Predictors of Religiosity in a Cohort of African Americans

Abstract

Few studies have considered life course predictors of religiosity. We use the Woodlawn Study of a cohort of 1242 first grade African American children followed over four time periods to age 42 to observe how early school behaviors, family characteristics and neighborhood and social resources relate to later religiosity. Past literature suggested several domains of religiosity and exploratory factor analyses supported four measures of religiosity: religiosity as a resource, youth religiosity, divine struggle, and young adult religiosity. In multivariate analyses, males rated by teachers as shy in first grade, those with more than a high school education, and females who reported higher social ties in young adulthood were more likely to report religiosity as a resource at age 42. Males with both shy and aggressive behavior in first grade and females with lower math grades in first grade reported more youth religiosity. Those who obtained more education were less likely to report divine struggle. In terms of religiosity as a young adult, females who had been rated as both shy and aggressive in first grade, those living in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of African Americans, those with higher social ties in young adulthood and those living in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of African Americans reported higher adult religiosity. Longitudinal studies offer an opportunity to examine how patterns of religiosity vary over the life course and how early family, school, and social adaptation influence later religiosity in adulthood.

INTRODUCTION

The importance of religious beliefs and behaviors in the lives of African Americans has been well documented (Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990; Chatters, 2000; Taylor, Chatters, & Brown, 2014). Religiosity research has shown a positive relationship between religion and health with a substantial focus on mental health (Koenig, 2012; Olson, Trevino, Geseke, & Vanderpool, 2012). Religion has been found to be a resource for coping with daily hassles and stressful situations (Pargament, Smilt, Koenig, & Perez, 1998; Chatters et al., 2008; Terreri & Glenwick, 2013); protective in preventing substance abuse (Bowie, Ensminger, & Robertson, 2006; Chitwood, Weiss, & Leukefeld, 2008; Nasim, Fernander, Townsend, Corona, & Belgrave, 2011); and to promoting mental health and wellbeing (Bowie et al., 2006; Schieman, Bierman, & Ellison, 2013). Overwhelmingly, religion serves as a protective factor as it relates to physical and mental health; yet, little is known about how religiosity develops over the life course and what characteristics differentiate those who are religious from those who are not. We know that a departure from more formal religious activities occurs during teen and young adult years (often followed by a return later in life) (Gunnoe & Moore, 2002; Petts, 2009). In this paper, we apply a life course perspective to show how behavioral, family and social relationships in childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood relate to later life religiosity in a prospectively studied cohort of African Americans followed from age 6 to age 42. Our measures of religiosity include church participation during adulthood, self-ratings of religiosity and spirituality, both positive and negative religious coping, and retrospective reports of faith and church attendance during childhood, adolescence and young adulthood.

An important question in studies of religiosity is what we mean by the terms and how we measure it in research. In the context of this study we define religiosity inclusively – to mean the importance of religion as both a belief in God or a higher power as well as a search for the sacred in the observance of both outward (e.g., church attendance) and less visible or more personal practices (e.g., meditation). We also focus on religious coping with life stressors (Pargament et al., 1998).

Several mechanisms have been explored, largely cross-sectional, that support a link between religion and health and in particular, how certain religious factors influence health-related behaviors and health outcomes. Comparatively, there has been little attention placed upon the investigation of religion as the outcome of examination and family life, early school achievement, or health-related behaviors as the predictors of religiosity. Yet, it is likely that religious behavior is influenced by many of the same processes that we have found to influence other behaviors. This paper examines how early behavior, family characteristics during childhood and adolescence, socioeconomic resources, and social ties over the life course influence religious involvement in adulthood. We are additionally interested in religiosity over the life course. The life course perspective provides an opportunity to assess the timing and duration of key experiences in life and how religiosity may be influenced. Past experiences and relationships may be particularly important in considering the development of religiosity over the life course. For example, we might expect that family norms and behaviors during childhood and adolescence with regard to religiosity may influence the development of adult religious patterns, or that those who are attached to school or other social groups may be more inclined to participate in religious organizations as they develop as adults.

Further, patterns of religiosity vary over the life course (Ingersoll-Dayton, Krause, & Morgan, 2002; Koenig, 2012). Levels of religiosity tend to decrease between adolescence and early adulthood and then increase again throughout the adult and aging years (Krause, 1993; Stolzenberg, Blair-Loy, & Waite, 1995; King, Elder, & Whitbeck, 1997; Uecker, Regnerus, & Vaaler, 2007). Gunnoe and Moore (2002) found that church attendance during the childhood years and the presence of religious role models, particularly mothers, to be associated with religiosity in adulthood. The decline in levels of religiosity between adolescence and early adulthood is generally thought to result from competing peer activities that emerge in the developing adolescent’s life as well as growing independence from one’s family. During this time of increasing autonomy, adolescents begin to become more tolerant of alternative lifestyles generally thought to counter both religious and family values (Salas-Wright, Vaughn, Hodge, & Perron, 2012; Button, Stallings, Rhee, Corley, & Hewitt, 2011; Hoge, 1994).

