Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USATSQThe Sociological Quarterly0038-02532006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

2006471175194ADOLESCENCE, FAMILY STRUCTURE, RACE, AND RELIGIONReligious

Change and Adoles-

cent Family DynamicsMark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253

RELIGIOUS CHANGE AND ADOLESCENT

FAMILY DYNAMICS
Mark D. Regnerus*
University of Texas at Austin

Amy Burdette
University of Texas at Austin

Much more has been documented about the influence of religion on parenting practices than on
how the former may shape family life from the perspective of adolescents. Building a conceptual
model of religion and changing family relations, we assessed the particular influence of adolescent
religious change on the dynamics of their relationships with their parents, and overall satisfaction
with their families. Employing data from two waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), results suggested that growth in personal religious saliencehow
important religion is in adolescents livesis uniquely and consistently related to better family relations, even after accounting for behavioral changessuch as excessive drinking and drug abuse
that are detrimental to both religiosity and family relations.

Positive family functioning and good parentchild relationships during adolescence elicit
ideal outcomes well into adulthood, including the psychological well-being and life satisfaction of both parents and children (Amato 1994; Knoester 2003). Children who feel
emotionally close to their parents are also more apt to exhibit collectivist value orientations, in contrast to more individualist orientations (Bengtson, Biblarz, and Roberts
2002:28). Research on families and religion have often noted links between religious
involvement, particular religious affiliations, and a variety of family outcomes, including
marital duration and satisfaction, authoritative (and in some cases, authoritarian)
parenting practices, and parenting consistency (Thornton 1985; Bahr and Chadwick
1988; Brody et al. 1994; Wilcox 1998). In general, the tenor of religious effects on families
is typically positive. Yet there has been considerably more research interest in the influence of religion on child rearing and parenting practices (e.g., Ellison and Sherkat
1993a,b; Wilcox 1998) than in looking at how religion may shape family life from the perspective of the child. Indeed, the perspective that is typically featured in such studies is
nearly exclusively from that of parents.
Employing data from two waves of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health (Add Health), we avoid this common focus on parents and instead evaluate how
adolescents perceive the quality of their interpersonal relationships with family members.
Given that adolescence is the peak period of religious instability across the life course, we
Opinions reflect those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the granting agency.
*Direct correspondence to Mark D. Regnerus, Department of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin, 1
University Station A1700, Austin, TX 78712-0118; e-mail: regnerus@prc.utexas.edu
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

175

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

are particularly interested on how change in adolescent childrens religiosity affects how
they view or experience their parents and family. Before we examine these relationships,
we highlight several key recent studies in the field of religion and family before outlining
a few conceptual frameworks by which adolescent religious change on parentchild relationships might be understood.
ADOLESCENT RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT
Survey research on American adolescents continues to note a developmental component
to religious involvement. Each additional year of adolescence brings with it significant
physical, psychological, and social changes that are thought to influence their religious
participation (Smith et al. 2002: 597). For example, the frequency of regular religious service attendance tends to decline between 8th and 12th grades. In 1997, approximately 44
percent of 8th graders reported attending services weekly compared to 38 percent of 10th
graders, and 31 percent of 12th graders (Johnston, Bachman, and OMalley 1999). Data
from the Survey of Parents and Youth note that while 50 percent of 13-year-olds report
participating in a religious youth group in the previous seven days, this figure declines in
linear fashion, bottoming out at 29 percent for 18-year-olds, constituting a 43 percent
decline over five years (Smith et al. 2002). Age differences in religious salience are noted
much less commonly. A study of adolescents in Iowa found that while the frequency of
religious service attendance dipped during the high school years, levels of participation in
other religious activities tended to rise over the same period (King, Elder, and Whitbeck
1997). Yet, adolescence and emerging adulthood is also the life stage when religious conversion is most likely to take place. Toward this end, Ozorak (1989) suggests that polarization in religiosity occurs during adolescence; the decreases (in religiosity) of somewhat or
moderately religious youth mask the increases of the (fewer) very religious.
RELIGION AND FAMILY RELATIONS
How religious involvement and tradition have shaped family formation, relations, and
parenting practices has been documented in a variety of studies (for a summary, see
Mahoney et al. 2001). The messages, doctrines, social networks, and family activity settings that JudeoChristian religious institutions provide are powerful forces for encouraging and reinforcing family solidarity, role definitions, and childrens obedience (Ellison
and Sherkat 1993b; Curtis and Ellison 2002). By way of enhancing public and private religiosity, family members may cultivate values emphasizing love, care, and forgiveness
(Curtis and Ellison 2002). At the same time, however, the evolution of accepted family
forms (e.g., the prevalence of stepfamilies, growing religious heterogeneity within families, singlehood, childlessness, etc.) has also served to modifypractically if not theologicallyhow congregations, denominations, and individuals understand family relations
(Thornton 1985).
Yet, whether and how religion actually affects interpersonal relationships between
family members remain poorly understood (Holden 2001). In this study, we consider this
176

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

question, and in particular focus our attention on adolescents affective relationships

with parents and familythat is, their feelings of closeness, being understood, having fun
together, and being satisfied with parental and family relationships (Bengtson et al.
2002).
In one of the most comprehensive and long-term studies on the subject, Pearce and
Axinn (1998) found evidence connecting maternal religiosity with young adult childrens
reports of higher-quality motherchild relationships. In particular, the importance of
religion in the mothers life was more tightly linked with motherchild closeness than was
church attendance or affiliation. Additionally, when the mother and child matched in the
importance that each accorded religion, both maternal and child reports of relationship
quality were more positive. When 18-year-olds attended religious services at levels comparable to their mothers, the latter tended to report significantly better relationship quality a full five years later. In studies of observed family interactions, greater general
religiousness of family members appeared to be linked to more cohesiveness (Brody,
Stoneman, and Flor 1996) and self-reported cohesion (Abbott, Berry, and Meredith
1990) within families.
In spite of scholarly and lay interest in the effect of religious involvement on family
lifeparticularly with respect to parenting practicesprevious research have been limited in at least three key respects. First, few studies have incorporated adolescent perspectives on family relations. Researchers have typically relied on the perceptions of parents in
assessing the quality and stability of family life and parentchild relationships. This lack
of method variance is noteworthy in light of research, which suggests that parents and
adolescents often exhibit varying perspectives on conflict within the family (Collins 1990;
Aquilino 1999). Second, previous research relies heavily on cross-sectional data. As a consequence, scholars are unable to explore the changes in family relationships over time.
Third, developmental concerns about adolescent religious change or transformation
(i.e., becoming more religious or losing religion altogether) have not been given ample
attention, orwhere they have been notedare not evaluated adequately because of
data limitations or the narrow focus of particular research interests. Although our data
will not document the exact manner in which religious change influences parentchild
and family relations, there are several possible pathways of influence. We briefly outline
three in particular, namely: (1) increased opportunities for parentchild interaction, (2)
immersion into family-centered belief systems, and, alternately, (3) religious exit
processes.
ParentChild Interaction
Through increased participation in religious services and activities, parents and
children spend time together in a family-affirming environment. Churches and other
religious organizations often plan activities (e.g., camps, retreats, fatherdaughter
breakfasts) to promote positive family relationships (Abbott et al. 1990; Pearce and
Axinn 1998). Further increasing opportunities for interaction (again, conceived to be a
positive thing) are the above-average number of social ties and more cohesive networks
among persons and generations within congregationsan example of intergenerational
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

