Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Oct 3.
Published in final edited form as: Psycholog Relig Spiritual. 2020 Apr 16;14(3):386–389. doi: 10.1037/rel0000317

Individual-Level Trajectories of Religiosity during Adolescence and Their Implications for Purpose

Gabrielle N Pfund 1, Leah H Schultz 1, Judy A Andrews 2, Patrick L Hill 1
PMCID: PMC9529002  NIHMSID: NIHMS1701538  PMID: 36196391

Abstract

Cohort-comparison studies suggest that adolescent religiosity has been declining over recent decades; however, work is needed on individual differences in patterns of change in religiosity throughout adolescence. The current study seeks to evaluate religiosity trends for adolescents as they transition from 6th to 12th grade, using seven annual waves of data, and whether these patterns of change were associated with later sense of purpose. Participants (n = 824; 50.7% female; 85.1% Caucasian) completed annual measures of religiosity from 6th to 12th grade, and a measure of sense of purpose at age 21 as part of the Oregon Youth Substance Use Project. Findings from latent growth models suggest both a mean-level decline in religiosity as well as individual differences in patterns of change across time. Furthermore, the intercept and change in religiosity throughout adolescence positively predicted sense of purpose at age 21. Results are discussed with respect to how individual differences occur in religiosity, and what that means for purpose development throughout adolescence.

Keywords: religiosity, sense of purpose, adolescence, identity development, purpose development

Religiosity in the United States may be in the midst of a decline in prevalence and self-proclaimed importance. Americans’ religiosity has been rapidly decreasing over the years, with 20% of Americans reporting “none” for their religious affiliation in 2018 compared to 3% in 2008 (Gallup, 2018). With respect to adolescence, using national surveys from 1966 to 2014 with 8th, 10th, 12th graders, and first-year college students, research has found generational declines in religious affiliation and attendance (Twenge, Exline, Grubbs, Sastry, & Campbell, 2015). Based on these cohort findings, it appears that adolescents also are becoming less religious over time, and additional work has supported this claim looking at the individual-level trajectories of religiosity in adolescence. However, a full account of trajectories during adolescence is complicated by the fact that many of these studies have only looked at this decline with three to four waves of data (Chan, Tsai, & Fuligni, 2015; Hardy, Pratt, Pancer, Olson, & Lawford, 2011), over a two to three-year period (Cranney, Koletíc, & Śtulhofer, 2018), or specifically in high school students (Davis & Kiang, 2015). Data from one study that examined religiosity from ages 11 to 18, using six waves of data over seven years, suggested that on average religiosity decreased, but that there were also individual differences in religiosity trajectories (Mason & Spoth, 2011).

If individual differences in patterns of change are evidenced, the next question is: does it matter? One possible outcome associated with changes in religiosity is sense of purpose. Sense of purpose can be understood as the extent that one feels that they have personally meaningful goals and directions guiding them through life (Ryff, 1989). This outcome is important for multiple reasons. First, the purpose development process often occurs in adolescence and emerging adulthood, periods in which individuals explore and eventually commit to their purposes in life (Bronk, Hill, Lapsley, Talib, & Finch, 2009; Damon, Menon, & Bronk, 2003). Noting the potential for religious engagement to contribute to a formative experience for purpose development during adolescence, previous cross-sectional research has shown positive associations between sense of purpose and adolescents’ religious attendance, belief in a higher power, and usage of prayer (Francis, 2013). In fact, research shows that some define their purpose in life as rooted in their religious beliefs (Hill, Burrow, O’Dell, & Thornton, 2010). Second, sense of purpose predicts a wide array of beneficial outcomes in adolescence and emerging adulthood, such as greater life satisfaction, well-being, mental health, and hope (Bronk et al., 2009; Hill et al., 2016; Pfund & Miller-Perrin, 2019). Accordingly, one would expect youth who maintain or increase in religiosity to score higher than their counterparts on sense of purpose later in life.