Gender

Many studies have documented the big gender differences in religious involvement. Females are more likely than males to find religion a mainstay in their lives–attending church more frequently, praying and reading the Bible regularly (Taylor, Chatters, & Levin, 2003; Taylor; Chatters, & Brown, 2014; Sherkat & Wilson, 1995; Cornwall, 1989). African American males account for fewer congregants and less church participation than their female counterparts (Billingsley & Caldwell, 1991; Pew Forum, 2009). Because of their disproportionately low attendance, the influence of religious involvement on African American males is understudied. As a result, the question of the potential benefits of religiosity on the health and wellbeing of males has been less examined than the same for females (Billingsley & Caldwell, 1991).

Gender differences may also reflect differences in the characteristics of the social roles of males and females. There are two perspectives put forward to explain gender differences in religiosity. First, women and girls are thought to experience fewer conflicts with religious values that promote abstinence and church participation and engage in fewer counter religious behaviors such as substance use as compared to men and boys, regardless of age or race (King & Roeser, 2009; Miller & Hoffmann, 1995). Specifically, during adolescence, engagement in more deviant behaviors such as substance use and delinquency may lead to isolation from religious participation and less inculcation of religious values and practices (Miller & Hoffman, 1995; Taylor et al., 2003). Second, gender socialization results in girls being socialized to be more nurturing and concerned about social relationships and social evaluations, while males are encouraged to be more assertive, competitive, and independent (Brown, Linver, & Evans, 2009; Veevers & Gee, 1986). Generally, participation in church-related activities and involvement is more frequent for females than males and is more compatible with female’s roles. Relatedly, sons and daughters are exposed to discrepant models of both risk taking and church involvement by their parents. As such, social role modeling gives rise to sons exhibiting more risk-taking behavior (and less religious involvement) and daughters being more likely to model risk-averse behavior (and more religiosity) (Baier & Wright, 2001).

Childhood and Adolescent Church Participation and Social Connections

Social connectedness or social ties, and social capital have been shown to benefit health and well-being (Berkman, Glass, Brissette, & Seeman, 2000; Ensminger, Juon, Lee, & Lo, 2009). Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain these protective effects such as buffering isolation through the presence of close relationships and linkages; promoting meaning, regulation and purpose in one’s life; fostering involvement; and providing instrumental and affective support, social resources and information (Berkman et al., 2000; Umberson, 1987). Indeed, church participation is often considered as one form of social connectedness. Close interpersonal relationships play a significant part in religious socialization (Gutierrez, Goodwin, Kirkinis, & Mattis, 2014; Gunnoe & Moore, 2002) with family and friends’ church participation being an important influence on children’s involvement. While longitudinal studies of religious participation over the life course are rare, there is some evidence that church or faith-based involvement is typically passed from one generation to the next (Ebstyne, 2003) and that religious participation can influence early life social interactions and later life organizational ties. Relatedly, social control theory (Hirschi, 1969) suggests that children and adolescents who establish satisfying and warm connections with the church are more likely to remain involved through adulthood (Landor, Simons, Simons, Brody, & Gibbons, 2011; Ozorak, 1989). Collectively, these findings suggest that the “religious capital” an individual acquires during childhood may be an important incentive to future religious participation (Putney et al., 2013; Iannaccone, 1990).

Educational Attainment

Past research has shown positive associations between educational attainment and religious participation. School achievement is an important source of human capital for American youth (Strayhorn, 2010; Coleman, 1988), and the school is instrumental in shaping one’s socialization experiences. Religious involvement may extend this by providing social and cultural capital and promoting positive attitudes and behaviors towards educational outcomes (Barrett, 2010). Thus, school achievement may enhance more social connections in general and church involvement more specifically.

Previous research on religious socialization and educational attainment has demonstrated a relationship between academic achievement and religious involvement among African American and Hispanic children (Jeynes, 1999) and students living in high poverty neighborhoods (Glanville, Sikkink, & Hernandez, 2008; Regnerus & Elder, 2003). The doctrinal teaching or moral values instilled in children who are “religious” may be promoting of school achievement as they emphasize behaviors that are consistent with academic discipline and performance (Jeynes, 1999; Jeynes, 2002). The mechanism for how religiosity impacts the educational achievement of poor and minority youth is still in question and beyond the scope of this paper; nonetheless, research is beginning to show the potential importance of religious involvement on cognitive ability over the life course (Regnerus & Elder, 2003).

Very few longitudinal studies have examined the development of religiosity over time. Using longitudinal and intergenerational data, Myers (1996) examined the influences of parents and family on the religiosity of their adult offspring. He concludes that family influences are strong and that parental religiosity, the quality of the family relationships and traditional family structure influence the transmission of religiosity across the generations.