177

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

closure that is thought to encourage stronger parentchild relationships (Coleman

1988; Smith 2003).
Family-Centered Belief Systems
Religious institutions not only foster social support and provide opportunities for family
interaction, but also encourage parents to be highly committed to both their children and
their spouse. More subtly, children are urged to honor and obey their parents (Ellison and
Sherkat 1993b). In this way, among others, family members can learn what is expected of
them as well as what to expect from each other. Such specific moral directives concerning
family relations can constitute a key form of religious influence among youth (Smith
2003). Because religion can sanctify (i.e., lend religious importance to) family life, it
typically offers purposes and processes that have no direct equivalent within secular systems of meaning and motivation. This sanctification presents family members not only
with new sources of conflict, but also new resources for resolving conflict (Mahoney
2005). For example, apart from fee-based marital and family counseling services, there
are fewer resources for irreligious Americans to draw upon for family relations help
than for religious Americans (e.g., courses on parenting, occasional free child care, congregational interaction opportunities, social control of deviant behavior of both parents
and youth, etc.). Thus, increasing religiosity may prompt more consistent agreement
between parents and children about the boundaries of acceptable childand for that
matter, parent and familybehavior (Bartkowski and Ellison 1995). The opposite may
be true when religiosity diminishes. On the other hand, when incompatible or dissimilar
religious perspectives exist within families, religious change could exacerbate conflicts.
The Religious Exit Explanation
Unlike the two pathways previously noted, which focused on positive religious change,
another plausible account about the association between religion and adolescent family
relations concerns those who leave organized religion. This approach emphasizes the
possibility that some youth select themselves out of religious involvement, suggesting that
reverse causation is at work in apparent religious effects. From this perspective, religion
does not influence family relations, despite initial appearances. It is thought that some
adolescents, for whatever reasons, develop certain attitudes and behaviors (e.g., become
depressed, lose their virginity, commit crimes, drink excessively, etc.) that are at odds with
their religious beliefs and practices, and thus subsequently reduce their religious involvement, alter their religious beliefs, or drop out of organized religion altogether. This could
function to create observed (but not real) associations between religion or religiosity and
particular outcomes, since the religious sample comprises those that did not drop out or
decline in religiosity. Inverse associations between religiosity and deviant outcomes (e.g.,
poor family relations) may be because the respondents with the negative outcomes
reported diminishing religiosity. In this way, religion itself does not influence people
toward better outcomes, but rather is avoided by people with worse outcomes. In general,
there is considerable evidence across a variety of outcomes to suggest that certain behaviors (e.g., delinquency, cohabitation, sex, etc.) may also result in diminished religiosity or
178

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

extent of religious involvement of the actors (Thornton and Camburn 1989; Thornton,
Axinn, and Hill 1992; Benda and Corwyn 1997; Benda and Toombs 2002).
HYPOTHESES
Social scientists often refer to religious effects or influences of religiosity, but religiosity
is a complex, multidimensional concept with private and public aspects that defy simple
explanation and that can yield very different results in studies of adolescent outcomes
(Regnerus 2003). For our purposes, then, different forms of religious change may lend
themselves more or less to directly affecting adolescents perception of family relations.
Increasing attendance or importance of religion in adolescent childrens lives will likely
contribute to a number of processes related to better family relations. With respect to
church or religious service attendance, their opportunities for focused interaction with
parents and exposure to messages concerning ideal parentchild relations and responsibilities will increase. Increased interaction between family members may not result from
increasing religious salience, but the moral directives that characterize the family unit as
containing religious significanceand that parents are to be obeyed and families
enjoyedmay be more readily ascertained and adhered to as religion becomes more
important in adolescents lives.
The research conclusions and theoretical pathways previously noted collectively suggest the outlines of a model (Figure 1) of the dynamics between developing religiosity and
changing family relations. In particular, some religious changessuch as the upheaval
and potential religious discord that accompanies shifting or differing affiliations (Sherkat

Heightened substance use

and delinquency

Baseline level and growth

in religious resources
(Access to parentchild interaction
opportunities, exposure to family-centered
moral directives, intensity of
commitment to family)

Change in
family relations

Shift in religious affiliation

(Religious instability, discontinuity
in exposure to family-centered
messages and opportunities)

FIGURE 1. A Conceptual Model of Religion and Changing Family Relations.