Purpose of the Current Study

The current study sought to extend previous work by replicating findings about adolescent religiosity trajectories at the mean- and individual-level using a different adolescent sample using seven waves of data across a seven-year period. Furthermore, the current study sought to assess the implications of developmental changes in religiosity by examining these associations with a sense of purpose. Based on previous research, it is expected that there will be a general decrease in religiosity throughout adolescence, that there will also be individual differences in religiosity trends, and that increases in religiosity throughout adolescence will positively relate to sense of purpose at age 21.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

The following study was approved by the ethics board at [institution name redacted]. Data are from seven adolescent and one emerging adulthood measurement occasions from the Oregon Youth Substance Use Project (OYSUP; Oregon Research Institute, 1998–2010; DA10767), a cohort-sequential longitudinal study. Data were collected annually from youth in one working to middle class school district from 1998 to 2010. Participants reported their religiosity annually from 6th to 12th grade, and their sense of purpose at age 21. Participants (n = 1,006) were 50.7% female and 49.3% male, with a mean age of 12.05 (SD = .39) years at the first assessment and 21.01 (SD = .59) years at the final assessment. At the first survey, parents reported participant’s race/ethnicity and fathers reported their highest level of education, used as a proxy for participant SES. For race/ethnicity, 85% of participants were identified as Caucasian, 7% Hispanic/Latinx, and 3% African-American/Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, Native American, or other. For father’s education, 31% attained a high school equivalent or less, 49% completed vocational training, an associate’s degree, or some college, 14% completed a bachelor’s degree, and 6% completed a post-bachelor’s degree. Data analytic plan and hypotheses were pre-registered on OSF (https://osf.io/e3fhg).

Measures

Sense of purpose.

Sense of purpose was assessed using the Oregon Brief Purpose Measure (Hill et al., 2016), which asks participants to report on four items using a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). This measure was developed in conjunction with emerging adulthood researchers, and validated using the current sample, among others. Example items include “There is a direction in my life,” and “My plans for the future match with my true interests and values.” Reliability was good (α = .83). Descriptive statistics for measures are displayed in Table 1.

Table 1.

Scale range, means, standard deviations, and correlations are displayed for religiosity at each time assessment and sense of purpose (age M = 21) at the final assessment.

Age 21 purpose 6th grade religiosity 7th grade religiosity 8th grade religiosity 9th grade religiosity 10th grade religiosity 11th grade religiosity 12th grade religiosity
6th grade .12 [.04, .20] - - - - - - -
7th grade .17 [.09, .25] .68 [.63, .73] - - - - - -
8th grade .20 [.12, .27] .63 [.57, .68] .78 [.75, .81] - - - - -
9th grade .19 [.12, .26] .60 [.54, .65] .66 [.61, .70] .72 [.68, .76] - - - -
10th grade .23 [.16, .29] .57 [.52, .62] .65 [.60, .69] .69 [.65, .73] .81 [.79, .84] - - -
11th grade .22 [.15, .30] .51 [.44, .57] .63 [.57, .68] .63 [.57, .68] .72 [.72, .75] .81 [.79, .84] - -
12th grade .18 [.09, .27] .47 [.40, .54] .53 [.45, .61] .58 [.50, .65] .62 [.55, .68] .71 [.67, .75] .81 [.77, .83] -
Age 21 .29 [.22, .35] .44 [.38, .51] .50 [.44, .56] .48 [.42, .54] .55 [.50, .60] .60 [.56, .65] .66 [.61, .70] .71 [.66, .75]
Scale Range 1 – 5 1 – 4 1 – 4 1 – 4 1 – 4 1 – 4 1 – 4 1 – 4
Mean 3.82 2.80 2.68 2.55 2.52 2.47 2.42 2.33
SD 0.80 0.97 1.01 1.05 1.10 1.10 1.12 1.11
Open in a new tab

Note. All associations have a p < .01. 95% confidence intervals in brackets.

Religiosity.

Religiosity was assessed using an average of two items from the Wallace and Forman (1998) religiosity measure. The two items were “How often do you attend religious or spiritual meetings?” (1 = never; 4 = once a week or more) and “How important is religious or spiritual faith in your daily life?” (1 = not important; 4 = very important). The two items were strongly correlated at each of the seven adolescent assessments (average r = .68, p < .001), with the strongest correlation in 12th grade (r = .75), and the weakest in 6th grade (r = .60).

Analytic Plan

Rank-order correlations were conducted to examine the stability of annual religiosity from 6th to 12th grade, and the relationships between religiosity at each grade with sense of purpose at age 21. To assess mean-level change and individual variability in patterns of change for religiosity across the seven waves, a latent growth model using the lavaan package in R was created using the religiosity scores from each year as indicators. In a final model, sense of purpose in emerging adulthood was regressed on both the latent intercept and slope of the religiosity scores, as well as the participant’s gender and the father’s education. Models were tested separately by gender. Given that the primary findings were consistent across genders, the model with the overall sample was retained.