The present study seeks to build upon the limited research focusing on key characteristics in religious development using a life course perspective. Specifically, the life course concepts of key social fields and trajectories and social pathways are useful to characterize the social and behavioral factors which may influence religious experience from childhood through adulthood (Ingersoll-Dayton et al., 2002; Moore & Vandivere, 2007). By applying a life course perspective we will examine how early family, school, and social adaptation status influence later religiosity in adulthood. These longitudinal and intergenerational data have several important advantages for examining childhood, adolescent and adult influences on religiosity. First, there are multiple reporters—teachers, parents, and “children” as well as neighborhood data–so the bias that often comes from using a single person as the reporter for all data is diminished. Second, much of the data are prospectively collected so that problems with retrospective recall are partially overcome. Four related issues are examined: how family background is related to later religiosity; how first grade performance and adolescent social bonds influence later adult religiosity; how family social connections during adolescence (including parental religiosity) influence later religiosity; and the influence of neighborhood on religiosity.

METHODS

Description of Woodlawn Study

This prospective, longitudinal study has followed a cohort of 1242 first grade children in Woodlawn, an African American, disadvantaged community on the South side of Chicago. The Woodlawn community was the fifth poorest of the 76 Chicago communities at the initiation of the study in 1966. Over 99% of the first graders were African American. First grade teachers were asked about each child’s classroom behavior; clinicians observed the children in standardized play situations; and mothers (or mother surrogates) were interviewed about their child and their family (Kellam, Branch, Agrawal, & Ensminger, 1975). In 1975–1976, 939 of the mothers/mother surrogates and 705 of the teenagers were re-interviewed. Teenagers gave self-reports on drug use, psychological well-being, family and school life, delinquency, sexual activity, and social bonds (Ensminger, 1990). In 1992–1993 (at ages 32–33), 952 study participants were interviewed. In 2002–2003 (at ages 42–43), 833 were re-interviewed. We also collected census data for the census tracts where study participants lived at the time of the young adult data collection (Ensminger et al., 2009).

Sample Attrition

All prospective studies have some attrition and the question is to what extent this loss to follow-up may bias the relationships that are found. An extensive attrition analysis suggests only a few differences among those who were followed and those who were not. In the 1975–1976 adolescent follow-up, those not assessed were more likely to have mothers who were teen parents, to have moved frequently, and to have attended parochial schools in first grade (the public school had a more comprehensive registry that allowed for better tracking of children). They did not differ in their gender, early first grade behavior, mother’s education, and family type (Kellam, Ensminger, & Simon, 1980). In the 1992–1994 young adult follow-up, those below the official poverty line in first grade were less likely to be interviewed than those who were not (73% versus 81%). Those in a mother alone family in first grade were less likely to be interviewed than those from a family with a mother and father (Ensminger, Anthony, & McCord, 1997). However, the two groups did not differ in gender and early first grade behavior. In 2002–2003 high school dropouts were less likely to be re-interviewed as adults than those with a general equivalency diploma (GED) or a regular high school diploma (Crum et al., 2006).

Measures

Outcome measures

Our multidimensional measures of religiosity were based on the report of the Fetzer Institute National Working Group: Measurement of Religiousness, Spirituality for Use in Health Research (2003). Conceptually, this instrument examines four measures of religiosity used from the mid adulthood interview at age 42 were assessed using 13 items intended to measure organizational religious participation, overall self-ratings of religiosity and spirituality, both positive and negative religious coping, and retrospective reports of faith and church attendance during childhood, adolescence and young adulthood (see Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness/Spirituality, 1999). Level of faith across life stages was measured by asking four questions (e.g., level of faith as a child, an adolescent and young adult; pattern of church attendance). The response codes ranged from no faith (=1) to very strong faith (=5). For the fourth item, pattern of church membership and attendance, there were three responses: do not belong, infrequent attendance, and frequent attendance.

We conducted psychometric analyses for evaluating the scales. Exploratory factor analyses were performed on the measures of religiosity to examine the structure of the responses and determine whether unique patterns of items could be identified. A principal component factor analysis on the 13 different religious items showed the best underlying factor structure to consist of 4 factors, accounting for 56.6% of the variance. The factors were rotated using the varimax method. The religiosity as resources factor encompassed 6 items (α =0.79) and seemed to measure the importance of religion and the participant’s reliance on it. The divine struggle factor encompassed 3 items (α= 0.56) and seemed to indicate a high distrust or alienation from God and religion. The items were God punishes me for my sin, I wonder if God has abandoned me, and I can decide things without relying on God. The youth religiosity factor included 2 items (α=0.75) that indicated the level of faith as a child and as an adolescent. The young adult religiosity factor included 2 items (α = 0.55) that indicated level of faith as a young adult and pattern of church attendance as a young adult. The items identified in each factor were summed together to make four scales of different aspects of religiosity, higher scores indicating higher religiosity for three of the four scales. A higher score on the divine struggle factor indicated more religious distrust and alienation. The response codes ranged from great deal (=1) to not at all (=4).

