Scrupulosity and Attachment to God: Why Early Bonds Can Make Faith, Life and God Feel Scary

“I’m terrified that one wrong thought means I’ve lost God’s love.”

“If I don’t confess perfectly, I feel abandoned.”

“I keep my distance from prayer because I’m sure I’ll ‘do it wrong’.”

If you live with religious OCD (often called scrupulosity), those lines may feel painfully familiar. The intrusive thoughts, waves of guilt, and rituals to make the fear go away can swallow hours of your day—and leave you exhausted.

From a psychological perspective, scrupulosity is understood as a form of anxiety, particularly a form of Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder spectrum. It typically involves:

• Intrusive fears about morality, sin, or disappointing God

• Compulsions (confession, repeated prayer, reassurance-seeking) to reduce that anxiety

• A persistent fear of rejection, punishment, or spiritual failure

You can read more about the cycle of scupulosity here: Breaking the Scrupulosity Cycle: What Drives Religious OCD.

However, many people don’t realise that scrupulosity is often shaped by something deeper in the nervous system — our attachment patterns — and these patterns frequently shape how we see and relate to God, a process researchers call attachment to God.

Research Linking Anxious Attachment to God and Scrupulosity

A study by Fergus and Rowatt (2014) explored the relationship between a person’s attachment to God and scrupulosity, a form of OCD involving fears about sin, morality, or letting God down. In a group of 450 adults, people who felt more anxious about their relationship with God tended to experience higher levels of scrupulosity. This connection remained even when the researchers accounted for general religiosity, mood, and relationship patterns with other people. Importantly, this link was specific to scrupulosity rather than OCD in general, suggesting that concerns about God and morality play a unique role in this type of anxiety.

Explaining Attachment Theory

Attachment refers to the emotional bond formed between a child and their caregivers. When care is consistent, warm, and responsive, secure attachment tends to form. When care is inconsistent, intrusive, critical, or frightening, children adapt in other ways — often developing anxious, avoidant, or disorganised attachment patterns. These patterns are driven by implicit memory, and they live in the body and shape core expectations about relationships: whether you’ll be accepted or rejected, whether your needs matter, whether authority figures are safe, and how you soothe yourself when distressed. Over time, these attachment-shaped expectations consolidate into schemas — stable inner lenses such as “I’m bad and deserve punishment” or “If I express my needs, I’ll be rejected.”[1]

When scrupulosity enters the picture, these schemas act as a lens through which to view the world. A punitive schema makes every intrusive thought feel like moral failure. An abandonment-focused schema interprets normal uncertainty as spiritual danger. An avoidant schema may keep God at a distance to prevent disappointment — then spiral into guilt for feeling distant. Research supports this: people high in scrupulosity frequently endorse schemas like punitiveness, subjugation, and enmeshment/undeveloped self, even after accounting for other clinical factors.[2] Other research places scrupulosity at the intersection of spiritual struggle and obsessive–compulsive processes — a point where schemas shaped by early attachment can intensify ordinary spiritual concerns into distress.[3]

Importantly, none of this suggests that faith causes scrupulosity. Large reviews consistently show that while religious themes are common in OCD, religiosity itself isn’t the cause; what matters is how people relate to thoughts, rules, responsibility, and uncertainty.[4–7]

How Early Attachment Shapes Our Image of God

Our earliest relationships teach us what to expect from closeness, love, and care. We learn from our early experiences with caregivers:

• Whether affection is stable or unpredictable

• Whether mistakes lead to repair or rejection

• Whether love is unconditional or something we must earn

  
  

Our early experiences form as implicit memories, forming outside of conscious awareness. Research suggests they’re often transferred to how we relate to God later in life.

Many of my clients who have had confusing, abusive or inconsistent experiences with attachment in their early life describe God in a way that mirrors their childhood relational world. They may describe:

• A God who is loving, but only if they behave

• A God who feels distant, hard to reach, or easily disappointed

• A God whose approval can be lost suddenly or without warning

  
  

What is confusing however, is that when you ask them what they explicitly believe, they will state that they sincerely believe that God is loving, merciful, and forgiving. If I were to ask them to describe their theology, they would say exactly that.

However, in moments of anxiety, their implicit unconscious beliefs emerge. And especially in the throes of scrupulosity—different thoughts emerge:

• “I am never good enough for God.”

• “God is waiting for me to fail.”

• "God always wants more from me. He is never happy"

• “If I don’t get this right, I’ll lose everything.”

  
  

In schema therapy, we talk about different modes or parts of the self. One part may genuinely believe that God is loving, caring, forgiving, and merciful. But another part — the anxious or OCD-driven part — experiences God through a very different lens: as demanding, punitive, easily displeased, or distant and unpredictable. In those moments, the nervous system is reverting to what it learned early in life — that love and relationships, including one’s relationship with God, may not be safe.

When Spiritual Abuse contributes to anxious attachment & Scrupulosity

Over time, I have noticed that some clients who come seeking support for spiritual abuse also present with symptoms of scrupulosity. In these situations, their attachment templates were shaped not only by early family experiences but also by the relationships they formed within their faith communities. The way a person learns to relate to God is often filtered through the way they were treated by those who claimed to represent Him. Many have experienced:

• Spiritual abuse — where a faith leader or community uses Scripture, spiritual authority, or “God’s will” to control behaviour, silence questions, or justify harmful treatment. This often leaves people feeling confused, ashamed, and unsafe in their relationship with God.