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

179

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

and Darnell 1999; Myers 2004)are thought to be aggravating. Studies of married couples have detected more significant conflict and disruption in marriages involving one (or
a more) conservative Protestant partner (Ellison, Bartkowski, and Anderson 1999; Curtis
and Ellison 2002). Discordant attendance among spouses appears detrimental to marital
happiness and stability (Heaton and Pratt, 1990). Thus, the lack of religious congruence
may correspond with a variety of poor relationship outcomes. Additionally, parents and
children who draw upon discordant religious foundations may be more apt to display
relationship problems.
Other religious changes are thought to benefit family relations, including the heightening of religiosity and its concomitant exposure to religious messages about family relations, opportunities to positively interact with family members, familiarity with other
family role models, and so on. The evidence concerning religious exits, however, suggests
that parallel (and popular) processes during adolescence that heighten youth delinquency and substance use may both directly diminish the quality of family relations and
mitigate religious effects by undermining religious development.
Nevertheless, Wimberleys (1989) work on a hierarchy of salience among persons
various roles (e.g., religious believer, son, employee, etc.) suggests that when ones roles
call for incompatible actions (e.g., to save money or to send children to private religious
schooling, etc.), a hierarchy of salience influences the choice of action. That is, the discrete
identity that is most important, or more important relative to the other role identities,
will motivate action. Thus, religious salience is thought to directly shape religious norm
adherence, perhaps acting as a stimulant in obeying religious moral directives concerning
the family. This emphasis on role importance, together with previous research on family
relations, suggests that subjective religiosity (i.e., personal religious salience) as well as
public religiosity (i.e., attendance) will be associated with family relationship outcomes
(Pearce and Axinn 1998; Myers 2004):
Hypothesis 1: Family-related ideals or norms (e.g., adolescents adhering to parental
rules or reflecting positively upon their parents) will be more frequently adhered to
when religion becomes more important in adolescents lives or when they increase
their participation in organized religion.
However, not all religious changes improve family relations. When adolescents draw
upon a common religious base, regardless of its significance in their lives (i.e., whether
very important or not), this lends itself to relationship stability, if not better relations.
When religious conversion or reaffiliation to a different religious perspective occurs, conflicts can be exacerbated (Mahoney 2005):
Hypothesis 2: When adolescents change religious traditions (e.g., from Catholic to
evangelical Protestant), their subsequent report of family relations will be poorer.
Moreover, to the extent that born again experiences also entail changes in religious
traditions, these too will contribute to poorer family relations.
Finally, given the evidence that certain deviant attitudes and behaviors (e.g., heightened alcohol use, delinquency, etc.) tend to both aggravate family relations and reduce
religiosity, we should see the influence of religious change on family relations shrink
when we account for such deviant attitudes or behaviors (Thornton 1985):
180

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Hypothesis 3: After accounting for change in behaviors that aggravate both family
relations and religiosity, the positive influence of heightened attendance or religious
salience will diminish or disappear.
DATA AND METHODS
Data
The data for this analysis come from the first two waves of the Add Health, a representative study of adolescents in grades 7 to 12. Add Health is a school-based study of healthrelated behaviors. It is designed to explore the causes of these behaviors, with an emphasis
on social context and social networks. The Add Health study was funded by the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) and 17 other federal agencies. Fieldwork was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center of the University
of Chicago. Data were gathered from adolescents, their parents, siblings, friends, romantic partners, fellow students, and school administrators. The schools ranged in size from
less than 100 students to more than 3,000 students, and included urban, suburban, and
rural locations. The schools, and the students in them, are thus representative samples.
Respondents were interviewed in their homes twice, with an approximate one-year
interval between interviews. The first wave of in-home interviews was conducted
between April and December 1995. A parent was also interviewed once at the first wave.
The second wave of data collection took place between April and August 1996. Prior to
list-wise deletion of missing values, the working sample size of respondents for whom
there is Waves I and II data, as well as a parent interview and survey weights, is 13,303 adolescents. Given its multiple waves and large sample size, Add Health is arguably the best
current data source for examining religious effects on adolescent outcomes, especially for
scholars concerned with change in behavior over time, and explanatory rather than associational relationships.
Measures
MotherChild and FatherChild Relationship Quality. These two dependent variables are
identical, summed indices of five measures, and were collected at both study waves. The
indices were intended to reflect comparable measures employed in a study by Ellis,
Thomas, and Rollins (1976). Adolescent respondents were first queried about the presence of a residential mother and father in their households. These were typically a biological parent, although they were not required to be. Of the baseline Wave II survey
respondents, 1,071 reported having no residential mother or mother-like figure, and just
fewer than 4,300 reported having no residential father or father-like figure. Those respondents who reported having one or the other (or both) were asked several questions in two
different sections about them. The first was, How close do you feel to your mother (or
residential mothers name)? The respondents could respond on a 5-point range from 1
(not close at all) to 5 (extremely close). Next, they were asked, How much do you
think she (or residential mothers name) cares for you? Answers could range from 1
(not at all) to 5 (very much). Identical questions were then asked about the
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

181

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

respondents residential father. Later in the survey, the respondents were presented with a
series of statements about their relationships with their parents: Most of the time, your
father is warm and loving toward you, You are satisfied with the way you and your father
communicate with each other, and Overall, you are satisfied with your relationship with
your father. The respondents were also asked to evaluate the same statements about their
mother, and could respond to each with an answer ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5
(strongly disagree). The index is comparable to the solidarity models measure of affectual solidarity (Silverstein and Bengtson 1997). The alpha coefficients of reliability for the
set of five measures, split according to sex of parent and study wave, ranged from 0.83 to
0.87. All change scores are simply computed by subtracting the Wave I score from that of
Wave II. Table 1 presents the summary statistics for all variables.
Family Satisfaction. This outcome is constructed as a summed index of three indicators of
the adolescent respondents satisfaction with their family lifea topic broached considerably later in the survey than the parental relationship questions. The respondents were
asked, How much do you feel that people in your family understand you? Questions
were also asked concerning how much the respondent felt their family has fun together
and how much they felt their family pays attention to them. The answer categories for
each ranged from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). The alpha coefficients of reliability
for the set of three variables were 0.78 and 0.79 at Waves I and II, respectively.
Religion. We employ four adolescent religion measures in this study: (1) religious affiliation, (2) importance of religion, (3) attendance, and (4) self-identity as a born again
Christian. The adolescents were asked about their religious affiliation during both waves.
We grouped religious affiliations into eight categories in step with Steensland et al.s
(2000) classification scheme, including evangelical, mainline, and black Protestants,
Roman Catholics, Jews, Latter-Day Saints/Mormons, the religiously unaffiliated, and a
category of other religious groups. The change-in-affiliation measure taps whether
adolescents reported a religious affiliation at Wave II that was outside their original religious tradition (among the eight listed previously). Additionally, we include a dichotomous measure tapping whether the adolescent and their parent cite the same or different
religious traditions (e.g., mainline Protestant versus Catholic, conservative Protestant
versus Mormon).
We also include a dichotomous measure of whether the adolescent considers himself/
herself to be a born again Christian, and whether this status changed between waves
(i.e., whether the respondent said no and yes at Waves I and II, respectively). Per
hypothesis, we distinguish between born again religious experiences that occur within
a stable religious tradition and those that entail a new religious affiliation or tradition.
Religious salience taps a more private and subjective form of religiosity in the respondents life. At both waves, the adolescents were asked, How important is religion to
you? Four response categories ranged from not important at all to very important.
Unfortunately, those who indicated that they were not religious in the first religion section question were not asked to answer any subsequent religion questions. Rather than
182

