Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Cambridge Open Access logoLink to Cambridge Open Access
. 2023 Apr 13;53(15):7255–7264. doi: 10.1017/S003329172300079X

Examining the role of maternal religiosity in offspring mental health using latent class analysis in a UK prospective cohort study

Isaac Halstead 1,✉, Jon Heron 2, Connie Svob 3,4,5, Carol Joinson 1
PMCID: PMC10719686  PMID: 37051885

Abstract

Background

Previous research has examined the role of parental religious belief in offspring mental health, but has revealed inconsistent results, and suffered from a number of limitations. The aim of this study is to examine the prospective relationship between maternal religiosity and offspring mental health and psychosocial outcomes.

Methods

We used latent classes of religious belief (Highly religious, Moderately religious, Agnostic, Atheist) in mothers from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children from 1990, and examined their association with parent-reported mental health outcomes and self-reported psychosocial outcomes in their children at age 7–8 (n = 6079 for mental health outcomes and n = 5235 for psychosocial outcomes). We used inverse probability weighted multivariable logistic regression analysis adjusted for maternal mental health, adverse childhood experience, and socioeconomic variables.

Results

There was evidence for a greater risk of internalising problems among the offspring of the Highly religious and Moderately religious classes [e.g. for depression; OR 1.40. 95% CI (1.07–1.85), OR 1.48, 95% CI (1.17–1.87)], and greater risk of externalising problems in the offspring of the Atheist class [e.g. for ADHD; OR 1.41, 95% CI (1.08–1.85)], compared to the offspring of the Agnostic class.

Conclusions

These novel findings provide evidence associations between maternal religiosity and offspring mental health differ when examined using a person-centred approach, compared to the previously used variable-centred approaches. Our findings also suggest that differences may exist in the relationship between religious (non)belief and mental health variables when comparing the UK and US.

Key words: ALSPAC, latent class analysis, mental health, religion, religious belief

Introduction

Childhood mental health problems place a strain on both the child and their family (Farrell & Barrett, 2007; Houtrow & Okumura, 2011). Parental factors such as socioeconomic status, parenting style, and parental mental health are important predictors of mental health outcomes in children (Bøe et al., 2014; Leinonen, Solantaus, & Punamäki, 2003; Manning & Gregoire, 2009; Melchior & van der Waerden, 2016). There is also some evidence for parental religiosity playing a role in offspring mental health, but the limited research that exists has found inconsistent associations (Bartkowski, Xu, & Levin, 2008; Schottenbauer, Spernak, & Hellstrom, 2007; Svob et al., 2018). We define religiosity as a combination of beliefs, behaviours and rituals related to a higher or divine power (adapted from Koenig, 2009). Some studies that examined the relationship between parental religiosity and child mental health have found evidence for associations between parent religiosity and child internalising (Schottenbauer et al., 2007), such as depression and anxiety. Others have found associations with externalising problems (Bartkowski et al., 2008) such as hyperactivity, conduct disorder and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD). One study has also found an association with lower suicidal ideation (Svob et al., 2018). However, other studies have found a mixture of positive or no relationship (van der Jagt-Jelsma et al., 2015, 2017), or indirect relationships with mental health, through parenting factors (Kim-Spoon, Longo, & McCullough, 2012). Overall, there is stronger evidence for an association between parental religiosity and internalising symptoms than externalising symptoms, but previous research has only focussed on one or two mental health outcomes per study. Our intention is to simultaneously explore a range of both internalising and externalising outcomes, which may provide evidence for differential relationships between specific mental health outcomes and parental religious belief.

Some inter-study variability may be attributed to small sample sizes (e.g. Kim, McCullough, & Cicchetti, 2009; Kim-Spoon et al., 2012; Svob et al., 2018; van der Jagt-Jelsma et al., 2017; Varon & Riley, 1999 all have less than 600 participants) and inadequate adjustment for confounders (e.g. Kim-Spoon et al., 2012; Schottenbauer et al., 2007; van der Jagt-Jelsma et al., 2017, which use no confounds, only parenting variables, and marital status and socioeconomic status, respectively). These studies are also limited due to study design – of all the studies mentioned that examine parental religiosity and offspring mental health, only three use a longitudinal cohort study design, (the rest being cross-sectional) and none of these examined parental belief before the birth of the child.

Parental mental health is a potentially important confounder of the relationship between parental religiosity and child mental health. A large body of evidence indicates that parental mental health is a strong and consistent predictor of offspring mental health outcomes (Bould et al., 2015; Dean et al., 2010; Jacobs, Miller, Wickramaratne, Gameroff, & Weissman, 2012; Jacobs, Talati, Wickramaratne, & Warner, 2015), and an individual's religiosity is consistently, positively related to their own mental health in US samples (Braam & Koenig, 2019; Koenig, 2009). Parental socioeconomic position (SEP) is also a plausible confounder of the relationship between parental religiosity and offspring mental health. Higher parental SEP is associated with better mental and physical health in offspring (Cohen, Yoon, & Johnstone, 2009; Lemstra et al., 2008; Vukojević et al., 2017). There is also evidence for a relationship (albeit an inconsistent one) between socioeconomic variables and religiosity (Brandt & Henry, 2012; Heaton, 2013; Horowitz & Garber, 2003; Mueller & Johnson, 1975; Schieman, 2010; Schwadel, 2015; Storm, 2017; Thompson, Thomas, & Head, 2012), which was also identified in Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) (Halstead, Heron, & Joinson, 2022; Major-Smith et al., 2023). Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are also associated with subsequent religious struggles (e.g. feelings of abandonment by God) such as after the death of a loved one or life-threatening events (McCormick, Carroll, Sims, & Currier, 2017), but also a desire to connect to a higher power (Santoro, Suchday, Benkhoukha, Ramanayake, & Kapur, 2016), and a parent's ACEs are associated with offspring mental health outcomes (Schickedanz, Halfon, Sastry, & Chung, 2018). Finally, greater parental age is simultaneously related to greater religiosity (Schwadel, 2011), and better child mental health (albeit inconsistently) (Zondervan-Zwijnenburg et al., 2020), and should be included as a confounder.

Furthermore, previous research has been dominated by US samples. There is evidence for differences in the relationship between religious belief and mental health in the US compared to other countries, such as the UK (United Kingdom), Korea, Spain, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Estonia, Portugal, and Chile (King et al., 2013; Leurent et al., 2013; Lewis, Maltby, & Day, 2005; Park, Hong, Park, & Cho, 2012). Epidemiological and psychological studies that examine parental religious belief and offspring mental health have also almost exclusively used single item measures of religiosity – attendance at a place of worship, or the importance of religion in their lives. While commonly used in the religious belief literature, church attendance functions poorly when differentiating Atheists and Agnostics, which are both unlikely to attend church, barring weddings, funerals etc. Additionally, the importance of church attendance may also differ between religious denominations. Consequently, use of these items may be artificially constraining the variety of distinct kinds of religious (non)belief and conceal their true relationships to outcome variables. Furthermore, given the nature of religiosity, which consists of a range of beliefs and practices, it is likely to be a multidimensional construct, and unlikely to be comprehensively measured with a single dimension or item.