Results

Rank-order stability of religiosity was strong across measurement occasions, with correlations ranging from r = .47 to .82 across the assessments (Table 1). The model fit for the latent growth model for religious trajectories from 6th to 12th grade was good: χ2(23) = 204.01, p < .001; RMSEA = .09 [.08, .10], CFI = .95. When evaluating trends in religiosity from 6th to 12th grade, we found a significant mean-level decline for the sample (std. intercept estimate = 2.75, 95% CI [2.69, 2.81]; std. slope estimate = −.08, 95% CI [−.09, −.07]). In addition, we found significant differences in individual patterns of change trajectories (slope variance: .022, 95% CI [.018, .024]). Regarding variability in trajectories, 59% of participants remained within one standard deviation of their mean, 37% of participants decreased by at least one standard deviation, and 4% of participants increased by at least one standard deviation over the course of the entire study. Furthermore, while girls started higher on religiosity than boys (std. estimate = .22, 95% CI [.09, .36]), the rate of change was the same among both groups (std. estimate = −.01, 95% CI [−.03, .01]).

For each measurement from 6th to 12th grade, religiosity was positively correlated with a higher sense of purpose at age 21, r(824) = .12 to .23, p < .01 (Table 1). Using latent growth modeling, we found that initial religiosity predicted a higher sense of purpose at age 21 (std. estimate = .18, 95% CI [.01, .27]), and the increase in religiosity across adolescence also uniquely predicted sense of purpose (std. estimate = .02, 95% CI [.01, .04]). When controlling for SES and gender, initial religiosity and increases in religiosity during adolescence still predicted a higher sense of purpose at similar magnitudes (std. estimate for intercept = .17, 95% CI [.09, .25]; std. estimate for slope = .02, 95% CI [.00, .03]), though the effect of slope missed statistical significance.

Discussion

The current study found that religiosity declined across adolescence; however, there were significant differences in adolescents’ trajectories. Both initial level and change in religiosity during adolescence had implications for emerging adulthood outcomes, with higher initial levels of and increases in religiosity from 6th to 12th grade predicting a higher sense of purpose at age 21. These findings align with previous research that shows that, while religiosity is decreasing across cohorts (Mason & Spoth, 2011), well-being outcomes for religious individuals tend to be higher compared to their nonreligious counterparts (Diener, Tay, & Myers, 2011).

Some rationale for why adolescents may experience a decline in religiosity stems from identity research. One identity domain under exploration during adolescence is religious identity development (e.g., Furrow, King, & White, 2004; Markstrom, 1999), and some research has pointed to religiosity actually aiding in the identity formation process (Hardy, Pratt, Pancer, Olson, & Lawford, 2011). Those who maintain higher religiosity may benefit from the direction it gives, and previous research shows that having a religious identity helps with one’s self-understanding and promotes prosociality (Furrow et al., 2004), which is a purpose orientation to which many subscribe (Hill et al., 2010). Future research needs to consider the mechanisms through which these associations can be understood, such as the prosocial behaviors religiosity promotes or the identity commitment it may help one develop.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations of the current study can guide important directions for future research. First, the sample was fairly homogenous in terms of race and geographic context. Previous research has found that race may moderate the associations between religiosity and well-being outcomes (Krause, 2003). Accordingly, work is needed to understand whether the patterns of change found here generalize to other groups and contexts. Second, participants were not asked about their faith background, though state-level data from Oregon suggests that around 90% of residents who report a religious orientation do report a Christian denomination (Pew Research Center, 2014). Therefore, the patterns for religiosity found here may not be reflective of the trends in all faith communities. Finally, while we found that religiosity trajectories are associated with sense of purpose, the mechanisms through which these associations occur need to be better understood. For example, previous work has shown that adolescent religious activity engagement is positively associated with sense of purpose (Bundick, 2011). Future work should consider whether it is activity engagement or something else inherent in religion that is promoting these differences in purposefulness.

Third, the current study only evaluated whether patterns in religiosity trajectories predicted sense of purpose differentially, and supported previous work showing the potential for individual differences in patterns of change (Mason & Spoth, 2011). However, the reasons for these differences are not fully understood. Race, gender, and education can predict differences in religious trajectories (Lee, Pearce, & Schorpp, 2017), though the mechanisms behind these differences are not understood. Furthermore, work has shown that parents’ religiosity influences their children’s throughout adolescence (King & Mueller, 2003), and having more religiously active parents may actually lead to greater decline in the child’s religiosity (Schwadel, 2017). As such, future work should consider the extent that parental- and child-trajectories of religiosity each predict the child’s sense of purpose, as well as other mechanisms behind individual differences in religiosity trajectories.