Table 1 presents the four religiosity scales with the items and their psychometric properties, including internal consistency reliability and descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviations, range).

Table 1.

Psychometrics of Aspects of Religiosity in Midlife, Woodlawn, (n=817)

Construct	Questions	No. of questions	alpha	Mean	SD	Range
Religiosity as a Resource	How religious are you? How spiritual are you? R’s life part of spirit force God and I work together Look to God for strength and support Religion in stressful situation	6	0.79	23.07	4.37	6–28
Youth Religiosity	Level of faith as a child Level of faith as an adolescent	2	0.75	7.35	2.34	2–10
Divine Struggle	God punishes me for my sin Wonder if God has abandoned me Decide without relying on God	3	0.56	4.34	1.71	3–12
Young Adult Involvement	Level of faith as a young adult Pattern of church attendance as a young adult	2	0.55	7.05	1.85	2–10

First grade, family and school characteristics, as predictors, included first grade poverty, as indicated by whether family income was below the federal poverty line reported by the mother; whether the mother was raised in the South or not (0=no; 1=yes); and public or parochial school in first grade (0=public school; 1=parochial school).

Social adaptation in first grade was measured by teacher ratings in first grade on five tasks (i.e., achievement, concentration, social withdrawal [shyness], authority acceptance [aggressiveness], and maturity). Ratings on shy behavior and aggressive behavior are included here. Each first grader was rated by her teacher on these behaviors. The resulting categorical scale combined the ratings of shy behavior and aggressive behavior: 0 (=neither shy nor aggressive, 1=shy, 2=aggressive) to 3 (=both shy and aggressive). Math grades in the first grade were included (1=unsatisfactory to 4=excellent) as an indicator of early academic achievement (Reading and math grades were highly correlated so only math grades were used.)

During adolescence we assessed delinquent behavior, family involvement, and school bonds. Adolescent delinquent behavior was based on a scale adapted from Gold (1970) that included 23 items asking how frequently the adolescents had performed the certain acts in the last three years. The overall delinquency scores were constructed based on a Rasch analysis. This score is along an interval scale with a standard deviation of 0.85 (Ensminger et al, 1983).

Family involvement (5 items, alpha = 0.69, 6 point scale) was measured by asking teenagers how often they do various activities with adults in their family (1=low to 3=high). Adolescent school bonds (5 items, alpha=0.68, 6 point scale) reflected the teenager’s attachments and commitments to school which was categorized into three levels (1=low to 3=high).

During adolescence, mothers (or mother surrogates) were asked about their church membership and frequency of their church attendance. The scale ranged from do not belong and never attended church (=0), belong and attended less than once a week (=1), and belong and attended more than once a week (=2).

A measure of the young adult’s socioeconomic resources was based on both poverty and employment (Ensminger et al., 2009). Three groups were defined: 1) the working non poor were those with a family income more than 150% of the official poverty line and who were currently working: 2) the working poor were those with a family income less than 150% of the official poverty line who were currently working; and 3) the nonworking poor were those with a family income less than 150% of the poverty line who were not currently working. Level of education was categorized into five categories (1 = less than high school to 5 = more than four years of college education).

During young adulthood we also assessed social ties to organizations as indicated by involvement in voluntary community and professional/work organization including professional or labor organizations, civil rights organizations, national sororities or fraternities, women’s rights organizations, and social clubs, and Veteran’s groups. The “yes” responses to belonging and participating were summed to make an index of social ties ranging from 0 to 8 (Ensminger et al., 2009). Social supports from family and relatives were measured by asking: “To whom you can turn: (a) if you are sick; (b) if you need money; (c) if you have a tough decision to make; (d) if you are sad or blue; and (e) if you have a fight with a friend.” One point was assigned for each family member and/or relative that was mentioned in the responses to this question. The summing of scales ranged from 0 to 25 (Ensminger et al., 2009).

Neighborhood characteristics were based on the 1990 census characteristics of the tract where the study participants lived in 1992. The census measure included the proportion of residents who were African American. We initially included the proportion of the residents who were below the poverty line and the proportion that were in a white collar occupation. However, the three indicators were so highly correlated that multiple measures were not possible.

Statistical Analyses

First, we show the background information on the Woodlawn respondents at age 42. Next we show the gender differences in the four measures of religiosity. Next, bivariate analyses examined what early, adolescent and young adult characteristics were associated with the four religiosity outcomes for males and females separately. The final set of multivariate analyses examined the independent relationships of the characteristics across the life course and each of the four aspects of religiosity. Since there were gender differences in religiosity, we did separate analyses by gender. To avoid bias from missing data on childhood, adolescent, and young adulthood predictors, we used multiple imputations using STATA ICE (Royston, 2005), creating 10 imputed data sets for the 817 cohort members (366 males; 451 females) who had religiosity information in midlife.