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

TABLE 1. Means, Ranges, and Standard Deviations (SDs) of Measures

Variables
Motherchild relationship quality
(N = 10,574)
Change in motherchild relationship quality
(N = 10,071)
Fatherchild relationship quality (N = 7,664)
Change in fatherchild relationship quality
(N = 7,341)
Family satisfaction index
Change in family satisfaction
Adolescents religious service attendance
Change in service attendance habits
between Waves I and II
Adolescents self-rated importance of religion
Change in importance of faith between
Waves I and II
Change in religious tradition
Self-identifies as born again at Wave I
Becomes born again between Waves I and II
Religious tradition of parent and child are
congruent
Level of personal autonomy
Change in personal autonomy between
Waves I and II
Female
White
Age
Average parent education
Household size
Stepfamily
All other household structure types
Single-parent household
Biological two-parent family
Likes taking risks
Strategic
Change in drinking habits between Waves
I and II
Change in marijuana use between Waves I
and II
Change in delinquency between Waves I
and II

Range

Wave I
mean

Wave I
SD

Wave II
mean

Wave II
SD

525

22.24

3.07

21.86

3.16

0.38

2.79

18 to +17
525
16 to +18

21.37

3.68

20.87
0.48

3.71
3.04

315
12 to +12
14
3 to +3

11.29

2.43

11.24
0.05

2.51
2.28

2.77

1.20
0.05

0.96

0.06

0.88

0.26

0.44

0.08

0.27

0.35

1.43

3.54

1.05

0.09

1.40

0.00

0.43

0.44

2.56

14
3 to +3
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,1

3.07

1.04

0.27

0.44

0.73

0.45

06
6 to +6

4.26

1.37

0,1
0,1
1219
01
115
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,1
15
525
6 to +6

0.51
0.58
15.24
0.26
3.62
0.14
0.07
0.24
0.55

0.50
0.49
1.57
0.39
1.57
0.35
0.25
0.43
0.50

18.20

2.88

1 to +1
18 to +18

Unless otherwise noted, Wave I variables N = 11,094; measures of change between waves N = 10,493.

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

183

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

lose a considerable number of cases, Add Health data users have typically assigned the
lowest value on attendance and religious salience to youth who indicate no religious
affiliation.
Religious service attendance is a reliable and traditional measure of the public and
collective expression of religion, and captures involvement in an adultchild moral community. The measure is ordinal (ranges 1 to 4), and was asked at both waves as follows: In
the past 12 months, how often did you attend religious services? Response categories
ranged from never to once a week or more. While single items may not be the ideal
measures of public and private religiosity, their concurrent use within models is extensive
within sociological research (Pearce and Axinn 1998; Nonnemaker, McNeely, and Blum
2003; Myers 2004).
Behavior/Status Change Measures. We include several behavioral change measures in
order to evaluate their effects on change in family relations. The measures consisted of
Wave II comparisons with Wave I outcomes on frequency of alcohol use, the occurrence
of marijuana use, the frequency of a series of minor delinquent acts (e.g., damaging property, lying to parents, rowdiness, etc.), and change in the level of adolescents autonomy
(a six-item summed index of the respondents freedom to decide what they wear, who
they hang around with, what time they go to bed on weeknights, etc.).
Control Variables. We include several control variables that are thought to be related both
to religiosity and family relationship quality. They should function to limit spurious
associations between religiosity and the three family relations outcomes. Socioeconomic
background has in several studies affected parentchild relations, though not extensively
so (Rossi and Rossi 1990; Pearce and Axinn 1998); thus we include a measure of average
parental education. Family structure has been linked with family relations as well as family religiosity (Bahr and Chadwick 1988; Booth and Amato 1994). We include two dichotomous variables indicating whether the respondent is living in a stepfamily or in some
other type of family (i.e., single parent, adopted, another type) compared to a biologically intact, two-parent family. We also controlled for household size, age, and race
(white = 1). Parentchild value consensus and cohesiveness are expected to vary by
gender, with sons closer to fathers and daughters to mothers (Pearce and Axinn 1998;
Silverstein and Bengtson 1997). We include measures of gender for both the adolescent
and parent respondent. Proclivity for risk is a single-item measure that consists of the
level of agreement with the statement: You like to take risks. Respondents could range
from strongly agree to strongly disagree. It was not asked at Wave I; it is a Wave II
measure that is treated as indicating an underlying personality type. Similarly, the variable dubbed strategic is a five-item summed index of how strategic a decision maker the
respondent is. The measures include responses to questions such as When making decisions, you usually go with your gut feeling without thinking too much about the consequences of each alternative, and After carrying out a solution to a problem, you usually
try to analyze what went right and what went wrong. The alpha coefficient of reliability
for this set of measures was 0.63.
184

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Modeling Religious Influences on Family Relationships