Religiosity also relates to a variety of childhood psychosocial outcomes, such as higher self-worth (Top, Chadwick, & McClendon, 2003), academic achievement/scholastic competence (Jeynes, 2003; McKune & Hoffmann, 2009), and lower antisocial behaviours (Adamczyk, 2012; Laird, Marks, & Marrero, 2011; Munir & Malik, 2020). However, the role of parental religiosity has not been extensively examined (Abar, Carter, & Winsler, 2009; Bartkowski et al., 2008; Regnerus, 2003), with a mixture of positive, negative, and no associations.

The present study, based on data from a large birth cohort, the ALSPAC, examines the prospective relationship between maternal religiosity and a range of child mental health outcomes (parent-reported) and psychosocial outcomes (child-reported) at age 7–8 years. This study addresses limitations of previous studies by using latent classes that describe patterns of maternal religious belief (Halstead et al., 2022) measured before the birth of the child. In the present study the latent classes describe qualitatively distinct patterns of religious belief and distinguish between highly religious, moderately religious, Agnostic and Atheist. The analysis adjusts for a range of confounders including parental mental health, parental adverse childhood events, demographic variables, and SEP indicators.

We have the following research objectives:

  1. Examine the risk ratios of each religious latent class for the following mental health symptoms – Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder, depression, general anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), social and specific phobias, oppostional defiant disorder (ODD), and separation anxiety using logistic regression in relation to a reference class taken from a latent class analysis of maternal religious beliefs.

  2. Examine the risk ratios of each religious latent class for the following psychosocial outcomes – antisocial behaviour, low scholastic competence, low self-worth, victim of overt bullying, overt bully, relational bully, victim of relational bullying, and unhappiness with friends, using logistic regression in relation to a reference class taken from a latent class analysis of maternal religious beliefs.

Methods

Participants

The ALSPAC was established to understand how genetic and environmental characteristics influence health and development in parents and children. All pregnant women resident in a defined area in the Southwest of England, with an expected date of delivery between 1 April 1991 and 3 December 1992 were invited to take part in the study. The initial number of pregnancies enrolled is 14 541. Of these initial pregnancies, there was a total of 14 676 foetuses, resulting in 14 062 live births and 13 988 children who were alive at 1 year of age. These parents and children have been followed over the last 30 years and have completed a variety of questionnaires concerning their demographics, physiological and genetic data, life events, physical, and psychological characteristics. For more information, see Boyd et al., 2013; Fraser et al., 2013. Please note that the study website contains details of all the data that is available through a fully searchable data dictionary and variable search tool (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/our-data/). Overall, our sample was 97.4% White at baseline, 64.4% identified as Church of England, 15.3% as No religion, 8.3% as Roman Catholic, 7.8% as Other Christian and the remainder as a non-Christian religious group (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Sample flowchart showing each stage of exclusion.

Exposures

Latent classes of maternal religiosity

Latent class analysis is a ‘person-centred’ statistical technique (Nylund-Gibson & Choi, 2018) that uses a set of observed variables and the conditional probability of responding in a particular pattern to those variables to probabilistically assign participants to a mutually exclusive unobserved group (i.e. latent class).We used the maternal latent class membership variables derived by Halstead et al. (2022) as our indicators of religiosity in the mothers of the ALSPAC parent cohort measured in 1990, based upon the assumptions that they would be the primary caregiver, the classes are stable over time (Major-Smith et al., 2023) and that maternal and paternal religious latent classes are associated (see Halstead et al., 2022). The latent classes are composed of a series of conditional probabilities, which are used to label and describe the classes. These classes provide a more nuanced alternative to variable centred approaches that measure religiosity using a single item by providing qualitatively distinct types of religious belief rather than a simple continuum. The questions used to derive the classes include belief in God, whether a person has asked for help from God, whether they would ask for God's help when in trouble, the duration of their faith, their church attendance, and whether they have received help from individuals from their own or another religion, which were measured at the antenatal timepoint. Our choice to use the latent classes generated at the antenatal (1990) timepoint were motivated by the larger sample size provided by this timepoint. This decision is also supported by the small amount of transition between classes over time (see Major-Smith et al., 2023 for a descriptive account of these transitions). The classes were named the Highly Religious, Moderately Religious, Agnostic, and Atheist and each represented approximately 14, 30, 38 and 18% of the sample, respectively. The Highly Religious class exhibits a consistent endorsement of religious beliefs, high level of church attendance, and high likelihood to obtain help and support from religious individuals. The Moderately Religious class shares many of the characteristics of the Highly Religious but were highly unlikely to visit church regularly. The Agnostic class expressed an uncertainty about the existence of God and were also uncertain about whether they would ask for help from God if they were in trouble or whether God had helped them previously. The Atheists possessed strong disbelief in the existence of God, and general disagreement with statements related to religious belief and practice. For details of the questions used to derive the latent classes and the conditional probabilities of each class, see Table S2 and S3 of the appendix, respectively.

Outcomes

Parent-reported child mental health outcomes

When their study child was aged 7 years (approximately 1997/8), mothers were asked to complete the Development and Wellbeing Assessment (DAWBA) (Goodman, Ford, Richards, Gatward, & Meltzer, 2000) which includes questions about symptoms of common mental health disorders. This was based upon the rationale that age 7/8 are associated with mental health problems in adolescence and adulthood (Fergusson, John Horwood, & Ridder, 2005), and we are looking at the associations with maternal RSBB, and maternal factors have a stronger influence in childhood than in adolescence (Bhargava & Witherspoon, 2015; Lau, Faulkner, & Qian, 2016; Powell, Son, File, & Froiland, 2012). Later timepoints will be explored as part of this programme of research. We included symptoms of separation anxiety, phobias, social anxiety, OCD, generalised anxiety disorder, depression, ADHD, ODD and conduct disorder. A small number of children met DSM-IV criteria for psychiatric disorders in the ALSPAC cohort at this age (Joinson, Heron, Emond, & Butler, 2006). We therefore created binary variables to indicate the presence of any symptom that was severe, e.g., rated as ‘a lot more than others’ or ‘a great deal’ (See Table 1 of the appendix for details of items used). Only the complete case samples were used for analyses. The prevalence of mental health symptoms is provided in Table S4 of the appendix.

Table 1.

