G., Koenig, H. G., \u0026amp; Granero Lucchetti, A. L. (2021). Spirituality, religiousness, and mental health: A review of the current scientific evidence. \u003cem\u003eWORLD JOURNAL OF CLINICAL CASES\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(26), 7620\u0026ndash;7631. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i26.7620\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMalinakova, K., Novak, L., Trnka, R., \u0026amp; Tavel, P. (2021).\u0026nbsp;Sensory Processing Sensitivity Questionnaire: A Psychometric Evaluation and Associations with Experiencing the COVID-19 Pandemic. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(24), 12962. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182412962\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMalinakova, K., Tavel, P., Meier, Z., Van Dijk, J. P., \u0026amp; Reijneveld, S. A. (2020). Religiosity and Mental Health: A Contribution to Understanding the Heterogeneity of Research Findings. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 494. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17020494\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMeckovsky, F., Furstova, J., Kosarkova, A., Meier, Z., Tavel, P., \u0026amp; Malinakova, K. (2023).\u0026nbsp;Loneliness Is Associated With Problematic Internet Use but Not With the Frequency of Substance Use: A Czech Cross-Sectional Study. \u003cem\u003eINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e68\u003c/em\u003e, 1606537. https://doi.org/10.3389/ijph.2023.1606537\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Maoileidigh, B., Kenny, R. A., Ward, M., \u0026amp; Scarlett, S. (2023). 166 Effect of religious attendance on loneliness, quality of life, stress and anxiety among older adults during COVID-19 in Ireland. \u003cem\u003eAge and Ageing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(Supplement_3), afad156.015. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afad156.015\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Sullivan, R., Leavey, G., \u0026amp; Lawlor, B. (2022). We need a public health approach to loneliness.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBMJ\u003c/em\u003e, o280. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o280\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePandya, S. P. (2021).\u0026nbsp;Meditation program mitigates loneliness and promotes wellbeing, life satisfaction and contentment among retired older adults: A two-year follow-up study in four South Asian cities. \u003cem\u003eAging \u0026amp; Mental Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(2), 286\u0026ndash;298. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2019.1691143\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePawlikowski, J., Białowolski, P., Węziak-Białowolska, D., \u0026amp; VanderWeele, T. J. (2019). Religious service attendance, health behaviors and well-being\u0026mdash;An outcome-wide longitudinal analysis. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1177\u0026ndash;1183. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckz075\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePeng-Keller, S. (2022). \u003cem\u003eEnnobling Ideas: The World Health Assembly Debates the \u0026lsquo;Spiritual Dimension\u0026rsquo; (1983\u0026ndash;1984)\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 42\u0026ndash;61). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192865502.003.0003\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePorter, J. R., \u0026amp; Emerson, M. O. (2013). Religiosity and Social Network Diversity: Decomposing the \u0026ldquo;Divided by Faith\u0026rdquo; Theoretical Framework. \u003cem\u003eSocial Science Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e94\u003c/em\u003e(3), 732\u0026ndash;757. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00926.x\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRokach, A., Chin, J., \u0026amp; Sha\u0026rsquo;ked, A. (2012). Religiosity and coping with loneliness. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Reports\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e110\u003c/em\u003e(3), 731\u0026ndash;742. https://doi.org/10.2466/02.07.20.PR0.110.3.731-742\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eRowatt, W. C., \u0026amp; Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2002). Two dimensions of attachment to God and their relation to affect, religiosity, and personality constructs. \u003cem\u003eJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(4), 637\u0026ndash;651. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00143\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSaad, M., de Medeiros, R., \u0026amp; Mosini, A. C. (2017).\u0026nbsp;Are We Ready for a True Biopsychosocial\u0026ndash;Spiritual Model? The Many Meanings of \u0026ldquo;Spiritual.\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003eMedicines\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e4\u003c/em\u003e(4), 79. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicines4040079\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSchwab, R., \u0026amp; Petersen, K. U. (1990). Religiousness: Its Relation to Loneliness, Neuroticism and Subjective Well-Being. \u003cem\u003eJournal for the Scientific Study of Religion\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(3), 335\u0026ndash;345. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386462\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eScott, L. O., Law, J. M., Brodeur, D. P., Salerno, C. A., Thomas, A., \u0026amp; McMillan, S. C. (2014). Relationship With God, Loneliness, Anger, and Symptom Distress in Patients With Cancer Who Are Near the End of Life. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Hospice \u0026amp; Palliative Nursing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(8), 482. https://doi.org/10.1097/NJH.0000000000000105\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSedlackova, K. B., Bartova, A., \u0026amp; Holmerova, I. (2024). Feeling Lonely, Isolated and Depressed. Older Adults\u0026rsquo; Feelings in Long-term Term Facilities: A Scoping Review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Population Ageing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(4), 861\u0026ndash;914. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12062-024-09463-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSharp, C. A., Davis, E. B., George, K., Cuthbert, A. D., Zahl, B. P., Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., \u0026amp; Aten, J. D. (2021). Measures of God representations: Theoretical framework and critical review. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Religion and Spirituality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(3), 340\u0026ndash;357. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000257\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSharp, C., Rentfrow, P., \u0026amp; Gibson, N. (2015). One God but Three Concepts: Complexity in Christians\u0026rsquo; Representations of God. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Religion and Spirituality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e, 95\u0026ndash;105. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000053\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStulp, H. P. (2011). Is er een relatie tussen gehechtheid aan mensen en gehechtheid aan God? \u003cem\u003ePsyche \u0026amp; Geloof\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(4), 187\u0026ndash;201.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eStulp, H. P., Koelen, J., Schep-Akkerman, A., Glas, G. G., \u0026amp; Eurelings-Bontekoe, L. (2019). God representations and aspects of psychological functioning: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eCogent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1647926. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908.2019.1647926\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSurkalim, D. L., Luo, M., Eres, R., Gebel, K., van Buskirk, J., Bauman, A., \u0026amp; Ding, D. (2022). The prevalence of loneliness across 113 countries: Systematic review and meta-analysis.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBMJ\u003c/em\u003e, e067068. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-067068\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWijesiri, H. S. M. S. K., Samarasinghe, K., \u0026amp; Edberg, A.-K. (2019).\u0026nbsp;Loneliness among older people living in care homes in Sri Lanka. \u003cem\u003eINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OLDER PEOPLE NURSING\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), e12253. https://doi.org/10.1111/opn.12253\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYaden, D. B., Batz-Barbarich, C. L., Ng, V., Vaziri, H., Gladstone, J. N., Pawelski, J. O., \u0026amp; Tay, L. (2022). A Meta-Analysis of Religion/Spirituality and Life Satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eJOURNAL OF HAPPINESS STUDIES\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(8), 4147\u0026ndash;4163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00558-7\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang, S., \u0026amp; Nino, M. (2023). Political Views, Race and Ethnicity, and Social Isolation: Evidence from the General Social Survey. \u003cem\u003eSocieties\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(11), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13110236\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTables 1 to 3 are available in the supplementary files section\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Loneliness, Attachment to God, God image, Concept of God, God’s representations, Religiosity/Spirituality","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8650761/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8650761/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to investigate the relationship between religiosity and spirituality (R/S), the God concept, Attachment to God and loneliness among believers in the secular context of the Czech Republic. Data were collected from September 2023 to October 2024 on a sample of 5,202 participants aged 18 to 91 (31.1 ±14.2 years; 40.8% men). The Concept of God, Attachment to God (AGI), Loneliness (UCLA), Sensory Perception Sensitivity (SPSQ), Neuroticism and Extraversion (BFI) and religious attendance and affiliation were measured. The Mann–Whitney U test, Kruskal–Wallis one-way ANOVA, multiple linear regression and binomial logistic regression were used for statistical analysis. Higher loneliness was associated with being a believer outside the church or a convinced atheist (OR = 1.30–1.33, p \u0026lt; .05), a negative concept of God (OR = 1.43, p \u0026lt; .05) and avoidant attachment to God (b = 0.09, p \u0026lt; .001). Lower loneliness was associated with a positive concept of God (OR = 0.76, p \u0026lt; .05), contrary to expectations, anxious attachment to God (b = -0.13, p \u0026lt; .001) and with regular church attendance (once or more times a week; OR = 0.61, p \u0026lt; .05) in the case of social loneliness. First, we found that church affiliation and regular attendance are associated with lower levels of loneliness, suggesting they serve as potential protective factors against loneliness. Second, our data indicate that believers are not a homogeneous group, as their level of loneliness depends on their concept of God and their attachment to God.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Lonely in church: The role of the God concept and attachment","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-04-15 10:06:08","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8650761/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-18T11:08:55+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"256588112578166524623992669994492697890","date":"2026-05-15T15:00:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"76459934614387968357330489586623997837","date":"2026-05-13T05:58:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-08T00:18:41+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-03-05T16:04:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-24T13:30:57+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2026-02-24T13:25:28+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a3d86e94-73b0-4b68-ba78-791f6e8784a7","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 15th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-18T11:08:55+00:00","index":70,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"256588112578166524623992669994492697890","date":"2026-05-15T15:00:25+00:00","index":68,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"76459934614387968357330489586623997837","date":"2026-05-13T05:58:04+00:00","index":64,"fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":66103325,"name":"Health sciences/Health care"},{"id":66103326,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":66103327,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-04-15T10:06:09+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-04-15 10:06:08","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8650761","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8650761","identity":"rs-8650761","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}