Our modeling approach seeks to isolate religious influences on the family from other
effects (Holden 2001). We employ two types of models that should enhance the ability to
assess causal influences of religion: (1) lagged dependent variable (LDV) models to assess
the influence of religiosity on change in the three family relations outcomes, while also
controlling for unmeasured heterogeneity in the outcome; and (2) pure change models,
predicting interwave change in the outcomes as a function of interwave change in religiosity and in a set of behaviors. By its nature, the LDV model is conservative; that is, only
coefficients that significantly shape change over the course of the year between waves will
display significance. The LDV model is most appropriate when attitudes or behaviors are
subject to reinforcement or habit formation, as is very likely the case in family relations
(Allison 1990).
Alternatively, the pure change model is equally, if not more, conservative. Neither
time-invariant effects (e.g., race, gender, etc.) nor variables that are equally shared among
respondents (i.e., change in age, etc.) should be included. Although change scores have
their detractors, their confirmation as valid and reliable measures of individual growth
appears to be increasing (Rogosa 1995). The change variables employed here are simple
difference scores: the Wave I variable value subtracted from the Wave II variable value.
Together, these two methods should be understood as complementary; the LDV models
estimate a baseline effect of religiosity on shifts in family relations, while the pure change
models estimate the influence of religious change on discrete, measurable shifts in family
relations.
The estimates from each regression model included a school and region cluster term,
as well as a weight to account for unequal probability of respondents being sampled. The
school cluster increases the standard error of coefficients to account for homogeneity
within schools, the primary sampling unit for Add Health. To accomplish this, we generated our ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models in Stata using its svyreg function (StataCorp 2001). Since the motherchild and fatherchild relationship outcomes,
but not the family satisfaction index, are limited to those respondents who report a residential mother or father or comparable figures, the two entail a considerable risk of sample selection bias. As a possible solution, we evaluated Heckman models, but they proved
to be poor choices for the motherchild analysis, resulting in erratic estimates and model
convergence problems. While the Heckman approach was more stable for the father
child models, the results did not differ notably from OLS models.
RESULTS
Table 2 displays results from LDV regression models (in OLS) predicting adolescents
self-reports about their relationship with their mother, father, and overall family satisfaction, at Wave II. The models are predicting baseline effects (of the independent variables)
on change in the outcomes. Adolescents who self-report that religion is important to
them indicated improved fatherchild relationship quality and overall family satisfaction. Specifically, a unit increase in baseline importance of religion corresponds with a
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

185

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

TABLE 2. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Lagged Dependent Variable Regression Estimates of
MotherChild, FatherChild, and Overall Family Relations, Wave II
Effect
Importance of religion
Religious service attendance
Self-identifies as a born
again Christian
Adolescents religious
tradition same as parents
Female
White
Age
Average parental education
Number of persons in
household
Stepfamily
Single-parent household
All other family structures
(except bio-intact)
Level of personal autonomy
Likes taking risks
Strategic
Lagged dependent variable,
from Wave I
Intercept
Model fit statistics
OLS R-square
N

Motherchild
relationship

Fatherchild
relationship

Family satisfaction

0.078 (0.05)
0.038 (0.04)
0.195* (0.08)

0.203** (0.06)
0.106+ (0.06)
0.104 (0.12)

0.095** (0.03)
0.047 (0.03)
0.097 (0.07)

0.071 (0.08)

0.117 (0.11)

0.064 (0.07)

0.156* (0.07)
0.088 (0.07)
0.018 (0.02)
0.079 (0.09)
0.005 (0.02)

0.354*** (0.08)
0.050 (0.11)
0.016 (0.03)
0.146 (0.12)
0.037 (0.04)

0.045 (0.06)
0.013 (0.07)
0.025 (0.02)
0.072 (0.08)
0.008 (0.02)

0.214* (0.09)
0.169* (0.08)
0.009 (0.15)

0.248+ (0.13)
0.668** (0.25)
0.475+ (0.26)

0.127 (0.08)
0.097 (0.07)
0.192 (0.12)

0.020 (0.02)
0.040 (0.03)
0.022+ (0.01)
0.593*** (0.02)

0.041 (0.03)
0.106* (0.04)
0.003 (0.02)
0.634*** (0.01)

0.033 (0.02)
0.141*** (0.03)
0.017 (0.01)
0.556*** (0.01)

8.249*** (0.54)

7.920*** (0.64)

4.782*** (0.43)

0.347
10,406

0.420
7,563

0.319
11,094

Standard errors appear below the coefficient, in parentheses.

+
p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed tests).

0.203-unit improvement in the quality of the respondents relationship with their father
between survey waves, as well as a 0.095-unit improvement in overall family satisfaction.
No religiosity effect appears associated with improvement in motherchild relations.
However, a baseline effect of being born again alters only the motherchild relationship, improving it by just under 0.2 units. Given its dichotomous nature, this effect is less
powerful than the religious salience effect on improvement in the fatherchild relationship. It should be apparent, then, that while the stock or level of religiosity may pay
benefits more immediately (in cross-sectional associations with family relations, not
evaluated here), it certainly pays benefits over time. Religious salience, however, appears
considerably more efficacious than attendance.
Other variables seldom displayed significance in the LDV models. Those worth noting include aggravating effects of stepfamilies and single-parent households on both the
186

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

motherchild and fatherchild relationships, where significant decline in quality is noted

between the two waves. Adolescent girls also displayed a declining relationship with both
their mother and father between study waves, although the deterioration in their relationship with their father was over twice the magnitude of that with their mother. Our
measure of proclivity for risk, included to help account for personality aspects of religiosity, nevertheless displays an independent, aggravating effect. With each unit increase in
proclivity for risk, fatherchild relationships and family satisfaction deteriorate by over
one tenth of a unit.
Table 3 displays the results from a pair of pure change models for each of the three
outcomes. The first model evaluates only the effects of change in religious measures, net
of change in adolescents level of autonomy or personal independence. The second model
adds a set of three change variableseach forms of delinquent behaviorthat comprises
a test of our third hypothesis, which suggests that it is not so much about change in religiosity but rather change in delinquent behavior that will alter both religiosity and family
relations.
While heightened autonomy does indeed correspond to improved family relations
across all models, this does not account for the consistently strong and positive effects on
family relations that are a function of heightened religious salience during adolescence.
Indeed, for each unit increase in religious salience between study waves, we see a 0.15- to
0.19-unit improvement in each measure of family relations. Only one other change-inreligion measure matters: youth who became born again within their original religious
tradition display an improvement of nearly one half a unit in fatherchild relationship
quality, compared to youth who did not undergo such religious change. For the most
part, however, the action remains (as in Table 2) with the self-rated importance of religion in ones life.
The models are clearly impacted by the addition of the change in delinquent behavior
variables. New drug use consistently (and considerably) corresponds to declining quality
of family relations. Greater alcohol use is modestly related with poorer fatherchild relations and overall family satisfaction, while more frequent minor delinquency is associated with the declining quality of motherchild relations and family satisfaction. Each of
these are clearly relationship aggravators. Their collective effects appear to outweigh the
contribution of religious change. Nevertheless, their effects do very little to mitigate the
influence of heightened religious salience on improved family relations. That is, in contrast to the third hypothesis, religious effects on family relations are not simply spurious,
explicable by introducing troubling behavior that is thought to do harm to both religiosity and family ties.
To briefly revisit the hypotheses here, we found considerable support for the first
hypothesisthat personal religious salience, as in other studies of family relations, is a
consistent relationship builder. Church attendance, and even heightened attendance over
time, contributes little to this. We subjected this hypothesis to considerable rigor, using
both LDV and pure change models, yet the consistency of religious salience effects
appeared stable. Additionally, when adolescents became born again within their same
religious tradition, we noted improved fatherchild relations. No support was found for
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