Distribution of confounders across the samples

Sample size Baseline (up to 13 980) Mothers with religion data (12 664) Religion and DAWBA (7530) Religion and DAWBA and confounders (6079) Religion and focus at 8 (7321) Religion and Focus at 8 and confounders (5235)
Social class (Ref; non-manual) Manual 2933 (25.6%) 2611 (24.6%) 1401 (21.1%) 1235 (20.3%) 1353 (21.0%) 1038 (19.8%)
Financial problems (Ref; no) Yes 1510 (12.1%) 1319 (11.6%) 665 (9.6%) 569 (9.4%) 673 (10.0%) 510 (9.7%)
Financial hardship (Ref; no) Yes 3298 (26.1%) 2970 (25.3%) 1590 (22.0%) 1265 (20.8%) 1494 (21.3%) 1026 (19.9%)
Education (Ref; A-level or higher) None/vocational 3869 (29.8%) 3381 (28.2%) 1621 (21.9%) 1259 (20.7%) 1524 (21.3%) 1019 (19.5%)
O Level 4485 (34.6%) 4243 (35.4%) 2648 (35.8%) 2228 (36.7%) 2528 (35.3%) 1875 (35.8%)
Home status (Ref; bought) Rented 3578 (26.4%) 2941 (24.0%) 1282 (17.4%) 893 (14.7%) 1136 (15.8%) 695 (13.3%)
ACE (Ref; 0 ACE) 1 2026 (20.4%) 2330 (18.4%) 1479 (19.6%) 1174 (19.3%) 1424 (19.5%) 988 (18.7%)
2 1387 (14.0%) 1419 (11.2%) 860 (11.4%) 684 (11.3%) 813 (11.1%) 573 (10.8%)
Maternal age at baseline Mean (s.d.) 28.4 (4.8) 28.5 (4.7) 29.1 (4.5) 29.3 (4.4) 29.3 (4.5) 29.5 (4.4)
Maternal depression Median (IQR) 6 (7) 6 (7) 6 (6) 6 (6) 6 (7) 6 (6)
Maternal anxiety Median (IQR) 4 (5) 4 (5) 4 (5) 4 (5) 4 (5) 4 (4)
Open in a new tab

Note. The samples in the table correspond to the samples in the flowchart.

Self-reported psychosocial outcomes

Child self-reported psychosocial outcomes were obtained from a ‘Focus Clinic’ attended by children when they were aged 8 years. The prevalence of psychosocial outcomes is provided Table S5 of the appendix. All reported Cronbach's α refer to the current paper, using the complete case samples.

Bullying (as the bully and victim)

We assessed peer victimisation through self-report using a modified version of the bullying and friendship interview schedule (Wolke, Woods, Stanford, & Schulz, 2001). The scale consists of measures of being an overt victim (α = 0.593), relational victim (α = 0.623), overt bully (α = 0.510), and relational bully (α = 0.447).

Scholastic competence and global self-worth

This measure used a 12-item version of Harter's Self Perception Profile for Children (Harter, 1985) comprising global self-worth (α = 0. 651) and scholastic competence (α = 0. 691), rather than the full 36 item scale that contains the other subscales.

Unhappy with friends

A series of five questions taken from the Cambridge Hormones and Moods Project Friendship Questionnaire (Goodyer, Wright, & Altham, 1990) to indicate unhappiness with friends (α = 0. 503).

Antisocial activities

This measure used 15 questions, including 11 from the Self-Reported Antisocial Behaviour for Young Children Questionnaire (Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, Van Kammen, & Farrington, 1989), three dummy questions and an additional example question, to measure antisocial activities (α = 0. 582).

Confounders

We chose confounders based upon empirical evidence of a relationship with the exposure and outcome variables. Confounders were assessed by maternal reports in the antenatal period and included maternal age at baseline, maternal mental health, and SEP indicators. We also adjusted for retrospective reports of maternal ACEs assessed in questionnaires completed during the antenatal period and when the study child was aged 2 years. Details of for the construction of the confounding variables are provided in Table S1 of the appendix.

Statistical analyses

We used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each mental health and psychosocial variable and their association with maternal religious latent class, both before and after adjustment for confounders. As the outcomes we are examining are rare (⪅10%) we interpreted the effect estimates as risk ratios, and we attributed changes seen to parameter estimates in the multivariable models as being due to confounding (Zammit, Allebeck, Andreasson, Lundberg, & Lewis, 2002). Risk ratios were estimated in relation to the Agnostic class, as this was the largest class in the sample, and was characterised by the most ‘neutral’ beliefs (i.e. neither religious nor Atheist) (Johfre & Freese, 2021).Parameter estimates were then adjusted for confounders. The dataset was constructed in R studio (R Core Team, 2021) and all analyses were carried out in Mplus (Version 8.7), using a bias adjusted 3 step latent class analysis which incorporates uncertainty in latent class assignment (Heron, Croudace, Barker, & Tilling, 2015; Vermunt, 2010; Vermunt & Magidson, 2021).

Weighted estimates

To address potential bias due to missing data, we created weighting variables based on SEP variables as SEP is associated with attrition in the ALSPAC sample (Fernández-Sanlés et al., 2021; Howe, Tilling, Galobardes, & Lawlor, 2013). This was done by using inverse probability weighting, using SEP indicators with minimal missingness (less than 5%) including home ownership status, cigarette smoking, car ownership, and education, with any missingness recoded in these variables to be the modal response category. These were then used as exposures in a logistic regression model, with missingness at the 7-year and 8-year timepoints (when our outcome variables were measured) as the outcome variables. From these models, the weights were calculated and added to the main dataset, for use in the weighted analyses. The results of the weighted analyses are presented as the main results and the unweighted results are provided in Table S8 and S9 of the appendix. Additionally, full details of each adjusted model may be found in Table S6 and S7 of the appendix.

Results

Compared with the baseline sample, the restricted sample used in the complete case analysis comprised a higher proportion of participants of higher SEP (i.e. homeowners, non-manual social class, no major financial problems, and no financial hardship). The restricted sample also had a lower proportion of maternal depression, anxiety and adverse childhood events. See Table 1 for more details.

Association between maternal religiosity latent classes and parent-reported child mental health outcomes

Table 2 shows the results of the logistic regressions with parent-reported mental health variables as outcomes. In the unadjusted models, children of mothers in the Highly Religious class, compared with the Agnostic class have increased risk of ADHD, depression, OCD, and ODD. Compared with the Agnostic class, children of mothers in the Moderately Religious class have increased risk of depression, anxiety, and ODD. Compared with the Agnostic class, children of mothers in the Atheist class have increased risk of ADHD, and conduct disorder. The highest level of attenuation in the adjusted models was found for conduct disorder, with a 9% reduction in the risk ratio in the fully adjusted model. There was little evidence of confounding in the adjusted models for the other mental health symptoms.

Table 2.