RESULTS

Sample Characteristics

Table 2 shows descriptive information for the population at age 42. The majority of study participants (68%) live in the Chicago area. Rates of poverty are high, with a quarter below the poverty level in 2002. However, despite the high rates of poverty, there is heterogeneity in the population, with nearly 18% making over $70,000 and 12% having received a college degree by midlife.

Table 2.

Description of Woodlawn Respondents at Age 42

	% of Males (n=374)	% of Females (n=459)	% of Total (n=833)
Current residence:
-Within Woodlawn	6.8	6.3	6.5
-In Chicago area	60.1	63.1	61.7
-Outside Chicago	33.2	30.6	31.7
Married or cohabiting	46.8	37.6*	41.7
With children in household	37.2	70.8*	55.7
Completed high school or GED	78.8	83.8	81.6
Employed in the last week	74.8	72.8	73.7
Below US poverty threshold	22.8	27.9	25.6

Note.

^*p<.05 comparing males and females

Gender Differences in Religiosity

Table 3 shows gender differences in religiosity. Females reported higher levels of religiosity (e.g., religiosity as a resource, young adult religiosity) than the males, while males reported higher levels of divine struggle than females. However, there were no gender differences in youth religiosity.

Table 3.

Gender Differences in Religiosity (n=825)

Construct	Females (mean±SD)	Males (mean±SD)	T-test	P-value
Religiosity as a Resource	23.63±.18	22.40±.26	4.03(df=815)	P<.01
Youth Religiosity	7.45±.11	7.21±.12	1.45 (df=816)	P=.14
Divine Struggle	4.18±.08	4.55±.09	−3.10(df=820)	P<.01
Young Adult Religiosity	7.25±.08	6.81±.10	3.41(df=824)	P<.01

Bivariate Relationships

We examined the bivariate relationships of all the hypothesized variables with four religiosity outcomes. For males, those with higher math grades and those who were not shy in first grade reported higher religiosity as a resource as an adult. Those who finished high school or more and had more social ties in young adulthood reported more religiosity as a resource. Youth religiosity was higher for those with both shy and aggressive behavior in first grade and higher adolescent delinquent behaviors, and those with a GED compared to those who did not finish high school. Spiritual struggle was associated with higher aggressive behavior, lower first grade math grades, higher adolescent delinquent behavior, a lower level of education and less social connectedness in young adulthood (p-value <.05). Those males with a higher level of education and more social ties as adults reported more religiosity in young adulthood.

For females, religiosity as a resource was associated with higher adolescent school bonds, a college education (compared to those without high school), and higher social ties and social support in young adulthood (p<.05). Youth religiosity was related to lower first grade math grades, higher adolescent family involvement, mother’s frequent church attendance during adolescence, lower social class and lower education (p<.05). Divine struggle was associated with lower first grade math grades, fewer socioeconomic resources in young adulthood, less education and fewer social ties in young adulthood (p-value <.05). Young adult religiosity was higher for those whose mothers were raised in the South, those who had both shy and aggressive behavior in first grade, those with higher adolescent family involvement and those with less delinquent behavior, those with more social ties in young adulthood, and those who lived in a neighborhood with a higher proportion of African Americans.

Multivariate Analysis

Table 6 shows the results of multivariate analysis of four outcomes of religiosity by gender.

Table 6.

Multivariate Analysis of Religiosity by Gender (Males=366; Females=451)