187

188

-0.054 (0.12)
0.072* (0.03)

-0.001 (0.10)
0.068** (0.02)
-0.058+ (0.03)
-0.370*** (0.08)
-0.053*** (0.02)
-0.442*** (0.05)
0.013
10,071

0.005 (0.10)
0.064** (0.02)

-0.436*** (0.05)
0.005
10,071

0.006
7,341

-0.552*** (0.07)

0.052 (0.07)
0.179* (0.07)
0.485* (0.23)
-0.061 (0.27)

Model 1

-0.001 (0.05)
0.170*** (0.05)
0.001 (0.20)
0.045 (0.26)

Model 2

0.017
7,341

-0.062 (0.12)
0.077* (0.03)
-0.123*** (0.04)
-0.461*** (0.13)
-0.037+ (0.02)
-0.539*** (0.07)

0.060 (0.07)
0.157* (0.07)
0.472* (0.23)
-0.043 (0.27)

Model 2

Change in fatherchild relationship

-0.006 (0.05)
0.187*** (0.05)
0.008 (0.20)
0.022 (0.26)

Model 1

p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed tests).

Change in attendance
Change in importance of religion
Became born again, same tradition
Became born again, different
tradition
Change in religious affiliation
Change in autonomy
Change in drinking behavior
Change in marijuana use
Change in minor delinquency
Intercept
Model fit statistic
OLS R-square
N

Effect

Change in motherchild
relationship

0.008
10,493

-0.116* (0.04)

0.021 (0.06)
0.066*** (0.02)

0.041 (0.04)
0.174*** (0.04)
0.019 (0.13)
-0.099 (0.19)

Model 1

0.022
10,493

0.016 (0.06)
0.071*** (0.02)
-0.073** (0.02)
-0.338*** (0.08)
-0.060*** (0.01)
-0.125** (0.04)

0.047 (0.04)
0.156*** (0.04)
0.017 (0.14)
-0.089 (0.19)

Model 2

Change in family satisfaction

TABLE 3. Estimates from Pure Change Models: Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Regression Predicting Change in Family Relations as a Function of Change in
Religiosity and Other Behaviors

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

the second hypothesis, however. Change in religious tradition/affiliation did not exhibit
declining family relations. Finally, we likewise found no support for the third hypothesis.
Effects of religiosity on changes in family relations are not in fact explicable as a function
of greater delinquency and substance use. The two sets of effects are independent of each
other.
DISCUSSION
The function of family and kinship ties is in a state of growing uncertainty. Divorce and
remarriage patterns have created a complex web of family structures. Add increasing religious heterogeneity and the connections between religion, family, and responsibility
become even more confusing. Some religious organizations employ these trends as motivations for renewed efforts to promote family ties (Wilcox 2002). Additionally, sometimes the religious socialization of adolescents does not stick, and parents find themselves
at odds with their children over religion. However, as this study shows, some adolescents
grow in their religious faith, which can implicitly function to create closer relationships
with other family members. This could be welcome news to religious youth organizations
and not a few parents. But a programmatic solution would clearly not be as simple as
figuring out how to boost adolescents religious involvement. Rather, the story here is
about religious valuing: fostering growth in internalized, intrinsic religiosity among
adolescents.
Several key findings stand out. First, religious change in the lives of adolescents can
happen within a span of one year, and not all change is about religious decline. About 15
to 18 percent of adolescents reported growth of some magnitude in one or another form
of religiosity between study waves, while 20 to 22 percent reported a decline (results not
shown here). Only about 60 to 65 percent of adolescents indicate complete stability in
religiosity (i.e., the same response to religiosity questions at both waves). While measurement error may account for a portion of this, it does not likely explain most of it. Religious
change does in fact occur during adolescence.
When growth in religiosity does occur, it can correspond to improved parentchild
and family relations, even after accounting for behavioral change variablesincreased
drinking, drug abuse, and delinquencythat tend to reduce religiosity and aggravate
family relationships. Among adolescents for whom religion became more important
between study waves, relations with mother, father (to a lesser extent), and family each
stand to benefit. Given developmental expectations that adolescent religiosity (especially
practices) tends to diminish over the course of adolescence, this positive benefit of
increasing religiosity is notable. Thus, a common religious development scenario, characterized by diminishing religiosity, may have rapid and modestly aggravating effects on
family relations. However, religious salience is thought to diminish less during adolescence than attendance patterns, and may even hold steady during adolescence (Smith
et al. 2002).
Second, the religious effects are not entirely dynamic. Religions baseline importance
also corresponded to improvement in the fatherchild relationship and overall family
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

189

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

satisfaction in the LDV models. Thus both (a) starting levels and (b) change in religious
salience predicts improved family relations. Third, church attendancemeasured either at
baseline or over timedid not predict better relations; nor did switching religious affiliations. Newly born again respondents only showed relationship improvement with
fathers, and only in cases where the transformation occurred within the same religious
tradition. A baseline effect of being born again was found to correspond with subsequent improvement in the motherchild relationship.
Along with several recent studies (including Pearce and Axinn 1998), our analyses suggest that the importance of religion to adolescents, rather than the religious practices
themselves, is generally more influential in shaping their interpersonal family relationships. What can we make out of this? The manner in which religion affects family relations
appears to have less to do with structured social integration (e.g., attendance) or its absence
than with the overall level and change in valuing religion and, by extension, valuing tradition-specific norms and beliefs about good family functioning and the importance of
close interpersonal relationships which, despite evangelical rhetoric, do not vary widely
across religious traditions (Snarey and Dollahite 2001; Wilcox 2002). This type of family
valuing is less directly fostered by religious involvement than by how important religion
is in the lives of adolescents. Wimberley (1989) contends that religious salience acts as a
stimulant to religious cognitive structures, a light switch of sorts thatif presentturns
on the force of cognitive structures (e.g., religiously-inspired family commitments)
toward influencing thought or behavior. Attendance simply seems less effective at generating family norm adherence than it is, say, at fostering greater parentchild interaction
or social support. Thus the first proposed pathway, parentchild interaction opportunities, appears less tenable given its emphasis on participation and religious involvement.
Adolescents who exhibit enhanced personal religiosity are apt to take religion seriously for their own reasons, rather than as a function of family socialization. Religious
salience is not forced, but rather selected, and is a better measure of religious valuing than
any particular religious practice. Frequently attending religious services exposes persons
to messages concerning family-centered theologies. However, taking part in religious
activities or rituals need not focus attention on ones family. On the other hand, valuing
religious faith and things that religious organizations and texts say concerning family
relationships does focus such attention.
A similar dynamic may be at work when youth choose to identify themselves as born
again, especially when this change occurs from within a stable religious tradition.
Parentchild interactions become increasingly understood from within a religious
framework that can sanctify relationships that might otherwise be understood as mundane or even problematic. Thus, adolescents for whom religion is importantand
certainly among those for whom religion has grown in importance between study
wavesare more likely to understand, think about, and act upon the implications of their
religious commitments for family life because these are adolescents who have chosen to
strengthen their valuing for religion. In other words, while many adolescents value their
families, those for whom religion is a high priority appear to (1) be more aware of
religious ideals concerning the family, and (2) more effectively put those ideals into action
190