Weighted risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the associations between maternal religious latent class and offspring mental health at age 7, with the Agnostic class as the reference class

OR (CI) Model 1 OR (CI) Model 5 OR (CI) Model 1 OR (CI) Model 5
ADHD Social phobia
Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref
Highly religious 1.29 (0.97–1.73) 1.34 (1.00–1.80) Highly religious 1.39 (0.96–2.01) 1.33 (0.91–1.95)
Moderately religious 1.16 (0.90–1.49) 1.17 (0.91–1.52) Moderately religious 1.25 (0.89–1.75) 1.24 (0.88–1.73)
Atheist 1.44 (1.11–1.88) 1.41 (1.08–1.85) Atheist 1.04 (0.71–1.53) 1.01 (0.68–1.49)
p value 0.043 0.053 p value 0.255 0.328
Conduct disorder Specific phobia
Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref
Highly religious 1.35 (0.94–1.96) 1.37 (0.94–2.00) Highly religious 1.01 (0.77–1.32) 1.06 (0.80–1.39)
Moderately religious 1.19 (0.86–1.66) 1.22 (0.87–1.71) Moderately religious 1.03 (0.82–1.29) 1.05 (0.83–1.32)
Atheist 1.55 (1.11–2.18) 1.46 (1.04–2.05) Atheist 0.86 (0.66–1.12) 0.84 (0.65–1.10)
p value 0.067 0.133 p value 0.585 0.383
Depression ODD
Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref
Highly religious 1.51 (1.15–1.97) 1.40 (1.07–1.85) Highly religious 1.73 (1.21–2.49) 1.72 (1.19–2.48)
Moderately religious 1.50 (1.19–1.90) 1.48 (1.17–1.87) Moderately religious 1.39 (1.00–1.94) 1.38 (0.99–1.94)
Atheist 1.17 (0.89–1.53) 1.13 (0.86–1.48) Atheist 1.44 (1.00–2.06) 1.39 (0.96–1.99)
p value 0.001 0.004 p value 0.020 0.027
General anxiety Separation anxiety
Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref
Highly religious 1.21 (0.88–1.66) 1.22 (0.88–1.69) Highly religious 1.19 (0.83–1.71) 1.18 (0.81–1.72)
Moderately religious 1.44 (1.11–1.88) 1.43 (1.10–1.87) Moderately religious 1.23 (0.91–1.68) 1.25 (0.92–1.71)
Atheist 1.24 (0.92–1.67) 1.24 (0.92–1.67) Atheist 1.09 (0.77–1.54) 1.05 (0.74–1.48)
p value 0.056 0.066 p value 0.552 0.775
OCD
Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref
Highly religious 1.60 (1.08–2.37) 1.53 (1.03–2.26)
Moderately religious 0.65 (0.41–1.03) 0.64 (0.41–1.02)
Atheist 1.04 (0.69–1.59) 1.03 (0.68–1.57)
p value 0.004 0.008
Open in a new tab

Note. Model 1 is the unadjusted model, Model 5 adjusts for maternal age, SEP, ACE, and maternal mental health. p values are omnibus p values based on a Wald test with 3 df.

Association between maternal religiosity latent classes and self-reported psychosocial outcomes

Table 3 that compared with the Agnostic class, children of mothers in the Highly Religious class have increased risk of antisocial behaviour, and being the victim of relational bullying and decreased risk of being an overt bully. Compared with the Agnostic class, children of mothers in the Moderately Religious class have increased risk of self-reported antisocial behaviour and low scholastic competence. Compared with the Agnostic class, children of mothers in the Atheist class have increased risk of self-reported antisocial behaviour, but lower risk of being overt bullies and being unhappy with friends. The highest level of attenuation in the adjusted models was found for low scholastic competence, with an 8% increase in the risk ratio in the fully adjusted model. There was little evidence of confounding in the adjusted models for the other psychosocial outcomes.

Table 3.

Weighted risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals for the associations between maternal religious latent class and offspring psychosocial outcomes at age 8, with the Agnostic class as the reference class

OR (CI) Model 1 OR (CI) Model 5 OR (CI) Model 1 OR (CI) Model 5
Antisocial behaviour Overt bully
Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref
Highly religious 1.29 (1.03–1.62) 1.29 (1.02–1.62) Highly religious 0.60 (0.41–0.88) 0.59 (0.40–0.87)
Moderately religious 1.24 (1.02–1.51) 1.24 (1.01–1.51) Moderately religious 0.74 (0.52–1.05) 0.73 (0.51–1.04)
Atheist 1.42 (1.15–1.77) 1.40 (1.12–1.73) Atheist 0.57 (0.40–0.83) 0.58 (0.40–0.84)
p value 0.008 0.013 p value 0.013 0.013
Low scholastic competence Relational bully
Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref
Highly religious 0.96 (0.77–1.19) 1.04 (0.84–1.30) Highly religious 0.71 (0.40–1.27) 0.65 (0.36–1.17)
Moderately religious 1.17 (0.98–1.40) 1.22 (1.02–1.46) Moderately religious 1.03 (0.59–1.80) 1.05 (0.60–1.84)
Atheist 1.10 (0.90–1.35) 1.12 (0.91–1.37) Atheist 0.90 (0.50–1.63) 0.90 (0.50–1.63)
p value 0.241 0.184 p value 0.642 0.458
Low self-worth Victim of relational bullying
Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref
Highly religious 1.26 (0.96–1.64) 1.27 (0.97–1.67) Highly religious 0.77 (0.60–0.99) 0.74 (0.57–0.95)
Moderately religious 1.15 (0.91–1.45) 1.17 (0.93–1.49) Moderately religious 0.94 (0.75–1.17) 0.92 (0.74–1.15)
Atheist 1.17 (0.91–1.52) 1.16 (0.89–1.50) Atheist 1.08 (0.84–1.39) 1.09 (0.84–1.41)
p value 0.324 0.289 p value 0.103 0.045
Victim of overt bullying Unhappy with friends
Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref Agnostic 1.00 ref 1.00 ref
Highly religious 0.91 (0.75–1.12) 0.89 (0.73–1.10) Highly religious 1.15 (0.91–1.47) 1.15 (0.91–1.47)
Moderately religious 0.95 (0.80–1.13) 0.95 (0.80–1.13) Moderately religious 0.93 (0.75–1.15) 0.94 (0.76–1.16)
Atheist 0.94 (0.78–1.14) 0.96 (0.79–1.16) Atheist 0.77 (0.60–0.98) 0.76 (0.59–0.98)
p value 0.827 0.743 p value 0.047 0.043
Open in a new tab

Note. Model 1 is the unadjusted model, Model 5 adjusts for maternal age, SEP, ACE, and maternal mental health. p values are omnibus p values based on a Wald test with 3 df.

Discussion

The current study found evidence that maternal religious belief was associated with a range of mental health and psychosocial outcomes in their offspring at age 7–8 years. Compared with children of Agnostic mothers, the children of Highly religious and Moderately religious parents were at greater risk of internalising symptoms, and the children of Atheist parents were at greater risk of externalising symptoms. However, there was no clear pattern of results for psychosocial outcomes. These associations were independent of maternal age, SEP variables, ACE, and mental health. There were only a few instances of attenuation, with most of the results being robust to the inclusion of confounding variables.

Strengths and limitations

There are several strengths to this study. The use of data from a large prospective community based cohort, use of latent classes of belief, rather than relying upon single item measures which dominate the religiosity literature, availability of parent- and child-reported mental health and psychosocial outcomes based on validated questionnaires, and availability of data on a wide range of important confounders The use of latent classes provided insights that may have otherwise been lost by using items that fail to differentiate between Agnostic and Atheist individuals, such as through the use of items that ask participants to indicate the importance of religion in their lives or church attendance.