• Manipulation by clergy — such as guilt-tripping, gaslighting, spiritualising normal human needs, or using pastoral relationships to exert pressure. Some people also experience Clergy Sexual Abuse, or Adult Clergy Sexual Exploitation with a spiritual leader as the perpetrator. Over time, this can create deep doubts about one’s own discernment and a fear of displeasing God.

• High-control church environments — where unquestioning obedience is expected, boundaries are discouraged, and leaders are positioned as the sole interpreters of truth. These systems often mirror coercive control dynamics found in abusive relationships, shaping a person’s internal world around fear, confusion, vigilance, and self-doubt.

• Conditional acceptance in faith communities — where belonging depends on compliance, perfectionism, or meeting unspoken spiritual standards. This can cultivate schemas such as “I’m only worthy if I perform,” which easily blend into scrupulosity and religious anxiety.

For these people, a pastor or leader who represented God was:

• Punitive

• Critical

• Shaming

• Controlling

• Unpredictable

For many religious people, spiritual leaders feel like God’s representatives on earth because faith communities often teach that pastors, priests, or elders have a special role in guiding, teaching, and shepherding others on God’s behalf. Therefore, when a spiritual leader is controlling, shaming, or unpredictable, it often shapes how a person imagines God, too.

Research from Vigdel, Nygaard, and Kleiven (2024) shows that people who have experienced spiritual abuse often internalise the image of a God who is demanding or harsh—one participant described feeling as though God was “sitting on her back, whipping her to do His bidding,” with no room for her needs or limits. Others spoke about the deep shame they felt, saying things like “no matter what I did, it turned out to be wrong,” or recalling times when leaders criticised them for harmless personal preferences or ways of expressing themselves.

Over time, experiences like these teach the nervous system that closeness, even with God, may not be safe or reliable. This can create an attachment pattern where God feels harsh, easily disappointed, or difficult to please—fueling scrupulosity and spiritual anxiety.

Then the nervous system may have learned “This is what spiritual authority is like”, and even after leaving that environment, the internal relational map remains.

How attachment styles can colour scrupulosity

Below I’ll describe four common attachment patterns and how each can interact with scrupulosity in the present. You don’t need to “pick a box”, as attachment is complex, and these patterns blend and shift. For that reason, you may recognise elements of more than one in yourself. Think of them as maps, not diagnoses.

1) Anxious attachment: “Love feels precarious — I must perform to be safe.”

If your early experience was inconsistent or conditional — warm one moment, withdrawn or critical the next — you may have learned to scan for danger, hustle for approval and catastrophise mistakes. In scrupulosity, that can sound like:

• “If I have one impure thought, I’ve ruined everything.”

• “If I don’t confess perfectly, God will reject me.”

• "If God catches me doing the wrong thing, I might go to hell".

• “I must repeat the prayer until it feels right — otherwise I’m not worthy.”

  
  

Anxious systems often lean on reassurance (from clergy, loved ones, or God) and feel temporarily calmer after rituals, which unfortunately reinforces the OCD (scrupulosity) cycle [5,7].

2) Avoidant attachment: “Closeness feels risky — I’ll manage alone.”

If caregivers were emotionally distant, dismissive or shaming of need, you may have learned to keep feelings (and people) at arm’s length. In scrupulosity, avoidance can look like:

• Meticulous perfectionism and rule-keeping to stay in control, paired with a reluctance to share distress or seek comfort.

• Withdrawing from prayer or community because spiritual intimacy triggers shame or fear of exposure — then feeling guilty for the withdrawal.

• High standards but low self-compassion, which paradoxically fuels more intrusive thoughts and rituals when perfection isn’t possible [2–4].

  
  

3) Disorganised attachment: “I want closeness — and I fear it.”

When the caregiver is simultaneously a source of comfort and fear (e.g., chaotic, unpredictable, frightening), the child has no consistent strategy for soothing. In adulthood this can look like intense approach–avoid cycles, emotional flooding and dissociation. In scrupulosity, people sometimes describe:

• Feeling drawn to God for safety but simultaneously terrified of divine punishment.

• Swinging between over-control (many rituals, rigid rule-keeping) and collapse (numbness, despair), often with crushing shame.

• Severe guilt and fear of God, coupled with spikes in overall OCD severity, particularly around unacceptable-thoughts domains [9].

  
  

4) Secure attachment: “I can reach for others — and soothe myself.”

People with secure patterns still get anxious, have intrusive thoughts, and value moral living. The difference is how they interpret and respond. They view mistakes as part of being human, rather than perceiving imperfections a reflection of their low worth. They view uncertainty as tolerable and part of faith. Authority isn’t automatically viewed as unsafe or unavailable. In faith spaces, security translates to relational trust — with God and community — which buffers against spirals when taboo thoughts or doubts appear.