	Religiosity as a Resource		Youth Religiosity		Spiritual Struggle		Young Adult Religiosity
	Males	Females	Males	Females	Males	Females	Males	Females
Individual and family background, first grade
School type (parochial)	−.94	−.45	−.20	.42	.21	−.30	.10	.01
Poverty index (yes)	−.41	−.65+	−.06	.21	.05	−.21	.07	−.04
Mother raised in South (yes)	.77	.02	.12	.25	.22	−.04	−.15	.36+
Shy/aggressive behavior (0=neither)
-Shy only	−1.82*	−.60	.08	.18	.23	−.26	−.25	.20
-Aggressive only	.20	.12	.37	.05	.32	−.07	−.02	.42
Both shy and aggressive	.49	.37	1.10**	−.09	.09	−.27	.44	.68*
Math grade (1=unsatisfactory to 4=excellent)	.43	−.41	.05	−.35*	−.15	−.17	−.06	−.12
Adolescent social connectedness
School bonds (1=low to 3=high)	−.35	.32	.08	−.19	.01	−.01	.09	−.01
Family involvement (1=low to 3=high)	.34	.10	.28	.39+	.02	.01	.09	.19
Delinquent behavior	−.33	.10	.22+	−.03	.17	−.02	−.12	−.21
Mother’s social connectedness at adolescence
Church membership (0=do not belong)
-Infrequent attendance	.09	.64	.14	.05	−.48+	−.25	.05	−.17
-Frequent attendance	.37	.01	.48	.55	−.03	−.03	.28	−.11
Individual and family background, young adulthood
Socioeconomic resources (0=Working non-poor)	.05	.17	−.08	.17	.06	.30	−.12	−.26
-Working poor	.63	.05	−.29	.19	−.09	.33	.04	−.18
-Non-working poor
Education level (0=less than high school)
-GED	3.36**	.63	.95+	−.49	−.58	.04	.74+	−.23
-High school diploma/training	2.46**	.58	.14	−.52	−.56*	−.26	.45	−.05
-Some college/associate degree	2.51**	.59	−.33	−.31	−.70*	−.54*	.11	−.09
-More than college graduate	2.55*	.84	−.39	−.44	−1.01*	−.61+	.48	.23
Social connectedness, young adulthood
Social support (family/relative)	.01	.04	.01	.01	−.02	−.01	.01	.01
Social ties	.48+	.61**	−.14	.06	−.17+	−.12	.27**	.26**
Neighborhood characteristics, young adulthood
%Black	.22	−.03	.04	.16	.05	−.22	.08	.82**

Note.

⁺p<.10;

^*p<.05;

^**p<.01.

Multivariate models used multiple imputations (STATA ICE module for missing data.

Religiosity as a Resource in Mid-Adulthood

First, for males, those rated as shy behaving in first grade reported lower religiosity as a resource in mid adulthood (age 42) than those who were neither shy nor aggressive in first grade (β = −1.82, p<.05). Level of education in young adulthood was an important predictor of religiosity as a resource. Those with more than a high school education reported higher levels of religiosity as a resource. For females, higher social ties in young adulthood were related to a higher level of religiosity as a resource ten years later.

Spiritual Struggle in Mid-Adulthood

While several variables along the life course related in bivariate analyses to the reports of spiritual struggle in mid-adulthood, in the multivariate analyses, only educational attainment mattered—and it was similar for both males and females. For males, those with a high school diploma, some college, or a college degree were less likely to report spiritual struggle than those with less than high school. For the females those who had some college or a college degree reporting less struggle.

Youth Religiosity

Males with both shy and aggressive behavior in first grade reported a higher level of youth religiosity than those with no childhood behavior problems (β=1.10, p<.05). For females, first grade math grades were inversely related to youth religiosity: those with lower math grades were more likely to have a higher level of youth religiosity (β= −.35, p<.05). Overall, those with more school or behavior difficulties reported more youth religiosity.

Young Adult Religiosity

Finally, for young adult religiosity, higher social ties in young adulthood were related to higher young adult religiosity for both males and females. Females who were both shy and aggressive in childhood had higher young adult religiosity than those not reporting any problems. Those females who lived in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of African Americans also reported a higher level of young adult religiosity (β = .82, p<.05).

DISCUSSION

Studies have shown that African Americans attend more religious services and have higher levels of faith as compared to other Americans (Mattis & Jagers, 2001; Chatters, Taylor, Jackson, & Lincoln, 2008). Much has been written about the protective benefits of religiosity on mental and physical health, yet little is known about what factors influence how religiosity develops in African American adults.

This study applied a life course perspective to examine what behavioral, familial, and social factors in earlier stages of the life course relate to four measures of religiosity reported in mid adulthood in a longitudinal cohort of African Americans and makes significant contributions to our understanding of how religiosity develops across the life course. Behavioral performance in first grade (as rated by teachers) was associated to later religiosity for males. This might represent the continuity of social connections across the life course with those less likely to engage in social contact as a child still being less likely to engage in social contact, including religious behavior, as an adult. Interpersonal connections, including spiritual connections, may be harder for males to establish if they were shy in the first grade. Young adult reports of social ties were associated with later religiosity as a resource for both males and females, further reinforcing the importance of social relationships. In earlier work, we reported that shy children were also less likely to participate in organizations as adults (Ensminger et al., 2009).

Cross-sectional studies have shown that, religiosity as a resource, is associated with both high educational attainment (Barrett, 2010; Jeynes, 1999) and social ties (Gunnoe & Moore, 2002; Ozorak, 1989). The longitudinal findings here indicate that both educational attainment and social ties in young adulthood lead to more religiosity as a resource in mid adulthood. This again reinforces the strong relationship between measures of social integration and religiosity for males and females. Perhaps the social ties in young adulthood are a “carryover” of social ties formed in adolescence and some of these may be inherently more religious or faith driven (Smith, Denton, Faris, & Regnerus, 2002). Overall, we can generalize that measures of religiosity are influenced by an individual’s past history and development. In thinking about how protective religion has been shown to be in numerous studies, we need to consider that religious beliefs and participation do not exist in a vacuum and develop, at least in part, in similar ways as other behaviors develop over the life course.