There are also limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings. There was a large amount of attrition between the baseline sample, and the final complete case analysis which could lead to selection bias. Specifically, those with higher SEP (Howe et al., 2013) and religiosity (Morgan, Halstead, Northstone, & Major-Smith, 2022) are more likely to participate in ALSPAC initially and continue to participate over time. Attrition is strongly related to low SEP in ALSPAC, and the present study attempted to mitigate this using weighting to account for the potential bias, in line with recommendations (Howe et al., 2013). Our study is also limited in its generalisability, given the very small numbers of Non-White, and Non-Christian religious individuals, which prevents us from generalising to these groups. Furthermore, due to the data on religious belief and mental health being collected in the 90s, there is the possibility of cohort effects, as well as the changes in prevalence and perception of religion over time. These factors may mean that our findings may not generalise to the present day. Finally, it is possible that the concordance/discordance between maternal and paternal religious classes may play a role in offspring mental health outcomes (van der Jagt-Jelsma et al., 2011). This possibility should be explored in future research.

Comparisons with previous research

Our findings are contrary to previous research which examined the relationship between parental religious belief and child mental health, which has found that greater parental (either maternal or paternal) religious belief is associated with better mental health outcomes in offspring (Svob et al., 2018; Varon & Riley, 1999). A possible reason for this difference is that the current study is based on a UK sample, compared to previous research which has predominantly been based on US samples (e.g. 75% of the religious belief and mental health research reviewed by Koenig, 2009 was conducted on US samples). There is evidence the UK differs in its relationship with religious belief and mental health compared to other countries, with some studies finding that increased religious or spiritual belief was associated with worse mental health outcomes such as depression, anxiety, and phobias (King et al., 2013; Leurent et al., 2013). Additionally, given that the US is highly religious compared to the UK, and most previous studies contain relatively small numbers of individuals that could be considered Atheist or Agnostic, previous studies may be less suited to capturing the differences between them and religious individuals.

The use of items that assume religious belief exists on a simple continuum from non-religious to highly religious may be obscuring the true nature of religion's relationship with mental health and psychosocial outcomes. The relationship between religious belief and mental health may be better explained by using qualitatively different types of belief in future research. Given previous literature's inclination to use items that ask about religious attendance or the importance of religion, and both Atheists and Agnostics are likely to respond the same way to these items (i.e. they are both unlikely to attend church), previous research may be failing to acknowledge the way these items function for different groups. Conflating Atheist and Agnostic groups appears to hide important differences in outcomes between the two.

Possible mechanisms explaining the current findings

The increased mother-reported externalising problems and psychosocial outcomes in the Highly Religious mothers (e.g. ADHD, ODD, antisocial behaviour) may be partially explained by highly religious mothers having higher expectations of their child's morals (Rhodes & Nam, 1970; Smith, 2003), an increased likelihood to perform parental monitoring activities (Guo, 2018; Kim & Wilcox, 2014) and to be more engaged in their child's life (Guo, 2018). This possibly leads them to be more attentive to ADHD or ODD symptoms, as well as negative (e.g. antisocial) behaviours. However, children of religious parents also perceive their parents to be more controlling, which could in turn lead to more internalising and externalising problems (Bornstein et al., 2017). Combined, this suggests that a degree of monitoring or control is healthy and may lead to more attentive parenting, but when it is perceived to be excessive, it can be a stressor to the child. In the context of the current study, the higher degree of control that religious mothers exert over their children may impact their levels of stress, leading to a greater risk of depression or anxiety (Rapee, 1997; Yap, Pilkington, Ryan, & Jorm, 2014). The increased mother reported internalising symptoms may be explained by children of religious parents being religious themselves, which may incline them towards rumination, which leads to greater internalising symptoms (Saunders et al., 2021). Religious belief is associated with OCD (Abramowitz, Deacon, Woods, & Tolin, 2004; Himle, Chatters, Taylor, & Nguyen, 2011; Sica, Novara, & Sanavio, 2002), possibly through heightened pathogen disgust sensitivity (Olatunji et al., 2007), which is also associated with religiosity (Stewart, Adams, & Senior, 2020; Yu, Bali, Tsikandilakis, & Tong, 2022). Consequently, the behaviours associated with OCD symptoms may be taught to offspring during their upbringing (Waters & Barrett, 2000). There is little existing literature to explain the pattern of results in the Atheist class, or for the differences between the Moderately and Highly Religious classes. We may nevertheless speculate that the association between spirituality, depression, and other internalising disorders may be partially explained by an increased interior-orientation, observed for example in rumination (Saunders et al., 2021) and default-mode network connectivity (Svob, Wang, Weissman, Wickramaratne, & Posner, 2016) in those who are spiritual. Whereas Atheism may support a more external worldview and contribute to its greater likelihood to be associated with externalising disorders. Further research is needed to examine the replicability of our findings in non-US samples.

Conclusions

Contrary to existing literature, we found evidence that maternal religiosity is associated with a higher risk of internalising symptoms. Children of Atheist parents are at greater risk of externalising symptoms. Future research is needed to determine whether these relationships are causal and to identify the underlying mechanisms. For example, it is conceivable that the relationship may be mediated by parenting style/quality variables or moderated by partner religious class.

Supporting information

Halstead et al. supplementary material

Halstead et al. supplementary material

Acknowledgements

We are extremely grateful to all the families who took part in this study, the midwives for their help in recruiting them, and the whole ALSPAC team, which includes interviewers, computer and laboratory technicians, clerical workers, research scientists, volunteers, managers, receptionists, and nurses.

Supplementary material

The supplementary material for this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1017/S003329172300079X.

Data availability

Please see the ALSPAC data management plan which describes the policy regarding data sharing (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/data-access/documents/alspac-data-management-plan.pdf), which is by a system of managed open access. Data used for this submission will be made available on request to the Executive (alspac-exec@bristol.ac.uk). The datasets presented in this article are linked to ALSPAC project number B4001, please quote this project number during your application.

The steps below highlight how to apply for access to the data included in this study and all other ALSPAC data:

  1. Please read the ALSPAC access policy (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/alspac/documents/researchers/data-access/ALSPAC_Access_Policy.pdf) which describes the process of accessing the data and samples in detail, and outlines the costs associated with doing so.

  2. You may also find it useful to browse our fully searchable research proposals database (https://proposals.epi.bristol.ac.uk/?q=proposalSummaries), which lists all research projects that have been approved since April 2011.

  3. Please submit your research proposal (https://proposals.epi.bristol.ac.uk/) for consideration by the ALSPAC Executive Committee. You will receive a response within 10 working days to advise you whether your proposal has been approved.

Financial support

The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust (Grant ref: 217 065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol currently provide core support for ALSPAC. This publication is the work of the authors, and they will serve as guarantors for the contents of this paper. A comprehensive list of grants funding is available on the ALSPAC website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/external/documents/grant-acknowledgements.pdf). This project was made possible through the support of grants from the John Templeton Foundation (ref no. 61356 and 61917). The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare none.

Ethical standards

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee and the Local Research Ethics Committees. Informed consent for the use of data collected via questionnaires and clinics was obtained from participants following the recommendations of the ALSPAC Ethics and Law Committee at the time.