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

within their families. The second proposed pathway, which concerns commitments to
religiously based beliefs and moral imperatives about the family, thus appears more plausible than simple interaction opportunities.
The third pathway described previously suggests that change in family relations
affects religiosity, rather than vice versa. That is, a common strategy of exhibiting generalized rebellion against parents may be rebellion against their religious commitments.
Alternately, some skeptics might suggest that religious incongruence or decline and
diminished parentchild relations might best be grouped together as two outcomes that
are the function of an unspecified exogenous factor (e.g., unhappiness, desire for greater
autonomy, etc.). To be sure, behaviors like delinquency and drug and alcohol abuse
aggravate family relations, as the results suggest. They may also diminish religiosity, in
keeping with previous studies noted earlier. Nevertheless, when these behavioral changes
are accounted for, a robust change-in-religiosity effect remains, suggesting that a simple
reverse causation explanation is implausible here. Moreover, if more religious youth are
more likely to avoid problematic behavior to begin with, then they have also removed (or
perhaps never constructed) these traditional barriers to better parentchild relations
(Regnerus 2003). In sum, while the evidence suggests that a religious exit process does
occur among some youth, there is parallel evidence confirming that a distinctly religious
influence (on family relations) remains among others.
Although we have articulated several limitations at various points, including selection effects, some future study directions deserve brief mention here. Although we have
attempted to pose a thorough test of competing effects here, a risk remains that religious
adolescents are, among other things, more conventional and that this in turn fosters
better family relationships. A more explicit examination of the conventionality thesis
vis--vis religious influences on family relations seems merited. Future studies of the
relationship between religion and family relations would do well to consider reciprocal
relationship possibilities more explicitly than we have here. That is, strained family relations may contribute to religious incongruence between parents and children, and positive family relations may contribute both to religious congruence and growth (Pearce and
Axinn 1998). On the other hand, the empirical connections between religiosity and family relations documented here may also be stronger than we have initially detected. That
is, religiositys linkages with diminished delinquency, alcohol, and drug abuse may represent additional indirect pathways toward less conflicted family relations (Regnerus 2003).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research uses data from Add Health, a program project designed by J. Richard Udry,
Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris, and funded by grant P01-HD31921 from
the NICHD, with cooperative funding from 17 other agencies. We acknowledge Ronald
R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Persons interested
in obtaining data files from Add Health should contact Add Health, Carolina Population
Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524 (http://www.cpc.unc.edu/
addhealth/contract.html). The first author was supported by a Summer Research
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

191

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

Assignment from the University of Texas at Austin, as well as a research grant from the
Spiritual Transformation Scientific Research Program, sponsored by the Metanexus
Institute on Religion and Science, with the generous support of the John Templeton
Foundation. Data access was funded in part by a grant from the NICHD under grant R01
HD40428-02 from the Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin;
Chandra Muller (PI).
REFERENCES
Abbott, Douglas A., Margaret Berry, and William H. Meredith. 1990. Religious Belief and Practice:
A Potential Asset in Helping Families. Family Relations 39: 44348.
Allison, Paul D.1990. Change Scores as Dependent Variables in Regression Analysis. Sociological
Methodology 20: 93114.
Amato, Paul. 1994. FatherChild Relations, MotherChild Relations, and Offspring Psychological
Well-Being in Early Adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the Family 56: 10311042.
Aquilino, William S. 1999. Two Views of One Relationship: Comparing Parents and Young Adult
Childrens Report of the Quality of Intergenerational Relations. Journal of Marriage and the
Family 61: 85870.
Bahr, Howard M. and Bruce A. Chadwick. 1988. Religion and Family in Middletown, USA. Pp.
5165 in The Religion and Family Connection: Social Science Perspectives (Religious Studies Center Specialized Monograph Series, Vol. III), edited by Darwin L. Thomas. Provo, UT: Brigham
Young University.
Bartkowski, John P. and Christopher G. Ellison. 1995. Divergent Models of Childrearing in Popular Manuals: Conservative Protestants vs. the Mainstream Experts. Sociology of Religion 56: 21
34.
Benda, Brent B. and Robert F. Corwyn. 1997. A Test of a Model with Reciprocal Effects between
Religiosity and Various Forms of Delinquency Using 2-State Least Squares Regression. Journal
of Social Service Research 22: 2752.
Benda, Brent B. and Nancy J. Toombs. 2002. Religious and Drug Use among Inmates in Boot
Camp: Testing a Theoretical Model with Reciprocal Relationships. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 35: 16183.
Bengtson, Vern L., Timothy J. Biblarz, and Robert E. L. Roberts. 2002. How Families Still Matter: A
Longitudinal Study of Youth in Two Generations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Booth, Alan and Paul R. Amato. 1994. Parental Marital Quality, Parental Divorce, and Relations
with Parents. Journal of Marriage and the Family 56: 2134.
Brody, Gene H., Zolinda Stoneman, and Douglas Flor. 1996. Parental Religiosity, Family Processes, and Youth Competence in Rural, Two-Parent African American Families. Developmental Psychology 32: 696706.
Brody, Gene H., Zolina Stoneman, Douglas Flor, and Chris McCrary. 1994. Religions Role in
Organizing Family Relationships: Family Process in Rural, Two-Parent African American Families. Journal of Marriage and the Family 56: 87889.
Coleman, James S. 1988. Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital. American Journal of
Sociology 94: S95S120.
Collins, W. Andrew. 1990. ParentChild Relationships in the Transition to Adolescence: Continuity and Change in Interaction, Affect, and Cognition. Pp. 85106 in Advances in Adolescent
192

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Development, vol. 2, From Childhood to Adolescence: A Transitional Period?, edited by R.