In addition to the traditional conceptualizations of religiosity, this article includes a comprehensive examination of religious life and what factors predict certain domains of religiosity. Using exploratory factor analysis, we found a four factor solution for religiosity: religiosity as a resource, youth religiosity, spiritual struggle, and young adult religiosity. This approach highlights important aspects of religious development and the life course. One unique factor for religiosity from our data is divine struggle, which is a type of spiritual struggle that indicates alienation from religious life (Ano & Pargament, 2012).

Pargament et al. (2005) define spiritual struggles as “religious/spiritual expressions that reflect a religious/spiritual system in tension and turmoil.” These struggles manifest themselves in one’s anger or resentment towards the Divine; conflicts with one’s religious community or support systems; and inner struggles such as religious doubt, fear, and or guilt (Ano & Pargament, 2012; Pargament, Murray-Swank, Magyar, & Ano, 2005). Much has been written on the negative effects divine struggles have on the psychosocial and emotional well-being of adults. For example, Exline and colleagues (1999) found that two dimensions closely related to religious struggle, difficulty forgiving God and alienation from God, were associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety. Those adults who identify with more external components may believe that life’s misfortunes are a result of God’s punishment for lack of devotion. Similarly, these adults may only occasionally attribute life’s good fortunes to God’s grace or love.

Less is known about how divine struggle or discontent manifests among youth and if manifestations during youth affect adult divine struggles. Additionally, much of the literature on spiritual struggles has been measured retrospectively using a cross-sectional design which restricts interpretations of causality. Findings from our study indicate that for males and females, those with less educational attainment were more likely to express divine struggle. They may be struggling in many aspects of their lives and blame God for their misfortunes. Those with more education may be have internalized values which jointly support religious development and educational attainment. These values include avoidance of deviant behavior, high personal expectations, and preferring more academically oriented peer groups. The educational attainment may also reflect their more privileged status in society so they feel less alienated and less angry with society (and God). An important implication of this finding may be that when interventions are set in religious contexts, we may need to make special efforts to ensure that those who are not present in a religious context can receive the intervention elsewhere. Those not involved with religious institutions may be exactly those who are more in need of intervention.

Our findings support previous studies which found that females report higher levels of religiosity than males (Taylor et al., 2003). A gendered analysis of the familial, social, and individual characteristics from early childhood, adolescence and young adulthood which predict specific dimensions of adult religiosity allowed for an examination of these different effects in males and females.

The importance of education for male’s religiosity is strongly apparent in these data. Educated males were more likely to report religiosity as a resource and less likely to report spiritual struggle than those males with less education. In analyses that examine the impact of religion on health, it will be important to take this finding into account, either controlling the impact of education in analyses, or examining the joint impact of education and religiosity on health.

Youth religiosity was assessed retrospectively using two items, level of faith as a child and level of faith as an adolescent. Youth religiosity in males was predicted by both shy and aggressive behavior at first grade and marginally with delinquency during adolescence. While for females, first grade math was negatively associated with youth religiosity indicating that females who did poorly in math had higher youth religiosity. These findings suggest that the measure of youth religiosity may be associated with poor performance for both males and females. It may be that those with a troubled youth either engaged in more religiosity as a young person or that they retrospectively recalled such participation during their adult years.

Young adult religiosity retrospectively assessed church attendance and level of faith during young adulthood. Young adult religiosity was associated with more social ties in young adulthood for males and females. Females living in neighborhoods with a higher proportion of Black residents reported higher young adult religiosity. These findings suggest that individuals with more social ties in young adulthood may have more opportunities to build their religious capital.

It may be important to note those factors that did not relate to adult religiosity. Whether the child started school in a public school or a parochial school did not relate to any measure of later religiosity. In contrast to the findings reported by Myers (1996), mothers’ report of their own religious involvement was not associated with later religiosity as reported by their adult children. It is risky to interpret non-findings. The length of the time between the initial assessment and the final measure of religiosity (about 35 years) and the inclusion of several characteristics that are correlated may partially account for non-findings. Measurement issues may also be problematic.

Longitudinal, intergenerational studies, and multiple reporter studies (e.g., mother, child, teacher, etc.) are unique and present an opportunity to better understand the developmental influences on religiosity. Our study extends a body of literature which suggests that religiosity is a multidimensional construct that is influenced by individual, interpersonal, and community level experiences. Our results indicate that several characteristics across the life course influence religiosity in adulthood. While many of the examinations of religiosity focus on its health impact, here we examine factors that may affect religious experience. Given the interest in the potential health effects of religiosity, these data provide opportunities for targeted intervention.

While our findings reinforce the importance of a multidimensional, life course approach to understanding what factors predict religiosity, there are a few limitations. While we framed and measured religiosity as multidimensional construct, it is still likely that there are further aspects of religiosity that are not captured by our measures or analyses. We also examined a community cohort of African Americans from Chicago; therefore generalizability of our findings is limited. However, our interpretation of the study findings draws extensively on existing evidence, life course and religious theory. In addition, our measures are informative for anyone interested in measures of religiosity and religious development among African Americans.

Despite these constraints, our study shows that by examining the behavioral, familial, and social experiences of adults, we can gain important insights about how religion develops in African Americans. Overall, the study addresses a major gap in the literature on religious life by providing a more complete picture of the trajectories of religiosity over the life course. Further investigations should address the inter-correlations between domains of religiosity and perhaps use mediation analyses to better understand both the gender differences and the pathways. An examination of early family relationships and family structure may also help us better understand potential parental and family influences on the development of religiosity across the life course.

Table 4.

Bivariate Analysis of Predictors of Religiosity, Males

	Religiosity as a Resource	Youth Religiosity	Spiritual Struggle	Young Adult Religiosity
Individual and family background, first grade (n=363)
School type (parochial)	−.84	−.20	.06	.21
Poverty index (yes)	−.67	.09	.30	−.03
Mother raised in the South (yes)	.49	.27	.26	−.24
Shy/aggressive behavior
(0=neither)
-Shy only	−2.15**	.12	.41	−.38
-Aggressive only	−.13	.43	.53*	−.09
-Both shy and aggressive	.01	1.21**	.44+	.32
Math grade (1=unsatisfactory to 4=excellent)	.72*	−.09	−.36**	.02
Adolescent social connectedness (n=229)
School bonds (1=low to 3=high)	.24	−.01	−.21	.26+
Family involvement (1=low to 3=high)	.33	.23	.02	.11
Delinquent behavior	−.28	32**	.20*	−.07
Mother’s social connectedness at adolescence (n=301)
Church membership(0=do not belong)
-Infrequent attendance	−.30	.02	−.40	−.12
-Frequent attendance	.78	.27	−.14	.39
Individual and family background, young adulthood (n=321)
Socioeconomic Resources (0=Working non-poor)	−.47	.38	.38	−.23
-Working poor	−.16	.29	.43+	−.22
-Non-working poor
Education level (0=< high school)
-GED	3.84**	1.28**	−.48	.89*
-High school diploma/training	2.79**	.13	−.73**	.69*
-Some college/associate degree	2.82**	−.47	−.99**	.42
-College graduate+	3.07**	−.44	−1.34**	.89*
Social connectedness, young adulthood (n=321)
Social support (family/relative)	.05	−.01	−.04*	.01
Social ties	.63**	−.16	−.29**	.31**
Neighborhood characteristics, young adulthood (n=321)
%Black	.11	.41	.28	−.04

Note.

⁺p<.10;

^*p<.05;

^**p<.01

Table 5.

Bivariate Analysis of Predictors of Religiosity, Females

	Religiosity as Resources	Youth Religiosity	Spiritual Struggle	Young Adult Religiosity
Individual and family background, first grade (n=451)
School type (parochial)	−.07	.40	−.35	.04
Poverty index (yes)	−.59	.36	−.02	.03
Mother raised in South (yes)	.04	.32	.01	.40*
Shy/aggressive behavior (0=neither)
-Shy only	−.70	.30	−.13	.12
-Aggressive only	.25	.43	.14	.49+
-Both shy and aggressive	.38	.25	−.07	.70*
Math grade (1=unsatisfactory to 4=excellent)	−.12	−.53**	−.24*	−.18+
Adolescent social connectedness (n=278)
School bonds (1=low to 3=high)	.67*	−.19	−.15	.17
Family involvement (1=low to 3=high)	.24	.52**	−.01	40**
Delinquent behavior	−.04	−.20	.01	−.36**
Mother’s social connectedness at adolescence (n=349)
Church membership(0=do not belong)
-Infrequent attendance	.91+	.03	−.33	−.09
-Frequent attendance	.39	.71*	−.13	.10
Individual and family background, young adulthood (n=404)
Socioeconomic resources (0=Working non-poor)
-Working poor	−.51	.33	.58**	−.38
-Non-working poor	−.82+	.47*	.70**	−.32
Education level (0=< high school)
-GED	.72	−.56	−.18	−.13
-Diploma/training	.77	−.72*	−.54*	−.06
-Some college/associate degree	1.07+	−.58+	−.91**	.06
-College+	1.46*	−.99**	−1.13**	.22
Social connectedness, young adulthood (n=404)
Social support (family/relative)	.08*	.01	−.03+	.02
Social ties	77**	.02	−.24**	.31**
Neighborhood characteristics, young adulthood (n=404)
%Black	−.47	.36	.13	72**

Note.

⁺p<.10;

^*p<.05;

^**p<.01