References

  1. Abar, B., Carter, K. L., & Winsler, A. (2009). The effects of maternal parenting style and religious commitment on self-regulation, academic achievement, and risk behavior among African–American parochial college students. Journal of Adolescence, 32(2), 259–273. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2008.03.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramowitz, J. S., Deacon, B. J., Woods, C. M., & Tolin, D. F. (2004). Association between Protestant religiosity and obsessive-compulsive symptoms and cognitions. Depression and Anxiety, 20(2), 70–76. 10.1002/da.20021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Adamczyk, A. (2012). Understanding delinquency with friendship group religious context. Social Science Quarterly, 93(2), 482–505. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartkowski, J. P., Xu, X., & Levin, M. L. (2008). Religion and child development: Evidence from the early childhood longitudinal study. Social Science Research, 37(1), 18–36. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.02.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhargava, S., & Witherspoon, D. P. (2015). Parental involvement across middle and high school: Exploring contributions of individual and neighborhood characteristics. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(9), 1702–1719. 10.1007/s10964-015-0334-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bøe, T., Sivertsen, B., Heiervang, E., Goodman, R., Lundervold, A. J., & Hysing, M. (2014). Socioeconomic status and child mental health: The role of parental emotional well-being and parenting practices. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42(5), 705–715. 10.1007/s10802-013-9818-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Lansford, J. E., Al-Hassan, S. M., Bacchini, D., Bombi, A. S., … Alampay, L. P. (2017). ‘Mixed blessings’: Parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjustment in global perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(8), 880–892. 10.1111/jcpp.12705. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bould, H., Koupil, I., Dalman, C., DeStavola, B., Lewis, G., & Magnusson, C. (2015). Parental mental illness and eating disorders in offspring: Parent mental illness, offspring eating disorders. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 48(4), 383–391. 10.1002/eat.22325. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyd, A., Golding, J., Macleod, J., Lawlor, D. A., Fraser, A., Henderson, J., … Davey Smith, G. (2013). Cohort profile: The ‘children of the 90s’ – the index offspring of the avon longitudinal study of parents and children. International Journal of Epidemiology, 42(1), 111–127. 10.1093/ije/dys064. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Braam, A. W., & Koenig, H. G. (2019). Religion, spirituality and depression in prospective studies: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 257, 428–438. 10.1016/j.jad.2019.06.063. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brandt, M. J., & Henry, P. J. (2012). Psychological defensiveness as a mechanism explaining the relationship between low socioeconomic status and religiosity. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22(4), 321–332. 10.1080/10508619.2011.646565. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen, D., Yoon, D. P., & Johnstone, B. (2009). Differentiating the impact of spiritual experiences, religious practices, and congregational support on the mental health of individuals with heterogeneous medical disorders. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19(2), 121–138. 10.1080/10508610802711335. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Dean, K., Stevens, H., Mortensen, P. B., Murray, R. M., Walsh, E., & Pedersen, C. B. (2010). Full spectrum of psychiatric outcomes among offspring with parental history of mental disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 67(8), 822. 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Farrell, L. J., & Barrett, P. M. (2007). Prevention of childhood emotional disorders: Reducing the burden of suffering associated with anxiety and depression. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12(2), 58–65. 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2006.00430.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Fergusson, D. M., John Horwood, L., & Ridder, E. M. (2005). Show me the child at seven: The consequences of conduct problems in childhood for psychosocial functioning in adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(8), 837–849. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00387.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Fernández-Sanlés, A., Smith, D., Clayton, G. L., Northstone, K., Carter, A. R., Millard, L. A., … Lawlor, D. A. (2021). Bias from questionnaire invitation and response in COVID-19 research: An example using ALSPAC. Wellcome Open Research, 6, 184. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17041.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fraser, A., Macdonald-Wallis, C., Tilling, K., Boyd, A., Golding, J., Davey Smith, G., … Lawlor, D. A. (2013). Cohort profile: The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children: ALSPAC mothers cohort. International Journal of Epidemiology, 42(1), 97–110. 10.1093/ije/dys066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Goodman, R., Ford, T., Richards, H., Gatward, R., & Meltzer, H. (2000). The development and well-being assessment: Description and initial validation of an integrated assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(5), 645–655. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2000.tb02345.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Goodyer, I., Wright, C., & Altham, P. (1990). Recent achievements and adversities in anxious and depressed school age children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 31(7), 1063–1077. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1990.tb00846.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Guo, S. (2018). A model of religious involvement, family processes, self-control, and juvenile delinquency in two-parent families. Journal of Adolescence, 63(1), 175–190. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.12.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Halstead, I., Heron, J., & Joinson, C. (2022). Identifying patterns of religiosity in adults from a large UK cohort using latent class analysis. Wellcome Open Research, 7, 192. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17969.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Harter, S. (1985). Manual of the self-perception profile for children. Denver: CO. [Google Scholar]
  23. Heaton, T. B. (2013). Religion and socioeconomic status in developing nations: A comparative approach. Social Compass, 60(1), 97–114. 10.1177/0037768612471772. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Heron, J., Croudace, T., Barker, E., & Tilling, K. (2015). A comparison of approaches for assessing covariate effects in latent class analysis. Longitudinal and Life Course Studies, 6(4), 420–434. 10.14301/llcs.v6i4.322 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Himle, J. A., Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. J., & Nguyen, A. (2011). The relationship between obsessive-compulsive disorder and religious faith: Clinical characteristics and implications for treatment. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3(4), 241–258. 10.1037/a0023478. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Horowitz, J. L., & Garber, J. (2003). Relation of intelligence and religiosity to depressive disorders in offspring of depressed and nondepressed mothers. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(5), 578–586. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Houtrow, A. J., & Okumura, M. J. (2011). Pediatric mental health problems and associated burden on families. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies, 6(3), 222–233. 10.1080/17450128.2011.580144. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Howe, L. D., Tilling, K., Galobardes, B., & Lawlor, D. A. (2013). Loss to follow-up in cohort studies: Bias in estimates of socioeconomic inequalities. Epidemiology, 24(1), 1–9. 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31827623b1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Jacobs, M., Miller, L., Wickramaratne, P., Gameroff, M., & Weissman, M. M. (2012). Family religion and psychopathology in children of depressed mothers: Ten-year follow-up. Journal of Affective Disorders, 136(3), 320–327. 10.1016/j.jad.2011.11.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Jacobs, R. H., Talati, A., Wickramaratne, P., & Warner, V. (2015). The influence of paternal and maternal major depressive disorder on offspring psychiatric disorders. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(8), 2345–2351. 10.1007/s10826-014-0037-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Jeynes, W. H. (2003). The effects of religious commitment on the academic achievement of urban and other children. Education and Urban Society, 36(1), 44–62. 10.1177/0013124503257206. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Johfre, S. S., & Freese, J. (2021). Reconsidering the reference category. Sociological Methodology, 51(2), 253–269. 10.1177/0081175020982632. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Joinson, C., Heron, J., Emond, A., & Butler, R. (2006). Psychological problems in children with bedwetting and combined (day and night) wetting: A UK population-based study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32(5), 605–616. 10.1093/jpepsy/jsl039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Kim, J., McCullough, M. E., & Cicchetti, D. (2009). Parents’ and children's religiosity and child behavioral adjustment among maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(5), 594–605. 10.1007/s10826-009-9262-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kim, Y.-I., & Wilcox, W. B. (2014). Religious identity, religious attendance, and parental control. Review of Religious Research, 56(4), 555–580. 10.1007/s13644-014-0167-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kim-Spoon, J., Longo, G. S., & McCullough, M. E. (2012). Parent-adolescent relationship quality as a moderator for the influences of parents’ religiousness on adolescents’ religiousness and adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(12), 1576–1587. 10.1007/s10964-012-9796-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. King, M., Marston, L., McManus, S., Brugha, T., Meltzer, H., & Bebbington, P. (2013). Religion, spirituality and mental health: Results from a national study of English households. British Journal of Psychiatry, 202(1), 68–73. 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.112003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Koenig, H. G. (2009). Research on religion, spirituality, and mental health: A review. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(5), 283–291. 10.1177/070674370905400502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Laird, R. D., Marks, L. D., & Marrero, M. D. (2011). Religiosity, self-control, and antisocial behavior: Religiosity as a promotive and protective factor. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 78–85. 10.1016/j.appdev.2010.12.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lau, E. Y., Faulkner, G., & Qian, W. (2016). Longitudinal associations of parental and peer influences with physical activity during adolescence: Findings from the COMPASS study. Health Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada, 36(11), 235–242. 10.24095/hpcdp.36.11.01. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Leinonen, J. A., Solantaus, T. S., & Punamäki, R.-L. (2003). Parental mental health and children's adjustment: The quality of marital interaction and parenting as mediating factors: Parental mental health and children's adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44(2), 227–241. 10.1111/1469-7610.t01-1-00116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lemstra, M., Neudorf, C., D'Arcy, C., Kunst, A., Warren, L. M., & Bennett, N. R. (2008). A systematic review of depressed mood and anxiety by SES in youth aged 10–15 years. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 99(2), 125–129. 10.1007/BF03405459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Leurent, B., Nazareth, I., Bellón-Saameño, J., Geerlings, M.-I., Maaroos, H., Saldivia, S., … King, M. (2013). Spiritual and religious beliefs as risk factors for the onset of major depression: An international cohort study. Psychological Medicine, 43(10), 2109–2120. 10.1017/S0033291712003066. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Lewis, C. A., Maltby, J., & Day, L. (2005). Religious orientation, religious coping and happiness among UK adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(5), 1193–1202. 10.1016/j.paid.2004.08.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., Van Kammen, W. B., & Farrington, D. P. (1989). Development of a new measure of self-reported antisocial behavior for young children: Prevalence and reliability. In Klein M. W. (Ed.), Cross-National research in self-reported crime and delinquency (pp. 203–225). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. 10.1007/978-94-009-1001-0_10. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Major-Smith, D., Halstead, I., Morgan, J., Tohidinik, H. R., Iles-Caven, Y., Golding, J., & Northstone, K. (2023). Individual-level changes in religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviors over three decades in the parental generation of the ALSPAC cohort, UK. Religion, Brain & Behavior, 1–20. 10.1080/2153599X.2022.2156584. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Manning, C., & Gregoire, A. (2009). Effects of parental mental illness on children. Psychiatry, 8(1), 7–9. [Google Scholar]
  48. McCormick, W. H., Carroll, T. D., Sims, B. M., & Currier, J. (2017). Adverse childhood experiences, religious/spiritual struggles, and mental health symptoms: Examination of mediation models. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 20(10), 1042–1054. 10.1080/13674676.2018.1440544. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. McKune, B., & Hoffmann, J. P. (2009). Religion and Academic Achievement Among Adolescents. Theses and Dissertations. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/948. [Google Scholar]
  50. Melchior, M., & van der Waerden, J. (2016). Parental influences on children's mental health: The bad and the good sides of it. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 25(8), 805–807. 10.1007/s00787-016-0891-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Morgan, J., Halstead, I., Northstone, K., & Major-Smith, D. (2022). Religious/spiritual beliefs and behaviours and study participation in a prospective cohort study (ALSPAC) in Southwest England. Wellcome Open Research, 7, 186. 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17975.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Mueller, C. W., & Johnson, W. T. (1975). Socioeconomic status and religious participation. American Sociological Review, 40(6), 785. 10.2307/2094180. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  53. Munir, A., & Malik, J. A. (2020). Mediating role of religious orientation and moral character for the relationship between parent and peer attachment and delinquency. Cogent Psychology, 7(1), 1761042. 10.1080/23311908.2020.1761042. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Nylund-Gibson, K., & Choi, A. Y. (2018). Ten frequently asked questions about latent class analysis. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 440–461. 10.1037/tps0000176. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Olatunji, B. O., Williams, N. L., Tolin, D. F., Abramowitz, J. S., Sawchuk, C. N., Lohr, J. M., & Elwood, L. S. (2007). The disgust scale: Item analysis, factor structure, and suggestions for refinement. Psychological Assessment, 19(3), 281–297. 10.1037/1040-3590.19.3.281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Park, J.-I., Hong, J. P., Park, S., & Cho, M.-J. (2012). The relationship between religion and mental disorders in a Korean population. Psychiatry Investigation, 9(1), 29. 10.4306/pi.2012.9.1.29. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Powell, D. R., Son, S.-H., File, N., & Froiland, J. M. (2012). Changes in parent involvement across the transition from public school prekindergarten to first grade and children's academic outcomes. The Elementary School Journal, 113(2), 276–300. 10.1086/667726. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Rapee, R. (1997). Potential role of childrearing practices in the development of anxiety and depression. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(1), 47–67. 10.1016/S0272-7358(96)00040-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. R Core Team. (2021). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.
  60. Regnerus, M. D. (2003). Linked lives, faith, and behavior: Intergenerational religious influence on adolescent delinquency. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(2), 189–203. 10.1111/1468-5906.00172. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rhodes, A. L., & Nam, C. B. (1970). The religious context of educational expectations. American Sociological Review, 35(2), 253. 10.2307/2093204. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Santoro, A. F., Suchday, S., Benkhoukha, A., Ramanayake, N., & Kapur, S. (2016). Adverse childhood experiences and religiosity/spirituality in emerging adolescents in India. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 8(3), 185–194. 10.1037/rel0000038. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Saunders, D., Svob, C., Pan, L., Abraham, E., Posner, J., Weissman, M., & Wickramaratne, P. (2021). Differential association of spirituality and religiosity with rumination: Implications for the treatment of depression. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 209(5), 370–377. 10.1097/NMD.0000000000001306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Schickedanz, A., Halfon, N., Sastry, N., & Chung, P. J. (2018). Parents’ adverse childhood experiences and their children's behavioral health problems. Pediatrics, 142(2), e20180023. 10.1542/peds.2018-0023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Schieman, S. (2010). Socioeconomic Status and beliefs about god's influence in everyday life. Sociology of Religion, 71(1), 25–51. 10.1093/socrel/srq004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Schottenbauer, M. A., Spernak, S. M., & Hellstrom, I. (2007). Relationship between family religious behaviors and child well-being among third-grade children. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 10(2), 191–198. 10.1080/13674670600847394. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  67. Schwadel, P. (2011). Age, period, and cohort effects on religious activities and beliefs. Social Science Research, 40(1), 181–192. 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.09.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Schwadel, P. (2015). Explaining cross-national variation in the effect of higher education on religiosity: EFFECT OF HIGHER EDUCATION ON RELIGIOSITY. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 54(2), 402–418. 10.1111/jssr.12187. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Sica, C., Novara, C., & Sanavio, E. (2002). Religiousness and obsessive–compulsive cognitions and symptoms in an Italian population. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 40(7), 813–823. 10.1016/S0005-7967(01)00120-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Smith, C. (2003). Research note: Religious participation and parental moral expectations and supervision of American youth. Review of Religious Research, 44(4), 414. 10.2307/3512218. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  71. Stewart, P. A., Adams, T. G., & Senior, C. (2020). The effect of trait and state disgust on fear of god and sin. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 51. 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00051. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Storm, I. (2017). Does economic insecurity predict religiosity? Evidence from the European social survey 2002–2014. Sociology of Religion, 78(2), 146–172. 10.1093/socrel/srw055. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  73. Svob, C., Wang, Z., Weissman, M. M., Wickramaratne, P., & Posner, J. (2016). Religious and spiritual importance moderate relation between default mode network connectivity and familial risk for depression. Neuroscience Letters, 634, 94–97. 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.10.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Svob, C., Wickramaratne, P. J., Reich, L., Zhao, R., Talati, A., Gameroff, M. J., … Weissman, M. M. (2018). Association of parent and offspring religiosity with offspring suicide ideation and attempts. JAMA Psychiatry, 75(10), 1062. 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.2060. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Thompson, M. S., Thomas, M. E., & Head, R. N. (2012). Race, socioeconomic Status, and self-esteem: The impact of religiosity. Sociological Spectrum, 32(5), 385–405. 10.1080/02732173.2012.694792. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  76. Top, B. A., Chadwick, B. A., & McClendon, R. J. (2003). Spirituality and self-worth: The role of religion in shaping teens’ self-image. Religious Educator: Perspectives on the Restored Gospel, 4(2), 9. [Google Scholar]
  77. van der Jagt-Jelsma, W., de Vries-Schot, M., de Jong, R., Verhulst, F. C., Ormel, J., Veenstra, R., … Buitelaar, J. (2011). The relationship between parental religiosity and mental health of pre-adolescents in a community sample: The TRAILS study. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(5), 253–260. 10.1007/s00787-011-0171-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. van der Jagt-Jelsma, W., de Vries-Schot, M., Scheepers, P., van Deurzen, P. A. M., Klip, H., & Buitelaar, J. K. (2017). Longitudinal study of religiosity and mental health of adolescents with psychiatric problems. The TRAILS study. European Psychiatry, 45, 65–71. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.05.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. van der Jagt-Jelsma, W., de Vries-Schot, M. R., de Jong, R., Hartman, C. A., Verhulst, F. C., Klip, H., … Buitelaar, J. K. (2015). Religiosity and mental health of pre-adolescents with psychiatric problems and their parents: The TRAILS study. European Psychiatry, 30(7), 845–851. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2015.07.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Varon, S. R., & Riley, A. W. (1999). Relationship between maternal church attendance and adolescent mental health and social functioning. Psychiatric Services, 50(6), 799–805. 10.1176/ps.50.6.799. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Vermunt, J. K. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18(4), 450–469. 10.1093/pan/mpq025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  82. Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2021). How to perform three-step latent class analysis in the presence of measurement non-invariance or differential item functioning. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 28(3), 356–364. 10.1080/10705511.2020.1818084. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  83. Vukojević, M., Zovko, A., Talić, I., Tanović, M., Rešić, B., Vrdoljak, I., & Splavski, B. (2017). Parental socioeconomic status as a predictor of physical and mental health outcomes in children–literature review. Acta Clinica Croatica, 56(4.), 742–748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Waters, T. L., & Barrett, P. M. (2000). The role of the family in childhood obsessive–compulsive disorder. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 3(3), 173–184. 10.1023/A:1009551325629. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Wolke, D., Woods, S., Stanford, K., & Schulz, H. (2001). Bullying and victimization of primary school children in England and Germany: Prevalence and school factors. British Journal of Psychology, 92(4), 673–696. 10.1348/000712601162419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Yap, M. B. H., Pilkington, P. D., Ryan, S. M., & Jorm, A. F. (2014). Parental factors associated with depression and anxiety in young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 156, 8–23. 10.1016/j.jad.2013.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Yu, Z., Bali, P., Tsikandilakis, M., & Tong, E. M. (2022). ‘Look not at what is contrary to propriety’: A meta-analytic exploration of the association between religiosity and sensitivity to disgust. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(1), 276–299. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Zammit, S., Allebeck, P., Andreasson, S., Lundberg, I., & Lewis, G. (2002). Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia in Swedish conscripts of 1969: Historical cohort study. BMJ, 325(7374), 1199–1199. 10.1136/bmj.325.7374.1199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Zondervan-Zwijnenburg, M. A. J., Veldkamp, S. A. M., Neumann, A., Barzeva, S. A., Nelemans, S. A., Beijsterveldt, C. E. M., … Boomsma, D. I. (2020). Parental age and offspring childhood mental health: A multi-cohort, population-based investigation. Child Development, 91(3), 964–982. 10.1111/cdev.13267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Halstead et al. supplementary material

Halstead et al. supplementary material

S003329172300079Xsup001.docx (93.1KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Please see the ALSPAC data management plan which describes the policy regarding data sharing (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/researchers/data-access/documents/alspac-data-management-plan.pdf), which is by a system of managed open access. Data used for this submission will be made available on request to the Executive (alspac-exec@bristol.ac.uk). The datasets presented in this article are linked to ALSPAC project number B4001, please quote this project number during your application.

The steps below highlight how to apply for access to the data included in this study and all other ALSPAC data:

  1. Please read the ALSPAC access policy (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/media-library/sites/alspac/documents/researchers/data-access/ALSPAC_Access_Policy.pdf) which describes the process of accessing the data and samples in detail, and outlines the costs associated with doing so.

  2. You may also find it useful to browse our fully searchable research proposals database (https://proposals.epi.bristol.ac.uk/?q=proposalSummaries), which lists all research projects that have been approved since April 2011.

  3. Please submit your research proposal (https://proposals.epi.bristol.ac.uk/) for consideration by the ALSPAC Executive Committee. You will receive a response within 10 working days to advise you whether your proposal has been approved.

Articles from Psychological Medicine are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

RESOURCES