Conclusion: Understanding One Piece of the Scrupulosity Puzzle

It’s important to say clearly: Scrupulosity does not have a single cause.

We know from decades of research that:

• OCD has a biological and neurological foundation, involving how the brain responds to uncertainty, error signals, and perceived threat.

• OCD themes often attach to the things a person values most — which is why for people of faith, symptoms may centre on morality, prayer, confession, purity, or the fear of disappointing God.

  
  

So attachment patterns do not explain scrupulosity on their own.

However, attachment, and particularly are person's attachment to God helps us understand why certain fears feel so emotionally charged and why the OCD cycle may become particularly intense for those that have experienced early life trauma and spiritual abuse.

When the nervous system has learned through early relationships or later experiences that:

• approval is earned,

• mistakes are dangerous,

• love can be withdrawn,

• or authority must be appeased to remain safe,

then intrusive religious thoughts can feel like a real and immediate relational threat.

In this framework:

• A blasphemous intrusive thought doesn’t just feel “wrong” — it feels like it might cost you connection.

• A moment of doubt doesn’t just feel uncomfortable — it feels like abandonment.

• Not repeating a prayer “correctly” doesn’t just feel unfinished — it feels unsafe.

  
  

Approaches like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP) are the gold standard for OCD — and they remain essential here [4–7]. But when scrupulosity is shaped by attachment dynamics, therapy may also include:

• Schema work

• Emotion-focused processing

• Self-compassion training

• Rebuilding trust in internal cues

• And gently reshaping one’s image of God, both cognitively and emotionally, through techniques like imagery rescripting (if that is desired by the client)

  
  

An invitation - Psychologist with an special interest in scrupulosity and spiritual abuse

If this resonated and you’d like support, I offer online psychology sessions across Australia. I integrate evidence-based psychological approaches such as Schema Therapy, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT)/Exposure Response Prevention (ERP), and Acceptance and Committment Therapy (ACT) within a faith-sensitive, compassionate approach. You’re welcome to book an appointment with me here: Home - Client Bookings Zanda

Book a Session

Immediate support

If you are experiencing distress and need immediate support, please call Lifeline on 13 11 14 for 24/7 crisis support in Australia.

Disclaimer

Any stories or examples provided are an example only and do not describe a specific client, person or event. Some of the information we provide on our website may be information related to health and medical issues, but it's not meant to be health and medical "advice". We provide this information for your general use only. While we try to provide accurate information, it may be historical, incomplete information or based on opinions that aren't widely held. Your personal situation has not been considered when providing the information, so any reliance on this information is at your sole risk. We recommend seeking independent professional advice before relying on the information we provide. Find the full terms of service here: Terms of Service | Curated Mind Psych.

References

1. Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Parent–Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. Basic Books.

2. Moroń, M., Niedbała, D., Matychniak, N., Stabla, P., & Broda, T. (2025). Religious scrupulosity and early maladaptive schemas: A network analysis. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 54(1), 137–151.

3. Moron, M., Biolik-Moron, M., & Matuszewski, K. (2022). Scrupulosity in the network of obsessive–compulsive symptoms, religious struggles, and self-compassion. Religions, 13(10), 879.

4. Abramowitz, J. S., & Buchholz, J. L. (2019). Scrupulosity: A cognitive–behavioural analysis of religious obsessions. In J. S. Abramowitz & S. N. Hellberg (Eds.), Clinical Handbook of Obsessive–Compulsive and Related Disorders (pp. 71–90).

5. Albińska, P. (2022). Scrupulosity – Cognitive-behavioural understanding of religious/moral OCD and treatment model. Psychiatria i Psychologia Kliniczna, 22(1), 25–39.

6. Rachman, S. (1997). A cognitive theory of obsessions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35(9), 793–802.

7. Rachman, S. (1998). A cognitive theory of obsessions (Part 2). Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(4), 385–401.

8. Toprak, T. B., & Özçelik, H. N. (2024). Psychotherapies for the treatment of scrupulosity: A systematic review. Current Psychology, 43, 22361–22375.

9. Shafran, R., Thordarson, D. S., & Rachman, S. (1996). Thought–action fusion in OCD. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 10(5), 379–391.

10. Raj, R., Khanam, A., Wani, Z. A., & Haq, I. (2025). Scrupulosity in OCD and its association with religiosity and guilt: An exploratory study in Kashmir, North India. Mental Health, Religion & Culture.

11. Huppert, J. D., & Siev, J. (2010). Treating scrupulosity in religious individuals: Addressing moral and religious issues. In Cognitive Behaviour Therapy for Obsessive–Compulsive Disorder.

12. Fergus, T. A., & Rowatt, W. C. (2014). Examining a purported association between attachment to God and scrupulosity. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 6(3), 230–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036345

13. Vigdel, H. E., Nygaard, M. R., & Kleiven, T. (2024). Longing for humanity: The process of leaving a context of perceived spiritual abuse. Pastoral Psychology, 73, 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-024-01137-8

14. Young, B., Seedall, R. B., & Robinson, W. D. (2025). Couple treatment for religious OCD/scrupulosity: Integrating ACT and Restoration Therapy. Journal of Family Therapy, 47, e70001.