Montemayor, G. R. Adams, and T. P. Gullota. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Curtis, Kristin Taylor and Christopher G. Ellison. 2002. Religious Heterogamy and Marital Conflict: Findings from the National Survey of Families and Households. Journal of Family Issues
23: 55176.
Ellis, Godfrey John, Darwin L. Thomas, and Boyd C. Rollins. 1976. Measuring Parental Support:
The Interrelationship of Three Measures. Journal of Marriage and the Family 38: 71322.
Ellison, Christopher G., John P. Bartkowski, and Kristin L. Anderson. 1999. Are There Religious
Variations in Domestic Violence? Journal of Family Issues 20: 87113.
Ellison, Christopher G. and Darren E. Sherkat. 1993a. Conservative Protestantism and Support for
Corporal Punishment. American Sociological Review 58: 13144.
. 1993b. Obedience and Autonomy: Religion and Child-Rearing Orientations Reconsidered.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32: 31329.
Heaton, Tim B., and Edith L. Pratt. 1990. The Effects of Religious Homogamy of Marital Satisfaction and Stability. Journal of Family Issues 11: 191207.
Holden, George W. 2001. Psychology, Religion, and the Family: Its Time for a Revival. Journal of
Family Psychology 15: 65762.
Johnston, Lloyd D., Jerald G. Bachman, and Patrick M. OMalley. 1999. Monitoring the Future:
Questionnaire Responses from the Nations High School Seniors. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for
Social Research.
King, Valarie, Glen H. Elder Jr., and Les B. Whitbeck. 1997. Religious Involvement among Rural
Youth: An Ecological and Life-Course Perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence 7: 431
56.
Knoester, Chris. 2003. Transitions in Young Adulthood and the Relationship between Parent and
Offspring Well-Being. Social Forces 81: 143158.
Mahoney, Annette. 2005. Religion and Conflict in Family Relationships. Journal of Social Issues
61: 689706.
Mahoney, Annette, Kenneth I. Pargament, Nalini Tarakeshwar, and Aaron B. Swank. 2001.
Religion in the Home in the 1980s and 1990s: A Meta-Analytic Review and Conceptual
Analysis of Links between Religion, Marriage and Parenting. Journal of Family Psychology
15: 55996.
Myers, Scott M. 2004. Religion and Intergenerational Assistance: Distinct Differences by Adult
Childrens Gender and Parents Marital Status. The Sociological Quarterly 45: 6789.
Nonnemaker, James M., Clea A. McNeely, and Robert W. Blum. 2003. Public and Private Domains
of Religiosity and Adolescent Health Risk Behaviors: Evidence from the National Longitudinal
Study of Adolescent Health. Social Science & Medicine 57: 204954
Ozorak, Elizabeth W. 1989. Social and Cognitive Influences on the Development of Religious
Beliefs and Commitment in Adolescence. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28: 448
63.
Pearce, Lisa D. and William G. Axinn. 1998. The Impact of Family Religious Life on the Quality of
MotherChild Relations. American Sociological Review 63: 81028.
Regnerus, Mark D. 2003. Religion and Positive Adolescent Outcomes: A Review of Research and
Theory. Review of Religious Research 44: 394413.
Rogosa, David. 1995. Myths and Methods: Myths about Longitudinal Research Plus Supplemental Questions. Pp. 363 in The Analysis of Change, edited by John Mordechai Gottman. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society

193

Religious Change and Adolescent Family Dynamics

Mark D. Regnerus and Amy Burdette

Rossi, Alice S. and Peter H. Rossi. 1990. Of Human Bonding: ParentChild Relations across the Life
Course. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Sherkat, Darren E. and Alfred Darnell. 1999. The Effect of Parents Fundamentalism on Childrens
Educational Attainment: Examining Differences by Gender and Childrens Fundamentalism.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38: 2335.
Silverstein, Merril and Vern L. Bengtson. 1997. Intergenerational Solidarity and the Structure of
Adult ChildParent Relationships in American Families. American Journal of Sociology 103:
42960.
Smith, Christian. 2003. Religious Participation and Network Closure among American Adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 42: 25967.
Smith, Christian, Melinda Denton, Robert Faris, and Mark D. Regnerus. 2002. Mapping Adolescent, American Religious Participation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 41: 597612.
Snarey, John R. and David C. Dollahite. 2001. Varieties of ReligionFamily Linkages. Journal of
Family Psychology 15: 64651.
StataCorp. 2001. Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.
Steensland, Brian, Jerry Park, Mark Regnerus, Lynn Robinson, Bradford Wilcox, and Robert
Woodberry. 2000. The Measure of American Religion: Toward Improving the State of the Art.
Social Forces 79: 291318.
Thornton, Arland. 1985. Reciprocal Influences of Family and Religion in a Changing World. Journal of Marriage and Family 47: 38194.
Thornton, Arland, William G. Axinn, and Daniel H. Hill. 1992. Reciprocal Effects of Religiosity,
Cohabitation, and Marriage. American Journal of Sociology 98: 62851.
Thornton, Arland and Donald Camburn. 1989. Religious Participation and Adolescent Sexual
Behavior and Attitudes. Demography 24: 32340.
Wilcox, W. Bradford. 1998. Conservative Protestant Childbearing: Authoritarian or Authoritative? American Sociological Review 63: 796809.
. 2002. For the Sake of the Children? Family-Related Discourse and Practice in the Mainline.
Pp. 287316 in The Quiet Hand of God: Faith-Based Activism and the Public Role of Mainline
Protestantism, edited by Robert Wuthnow and John H. Evans. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Wimberley, Dale W. 1989. Religion and Role-Identity: A Structural Symbolic Interactionist Conceptualization of Religiosity. Sociological Quarterly 30: 12542.

194

The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 175194 2006 Midwest Sociological Society