Finally, to avoid overburdening youth participants, a brief measure of religiosity was employed that aggregates religious participation and belief importance. Previous work has shown differences in individual-level trajectories for religious affiliation, attendance, and importance (Lee et al., 2017). Moreover, the strength of associations between religiosity and sense of purpose differs as a function of the aspects of religiosity assessed (Francis, 2013). The current brief measure of religiosity was unable to tease these aspects apart, or compare spirituality to religiosity. Future research should examine their specific trajectories of change, and whether changes in each have distinct predictive value for sense of purpose.

Conclusion

These findings advance our understanding of adolescent development of religiosity. First, this study was one of the first of its kind to track individuals’ annual levels of religiosity in a sample of this size over seven waves of data across the span of adolescence. Second, these findings replicate previous findings of a general decline in religiosity throughout adolescence, as well as individual-level variability in change. Third, this study underscores the value that religion may hold through its predictive ability for emerging adulthood sense of purpose. These findings create a need for future research to investigate how religiosity functions throughout adolescent development to promote sense of purpose in emerging adulthood.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by grant DA10767 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or the National Institutes of Health.

References

  1. Bronk KC, Hill PL, Lapsley DK, Talib TL, & Finch H. (2009). Purpose, hope, and life satisfaction in three age groups. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(6), 500–510. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bundick MJ (2011). Extracurricular activities, positive youth development, and the role of meaningfulness of engagement. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 6(1), 57–74. [Google Scholar]
  3. Chan M, Tsai KM, & Fuligni AJ (2015). Changes in religiosity across the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44(8), 1555–1566. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Cranney S, Koletić G, & Štulhofer A. (2018). Varieties of religious and pornographic experience: latent growth in adolescents’ religiosity and pornography use. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 28(3), 174–186 [Google Scholar]
  5. Damon W, Menon J, & Bronk KC (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 3, 119–128. [Google Scholar]
  6. Davis III RF, & Kiang L. (2016). Religious identity, religious participation, and psychological well-being in Asian American adolescents. Journal of youth and adolescence, 45(3), 532–546. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Diener E, Tay L, & Myers DG (2011). The religion paradox: If religion makes people happy, why are so many dropping out? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Francis LJ (2013). Implicit religion, explicit religion and purpose in life: An empirical enquiry among 13-to 15-year-old adolescents. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 16(9), 909–921. [Google Scholar]
  9. Furrow JL, King PE, & White K. (2004). Religion and positive youth development: Identity, meaning, and prosocial concerns. Applied Developmental Science, 8(1), 17–26. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gallup. (2018). Religion. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/Religion.aspx.
  11. Hardy SA, Pratt MW, Pancer SM, Olsen JA, & Lawford HL (2011). Community and religious involvement as contexts of identity change across late adolescence and emerging adulthood. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(2), 125–135. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hill PL, Burrow AL, O’Dell AC, & Thornton MA (2010). Classifying adolescents’ conceptions of purpose in life. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 5(6), 466–473. [Google Scholar]
  13. King PE, & Mueller RA (2003). Parental influence on adolescent religiousness: exploring the roles of spiritual modeling and spiritual capital. Marriage and Family: AChristian Journal, 6, 401–413. [Google Scholar]
  14. Krause N. (2003). Religious meaning and subjective well-being in late life. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(3), 160–170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lee BHJ, Pearce LD, & Schorpp KM (2017). Religious pathways from adolescence to adulthood. Journal for the scientific study of religion, 56(3), 678–689. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Markstrom CA (1999). Religious involvement and adolescent psychosocial development. Journal of Adolescence, 22(2), 205–221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Mason WA, & Spoth RL (2011). Thrill seeking and religiosity in relation to adolescent substance use: Tests of joint, interactive, and indirect influences. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 25(4), 683–696. https://osf.io/e3fhg [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Pew Research Center. (2014). Religious Landscape Study: Adults in Oregon. Retrieved from https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/state/oregon/.
  19. Pfund GN, & Miller-Perrin CL (2019). Interaction and harmony in faith communities: Predicting life purpose, loneliness, and well-being among college students. Journal of College and Character, 23, 234–253. 10.1080/2194587X.2019.1631186. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Ryff CD (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–1081. [Google Scholar]
  21. Schwadel P. (2010). Period and cohort effects on religious nonaffiliation and religious disaffiliation: A research note. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(2), 311–319. [Google Scholar]
  22. Twenge JM, Exline JJ, Grubbs JB, Sastry R, & Campbell WK (2015). Generational and time period differences in American adolescents’ religious orientation, 1966–2014. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0121454. 10.1371/journal.pone.0121454 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES