Citation
The variable effects of religiosity on deviant behavior

Material Information

Title:
The variable effects of religiosity on deviant behavior
Creator:
Cochran, John K. ( Dissertant )
Akers, Ronald L. ( Thesis advisor )
Bock, E. Wilbur ( Reviewer )
Frazier, Charles E. ( Reviewer )
Thomas, Charles W. ( Reviewer )
Agresti, Alan ( Reviewer )
Lockhart, Madelyn M. ( Reviewer )
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Copyright Date:
1987
Language:
English
Physical Description:
x, 202 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Adolescents ( jstor )
Alcoholic beverages ( jstor )
Alcohols ( jstor )
Asceticism ( jstor )
Delinquency ( jstor )
Marijuana use ( jstor )
Modeling ( jstor )
Morality ( jstor )
Religion ( jstor )
Religiosity ( jstor )
Crime ( lcsh )
Criminals ( lcsh )
Religion ( lcsh )
Religion and sociology ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Abstract:
Since its original formulation in 1969 by Hirschi and Stark, the Hellfire hypothesis has undergone several significant revisions, This hypothesis asserts that the extent of involvement in deviant behavior is inversely related to the degree of religiosity. Early revisions of this hypothesis have stressed the particular salience of religiosity on behaviors in violation of ascetic norms such as alcohol and marijuana use over those forms of deviance that are more secularly defined such as property crimes and personal offenses. Other revisions have called for the inclusion of both direct and indirect religiosity effects. The indirect effects are believed to be mediated through a religiously based morality of personal asceticism. Additional modifications argue for the inclusion of interaction effects. For instance, the influence of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behaviors is said to vary across religious affiliations. That is, these religious influences are expected to be stronger among persons who identify with religious organizations that proscribe sensual indulgences like alcohol or marijuana use. Weaker effects, in turn, are expected for members of churches or denominations that are more tolerant of such behavior. Likewise, the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism are expected to vary by community type. Stronger effects are hypothesized for those persons who reside in communities where the majority express strong religious faith. Each of these respecifications and modifications of the original Hellfire hypothesis are tested with survey data or self-reported deviance based on a sample of 3,065 male and female adolescents in grades seven through twelve in three midwestern states. The method of analysis employed is logistic regression and the results are quite mixed. While religiosity is inversely related with deviant behavior, its influence varies widely across forms of deviance. in addition, it appears that many of the revision of the original hypothesis apply mainly to the consumption of alcohol and much less so for marijuana use. Limitations of the study are addressed and an attempt is made to ground the results in theory.
Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1987.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 192-201).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by John K. Cochran.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
000942125 ( alephbibnum )
AEQ3771 ( notis )
16694831 ( oclc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











THE VARIABLE EFFECTS OF RELIGIOSITY
ON DEVIANT BEHAVIOR


By

JOHN K. COCHRAN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY











UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1987


I






























Copyright 1987

by

John K. Cochran


-C

































Dedicated to Mom and Dad, Anne, and
Kelly, and Walt


1















ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I wish to acknowledge the contributions made by my

committee members: Professors Ronald L. Akers (chair), E.

Wilbur Bock, Charles E. Frazier, Charles W. Thomas, and Alan

Agresti. Their efforts and patience are greatly appreciated

well beyond what can be stated here. I would also like to

express my appreciation to Marvin D. Krohn, Lonn Lanza-

Kaduce, and Marcia J. Radosevich who, under the direction of

Ronald L. Akers, were collaborators on all phases of the

research project from which my data come. In addition, I

would like to thank Dr. Ronald Feldman and his staff at The

Boys Town center for the Study of Youth Development (Boys

Town, Neb.) whose support and resources made possible the

collection of these data by Akers and his associates.

I would like to mention my appreciation for Professor

Leonard Beeghley for his friendship, sage advice, and

understanding throughout this dissertation project. I also

wish to express my gratitude to Mrs. Adele Koehler whose

vast word processing skills and knowledge of graduate school

guidelines aided me immensely. It is only by the grace of

God and Adele's talents that this project was ever

completed.








On a more personal note, I would like to especially

thank Professors Charles E. Frazier and Ronald L. Akers whom

I have had the good fortune to work with and learn from.

Their guidance, patience, professional example, and

friendship have served and will continue to serve me well.

I remain forever indebted to Ron and Chuck and pray I never

let them down.

Finally, more than anyone else, I want to thank Anne,

my wife, whose continued support, encouragement, and

understanding were the driving forces behind my efforts.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..... ........................ ..... ... iv

ABSTRACT.............................................. ix

CHAPTER

ONE INTRODUCTION.......................... ....... 1

TWO HELLFIRE AND BEYOND: THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND
DEVIANCE..................................... 5

The Early Literature......................... 5
The Hirschi and Stark Hellfire Hypothesis.... 6
First Revision: The Middleton and Putney
Anti-Asceticism Hypothesis................. 9
Second Revision: The Jensen and Erickson
Norm Qualities Hypothesis.................. 14
Third Revision: The Stark et al. Moral
Communities Hypothesis..................... 18
Fourth Revision: The Integrated Moral
Communities-Norm Qualities Hypothesis...... 21

THREE METHODOLOGY................ ....... .......... 22

Data ..................... ................... 22
Dependent Variables.......................... 25
Religious Variables.......................... 28
Conditional Variables........................ 31
Control Variables..................... ....... 35
Method of Analysis........................... 35

FOUR HYPOTHESES AND MODELS........................ 42

The Hirschi and Stark Hellfire Hypothesis
and Model.. ................................. 42
The Middleton and Putney Anti-Asceticism
Hypothesis and Model ...................... 43
The Jensen and Erickson Norm Qualities
Hypothesis and Models...................... 44
The Stark et al. Moral Communities
Hypothesis and Models...................... 45
The Integrated Moral Communities-Norm
Qualities Hypothesis and Models............ 46







Page

FIVE TESTS OF THE HIRSCHI AND STARK HELLFIRE
HYPOTHESIS................................... 48

Religiosity and Involvement in Delinquent
Behavior.......... .......................... 49
Religiosity and Involvement in Specific
Forms of Delinquent Behavior ............... 52
Religiosity and Use of Hard Drugs............ 56
Conclusions ..... ................ ............ 59

SIX TESTS OF THE MIDDLETON AND PUTNEY ANTI-
ASCETICISM HYPOTHESIS............ ........ ... 61

Religiosity and Premarital Sex............... 61
Religiosity and Marijuana Use................ 64
Religiosity and Alcohol Use.................. 65
A Comparison of the Effects of Religiosity
on Delinquent and Anti-Ascetic Behaviors... 69
Religiosity, Personal Asceticism, and
Marijuana Use............................... 70
Religiosity, Personal Asceticism, and
Alcohol Use................................. 72
Conclusions .................................. 73

SEVEN TESTS OF THE JENSEN AND ERICKSON NORM
QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS......................... 76

Marijuana Use: Attributed Denominational
Proscriptiveness... ...................... 77
Marijuana Use: Perceived Denominational
Proscriptiveness....... .... ............. 80
Alcohol Use: Attributed Denominational
Proscriptiveness..... .................... 83
Alcohol Use: Perceived Denominational
Proscriptiveness.......................... 87
Conclusions.................................. 88

EIGHT TESTS OF THE STARK ET AL. MORAL
COMMUNITIES HYPOTHESIS....................... 92

Aggregate Religiosity and Marijuana Use...... 92
Aggregate Religiosity and Alcohol Use......... 94
Conclusions .................................... 95

NINE TESTS OF THE INTEGRATED MORAL COMMUNITIES-
NORM QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS.................... 97

Marijuana Use.................................. 97
Alcohol Use................................... 99
Conclusions ........................... .. .. 101


vii











TEN SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.......................

Summary ......................................
The Anti-Asceticism Hypothesis Revisited:
A Brief Note......... ............ ...........
Discussion.................. ...................

APPENDICES

A TABLE OF PRIOR RESEARCH ON THE RELIGIOSITY-
DEVIANCE RELATIONSHIP........................

B TABLE OF THE VARIABLES, THEIR CODINGS, AND
DISTRIBUTIONS..... .............. ....... .... .

C RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE HIRSCHI AND STARK
HELLFIRE HYPOTHESIS..........................

D RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE MIDDLETON AND PUTNEY
ANTI-ASCETICISM HYPOTHESIS....................

E RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE JENSEN AND ERICKSON
NORM QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS.....................

F RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE STARK ET AL. MORAL
COMMUNITIES HYPOTHESIS.......................

G RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE INTEGRATED MORAL
COMMUNITIES-NORM QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS.........

H TABLE OF PREDICTED PROBABILITIES ACROSS
THEORETICAL MODELS...........................

REFERENCES....................... ................ ..... ...

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH....................................


viii


Page

102

105

114
118




128


133


139


153


163


174


180


191

192

202











Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy


THE VARIABLE EFFECTS OF RELIGIOSITY
ON DEVIANT BEHAVIOR

by

John K. Cochran

May 1987

Chair: Dr. Ronald L. Akers
Major Department: Sociology

Since its original formulation in 1969 by Hirschi and

Stark, the Hellfire hypothesis has undergone several

significant revisions. This hypothesis asserts that the

extent of involvement in deviant behavior is inversely

related to the degree of religiosity. Early revisions of

this hypothesis have stressed the particular salience of

religiosity on behaviors in violation of ascetic norms such

as alcohol and marijuana use over those forms of deviance

that are more secularly defined such as property crimes and

personal offenses. Other revisions have called for the

inclusion of both direct and indirect religiosity effects.

The indirect effects are believed to be mediated through a

religiously based morality of personal asceticism.

Additional modifications argue for the inclusion of

interaction effects. For instance, the influence of

religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic

behaviors is said to vary across religious affiliations.

That is, these religious influences are expected to be









stronger among persons who identify with religious

organizations that proscribe sensual indulgences like

alcohol or marijuana use. Weaker effects, in turn, are

expected for members of churches or denominations that are

more tolerant of such behavior. Likewise, the effects of

religiosity and personal asceticism are expected to vary by

community type. Stronger effects are hypothesized for those

persons who reside in communities where the majority express

strong religious faith.

Each of these respecifications and modifications of the

original Hellfire hypothesis are tested with survey data or

self-reported deviance based on a sample of 3,065 male and

female adolescents in grades seven through twelve in three

midwestern states. The method of analysis employed is

logistic regression and the results are quite mixed. While

religiosity is inversely related with deviant behavior, its

influence varies widely across forms of deviance. In

addition, it appears that many of the revisions of the

original hypothesis apply mainly to the consumption of

alcohol and much less so for marijuana use. Limitations of

the study are addressed and an attempt is made to ground the

results in theory.















CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION




The belief that a lack of religious commitment is a

major element in the etiology of deviant behavior is a view

held by at least a third of the general populations of both

the United States (Jensen, 1981) and Great Britain (Banks et

al., 1975). This view has also been repeatedly suggested in

print over the years (Cooley, 1927; Coogan, 1945, 1954;

Teeters and Reinmann, 1950; Hronke, 1955; Lee, 1957; Webb

and Webb, 1957; Benson, 1960; Neumeyer, 1961; Travers and

Davis, 1961; Blatt, 1967; Reckless, 1967; Hoover, 1968;

Schafer and Knudten, 1970). In addition, this belief has

long been reflected in the common practice of requiring, or

at least encouraging, regular church attendance as a part of

crime/delinquency prevention and rehabilitation programs

(Gannon, 1967; Misra, 1983).

Nevertheless, many social scientists have been

skeptical about the existence of an inverse religiosity-

deviant behavior relationship (Benson, 1960; Falk, 1961;

President's Commission, 1967; Hirschi and Stark, 1969;

Schur, 1969; Sutherland and Cressey, 1974). Indeed, many

have argued that the relationship is probably positive


-1-





-2-


(Ellis, 1910; Bonger, 1916; Lombroso, 1918; Steiner, 1924;

Reckless and Smith, 1932; von Hentig, 1948; Barnes and

Teeters, 1951; Argyle, 1959; Luden, 1964). Others skeptical

of the existence of an inverse relationship between

religiosity and deviant behavior, base their objections, in

part, on what seems to be conflicting evidence in the

literature (see Martin and Fitzpatrick, 1964; O'Dea, 1966;

Knudten and Knudten, 1971).

This controversy has been fueled in recent years by a

growing body of research suggesting that religiosity and

deviant behavior are, in fact, inversely related. Tittle

and Welch (1983) report that only ten of the sixty-five

studies they reviewed failed to report a significant

negative relationship between religiosity and some indicator

of deviant behavior. However, many contemporary social

scientists still remain skeptical and are hesitant to grant

the "religious factor" much worth. Often they base

their criticisms on the absence of any sound theoretical

explanations. Others claim that the observed relationships

are essentially coincidental or spurious.

While such criticisms can be legitimately leveled

against the early research efforts, they lose much of their

validity when applied to the more recent literature. These

works consistently utilize more sophisticated methodologies

and have produced improved theoretical specifications of an

originally simplistic model. In the following chapter, I





-3-


present a critical review of this body of literature and

highlight the key theoretical developments. I analyze these

developments as essentially progressive modifications or

respecifications of the original "Hellfire and Delinquency

hypothesis" tested by Hirschi and Stark (1969). I label the

first modification, following the lead of Middleton and

Putney (1962) and Burkett and White 1974), the "Anti-

asceticism hypothesis." The next, suggested by Jensen and

Erickson (1979), I call the "Norm Qualities hypothesis." I

follow that with the "Moral Communities hypothesis," based

on the works of Stark et al. (1980; 1982). Finally, I

suggest an integration of these modifications which I label

the "Moral Communities-Norm Qualities hypothesis." In

subsequent chapters I submit each of these hypotheses and

the models derived from them to statistical tests with

survey data on self-reported adolescent deviance (i.e.,

delinquency, substance use, and premarital sex). Thus, this

dissertation represents the first time that all of the

hypotheses which dominate the extant literature regarding

the effects of religiosity on deviant and delinquent

behavior are tested with one source of data in a single

research effort. In addition, this study addresses many of

the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of previous

research. Finally, a wider variety of deviant and

delinquent behaviors is examined in this study than in any

other work to date. As such, it is this author's opinion





-4-


that this project will make a significant contribution to

the literature and will not be just another study on the

religiosity-deviant behavior relationship.














CHAPTER TWO

HELLFIRE AND BEYOND: THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND DEVIANCE



The Early Literature


The early literature dealing with religiosity and

deviance (i.e., studies conducted prior to 1969) is replete

with works by reformers, priests, ministers, and others with

a vested interest in demonstrating that religion acts do

discourage deviance. In some cases they evaluated the

effectiveness of church youth centers in preventing

delinquency (Fitzpatrick, 1967) and in others they attempted

to demonstrate how church sponsored homes for delinquents

were able to instill moral values (Coogan, 1954). Many,

however, discovered a relationship between religiosity and

delinquent behavior opposite to that expected. That is,

delinquents were often found to be more religious than

nondelinquents (Schlapp and Smith, 1928; Middleton and Fay,

1941; Kvaraceus, 1944; Diaz, 1952; Falk, 1961; Gannon,

1967). With few exceptions, such studies were based on

samples of institutionalized or known delinquents (e.g.,

Wattenberg, 1950). Their results, therefore, are

questionable; for in many cases, it was in the interests of

the institutionalized child to claim a highly religious

character. In other studies, extreme groups of delinquents


-5-





-6-


and nondelinquents were selected and compared. For example,

Travers and Davis (1961) compared a sample of known

delinquents to a sample of alter boys. The use of such

extreme groups insured that these investigators would find a

negative relationship between religiosity and delinquency.

Finally, some of the studies conducted during this period

did find an appreciable inverse effect (Healy and Bronner,

1936; Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Dominic, 1954; Miller, 1965).

However, these studies are clearly dated and their findings

should be viewed with some skepticism. (For a more thorough

and critical review of these early works see Knudten and

Knudten, 1971).



The Hirschi and Stark Hellfire Hypothesis


It was not until 1969 with the publication of "Hellfire

and Delinquency" (Hirschi and Stark) that the religiosity-

deviant behavior relationship was again brought into

prominence in the sociology of deviance. Hirschi and Stark

tested the notion that "religious sanctioning systems play

an important role in ensuring and maintaining conformity to

social norms" (1969: 202). Religion was said to perform

this role (1) through its system of beliefs which

legitimizes social values, (2) through its rites and rituals

that reinforce the commitment to these values, and (3)

through its system of eternal rewards and punishment which

ensures the embodiment of these values in actual behavior

(1969: 202-203). In sum, religion both ensures conformity





-7-


through its beliefs, rites, and rituals and deters deviance

through the threat of hellfire for sinners. This "Hellfire

hypothesis" may be stated formally as

H1: The greater the degree of religiosity, the
lower the probability of delinquent behavior.

Using survey data from a sample of 4,007 students

entering public junior and senior high schools in West

Contra Costa County, California, Hirschi and Stark found

that church attendance and belief in supernatural sanctions

were not significantly related to self-reported delinquency.

They claimed that religion was not an important factor in

explaining deviant behavior. Their findings "quickly became

the accepted word on the subject, frequently cited and

widely reprinted" (Stark et al., 1982: 5). For some, these

findings resulted in the argument that the "religious factor

had finally been laid to rest" (Jensen and Erickson, 1979:

158), but for others they have served as a catalyst for the

"resurgence of study into the relationship between

religiosity and delinquency" (Anderson and Wakefield,

1983: 4).

More recent research has suggested that religiosity is

relevant to predicting deviant behavior (see Ellis, 1985 for

a lucid review of this literature or Table 1 in Appendix A

for a brief presentation). The year following Hirschi and

Stark's landmark study Rhodes and Reiss (1970) examined the

relationship between delinquency and truancy and religion

using data obtained from over 20,000 junior and senior high

school students in the Nashville and Davidson County,




-8-


Tennessee, school systems. They concluded that there is a

religious factor in delinquent and truant behavior.

Five years later, in a study of high school and college

students, Rohrbaugh and Jessor found religiosity to be

"correlated positively and significantly with other measures

of personal controls and negatively with measures of

deviance proneness and deviant behavior" (1975: 153).

In 1977, Higgins and Albrecht used self-report data

from 1,383 Atlanta tenth graders to study the relationship

between church attendance and a variety of delinquent

behaviors. They found modest to moderately strong negative

relationships between the frequency of church attendance and

a list of seventeen delinquent behaviors. They suggested

that their findings diverge from Hirschi and Stark's because

of differences in the research settings. That is,

religiosity may be more significant in the South than in the

West.

Further support for the Hellfire hypothesis has been

found by Albrecht et al. (1977). Using data collected from

244 Mormon teenagers in three western states, these authors

found that when religious indicators were combined with

measures of peer and family relationships into a contingent

consistency model, good prediction of deviance was obtained

(R2 = .54 to .69). Jensen and Erickson (1979) and Tittle

and Welch (1983) have also found support for the Hellfire

hypothesis.





-9-


However, Elifson et al., in a study of 568 students

attending grades nine through twelve in 21 public high

schools in suburban DeKalb County (Atlanta), Georgia, found

that "within a multivariate context religion's contribution

as an independent variable was not statistically

significant" (1983: 505). Likewise, Burkett and White

(1974) in a replication of the original Hirschi and Stark

study, observed that the frequency of church attendance was

not significantly related to a six-item self-reported

delinquency index for white senior class students in three

Pacific Northwest high schools. Finally, Anderson and

Wakefield (1983) found only mixed support for the Hellfire

hypothesis with data from 170 Louisiana college students.

That is, while significant inverse relationships were

observed between religiosity and victimless crimes, no

relationship was observed for crimes against the person.

These inconsistent findings suggest that the Hellfire

hypothesis may be too broad and in need of revision.



First Revision: The Middleton and Putney
Anti-Asceticism Hypothesis


Much of the prior research has used composite indices

of delinquent behavior as the dependent variable. However,

such indices fail to tap the forms of deviance that

religion should theoretically be expected to influence in a

contemporary, secular society. Agreeing with this argument,

Middleton and Putney (1962: 142) state that





-10-


there has been a failure to distinguish two
different types of ethical standards--the ascetic
and the social. Social standards proscribe
actions which in general are harmful the social
group, and tend to be shared as a part of a
general social ideology. The fact that religious
ideology may also proscribe these actions is
incidental. In contrast, ascetic standards--
abstinence from sensual indulgences, gambling, and
the like--derive primarily from an ascetic
religious tradition. Within the context of
religious ideology violations of ascetic standards
may be spiritually harmful to the perpetrator.
But since these violations are usually not
directly or obviously harmful to the social group
ascetic standards have less persuasiveness
to the secularly oriented individual. He is
therefore more likely to violate them. In short,
difference in behavior of the religious and
the nonreligious are confined to specific areas
and are a product of difference in standards
rather than of differential upholding of
standards.

Basing their ideas on this suggestion by Middleton and

Putney, Burkett and White (1974) claimed that only when

secular values are ambiguous in their definition of an

activity as wrong can religiosity have an important

deterrent impact. They suggest that behaviors such as

premarital sex, gambling, and substance use, which are not

consistently disapproved of in the secular setting, are more

likely personal or property crimes to be affected by

religiosity. Using self-report data from 855 seniors in

three Pacific Northwest high schools, Burkett and White

found religiosity to be more predictive of adolescent

alcohol and marijuana use than of a delinquency index based

on property crimes and violent offenses. They concluded

that "blanket generalizations regarding the relationship

between religious participation and delinquency are not





-11-


warranted," and that "religious participation is more

closely related to some kinds of delinquent behavior than to

others" (1974: 459).

McLuckie et al. (1975: 132), in a survey of drug use

based on a sample of over 30,000 students in grades seven

through twelve, found that "a full 88.9% of those who

regularly attend services, i.e., attend once a week or more,

are neither users nor quitters. Only 11.1% of regular

attenders have ever used drugs. Among those who never

attend, on the other hand, 25.8% have used drugs at one time

or another." They also found that the zero-order

correlation between attendance and drug use remained

basically unchanged at the first order when several

sociodemographic factors were controlled.

In 1975, Rohrbaugh and Jessor observed that an eight-

item composite religiosity scale correlated significantly

and positively to intolerance of premarital sex and

marijuana use in a sample of male and female college and

high school students. Religiosity was also seen to

"function as a personal control by regulating problem

behavior as theoretically expected" (1975: 146). That is,

the composite religiosity scale correlated negatively with

behavioral indicators of premarital sex and marijuana use

for both high school and college students.

Albrecht and his colleagues (Albrecht et al., 1977)

also found support for the expectations of Burkett and White

when they observed that religious variables were more





-12-


strongly related to victimless than to victim deviance.

Further, Linden and Currie (1977), Jensen and Erickson

(1979), Schlegel and Sanborn (1979), Turner and Willis

(1979), Nelson and Rooney (1982), Elifson et al. (1983),

Anderson and Wakefield (1983), Cochran and Bock (1984),

Hadaway et al. (1984), Bock et al. (1985), and Cochran et

al. (1986) have all found statistically significant,

negative relationships between religiosity and some

indicator of anti-ascetic behavior such as alcohol or drug

use. In fact, the cumulative evidence suggests that

religiosity and certain forms of anti-ascetic behavior are

so related as to constitute an empirical generalization

(Bock et al., 1985). Thus, the original Hellfire hypothesis

should be revised as follows:

H2: The greater the degree of religiosity,
the lower the probability of anti-ascetic
behavior.

Unfortunately, in nearly all of the research reviewed

to this point a crucial element which serves as a key link

between religiosity and anti-ascetic behavior has been

omitted. The omitted variable is the degree of religiously

based personal asceticism. In separate analyses of

adolescent substance use, Steven Burkett (1977; 1980)

concluded that (1) the greater the degree of involvement in

religious activities, the greater the likelihood that one

will maintain religious beliefs opposed to the use of

alcohol and marijuana, and (2) the more persons adhere to

such beliefs, the less likely they are to use these





-13-


substances. Thus, according to Burkett, "it is in the

acceptance of a belief relating to a religiously based

morality of personal asceticism, then, that the relationship

between church attendance and use is most apparent" (1977:

267).

Both Rohrbaugh and Jessor (1975) and Perkins (1985)

have also recognized the importance of including a measure

of the consequential salience of religion in one's daily

life. Rohrbaugh and Jessor (1975) asked each of their

respondents to indicate how much of an influence religion

has on the way they choose to act and spend their time each

day. Perkins (1985), however, assessed the respondent's

personal attitude toward alcohol. While the Perkins measure

is more directly relevant to a study on the effects of

religiosity on anti-ascetic deviance than the consequential

religiosity indicator used by Rohrbaugh and Jessor, neither

measure is as theoretically appropriate as that used by

Burkett (1977; 1980). Burkett asked his subjects to

indicate the degree to which they believe that alcohol or

marijuana use is a sin. In addition, neither Rohrbaugh and

Jessor (1975) nor Perkins (1985) utilized their measures as

variables linking religiosity to anti-asceticism. Only

Burkett (1977; 1980) has included an indicator of

religiously based personal asceticism in the theoretically

appropriate manner. From his work we can add two

corollaries to the anti-asceticism revision of the original

Hellfire hypothesis:





-14-


H2a: The greater the degree of religiosity,
the greater the degree of personal
asceticism.

H2b: The greater the degree of personal
asceticism, the lower the probability of
anti-ascetic behavior.



Second Revision: The Jensen and Erickson
Norm Qualities Hypothesis


With few exceptions, empirical examinations of the

religiosity-deviance relationship have been restricted to

analyses at the individual level. These individual-level

models stress that religious beliefs and activities function

to deter the individual from engaging in behaviors which

violate ascetic norms through the threat of supernatural

sanctions. Though such a model is quite reasonable,

particularly given the overwhelming consistency of

supportive research, it makes no reference to social

structure or process. A model that incorporates this

individual-level process into a more sociological or

structural framework would provide a more thorough

specification and a better theoretical explanation.

Such a model can be found in the work of Jensen and

Erickson (1979). They suggest that one of the more severe

flaws of the past research in this area is the failure to

examine the differential effects of religiosity on anti-

ascetic behaviors across religious affiliations. Few

studies have specified denominational breakdowns and nearly

all have failed to consider the possibility of an





-15-


interaction between religious affiliation and religiosity on

deviance. Such studies have ignored the possibility that

religiosity may be more relevant to understanding particular

forms of deviance such as substance use in some

denominations than in others (Jensen and Erickson, 1979:

159-160).

In a study of 3,268 Arizona high school students,

Jensen and Erickson (1979) observed that participation in a

religion (i.e., Mormon) that strongly emphasizes asceticism

and clearly proscribes drug use is particularly

consequential for such activities. That is, church

attendance is more strongly related to substance use among

Mormon youth than among Catholics or Protestants. However,

Jensen and Erickson also found that the prominence of this

interaction between religion and religiosity weakens as the

seriousness of substance increases. This is somewhat

consistent with the expectations of Burkett and White (1974)

for all denominations are probably quite similar in their

stands on serious drug use. More distinctive differences

are likely where denominational standards are more varied

(e.g., alcohol and marijuana use).

Nelson and Rooney (1982) with data from nearly 5,000

high school seniors from six states in the northeast also

found that denomination and religiosity interact such that

church attendance has a special impact on self-reported

alcohol and marijuana use within the more proscriptive

denominations. That is, members of Baptist, Methodist, and





-16-


other fundamentalist Protestant sects reported a stronger

inverse relationship between religiosity and substance use

than did Catholics or members of the prescriptive Protestant

denominations. Likewise, Nelson and Rooney witnessed a

weakening of this interaction as the seriousness of the

substance used increased.

Cochran and Bock (1984) and Bock et al. (1985) each

utilize the NORC General Social Surveys data and find that

the relationship between religiosity and alcohol use varies

across religious affiliations. In these studies,

religiosity has the greatest deterrent impact on adult

alcohol use for members of proscriptive denominations (i.e.,

those which take a strong stand against alcohol). In

addition, Schlegel and Sanborn (1979) and Hadaway et al.

(1982) have also found evidence of a significant interaction

between religious affiliation and religiosity on self-

reported substance use. However, McIntosh et al. (1981)

failed to find any significant affiliation-religiosity

interactions. In fact their findings indicate that the

effect of religiosity on adolescent drug use is quite stable

across denominations. Linden and Currie (1977) even found

evidence of a denomination-religiosity interaction contrary

to that expected by Jensen and Erickson. That is, they

observed a stronger inverse relationship between church

attendance and drug use within the prescriptive

denominations than within the proscriptive denominations.





-17-


Thus, though the evidence is somewhat mixed and far

from conclusive, the varying moral messages of religious

affiliations appear to constitute important normative

climates which impact upon the religiosity-anti-asceticism

relationship. The addition of information on religious

affiliation may permit a more precise specification of the

revised Hellfire hypothesis and may be formally stated as

follows:

H3: The greater the degree of denominational
proscriptiveness, the stronger the effects
of religiosity and personal asceticism on
anti-ascetic behavior.

Without exception, however, each of the studies that

have attempted to examine the influence of denomination on

the relationship between religiosity and anti-ascetic

behavior have categorized religious affiliations according

to the proscriptiveness attributed to them by researchers.

While such categorizations are fair and valid in only a very

general sense, they are gross in the manner in which they

treat as equal denominations with significant differences in

doctrine. Only Cochran et al. (1986) have maintained these

salient distinctions by analyzing the effect of religiosity

on alcohol use within each denomination separately.

However, even this study can be faulted for failing to

consider differences that may exist in denominations with

the same name. Perhaps a better method for distinguishing

between proscriptive and prescriptive affiliations is

available. Rather than categorizing according to

attributions of proscriptiveness or prescriptiveness,





-18-


denominations can be categorized by how they are perceived

by their members. Krohn et al. (1982) found that the

perceived normative climate of one's religious reference

group was related to both attitude towards and the use

patterns of alcohol and marijuana. Employing indicators of

both attributed and perceived denominational

proscriptiveness results in the following corollaries to the

above respecification of the revised Hellfire hypothesis:

H3a: The greater the degree of attributed
denominational proscriptivness, the stronger
the effects of religiosity and personal
asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior.

H3b: The greater the degree of perceived
denominational proscriptivenss, the stronger
the effects of religiosity and personal
asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior.



Third Revision:
The Stark et al. Moral Communities Hypothesis


A second alternative model to the traditional

individual-level model can be derived from the work of

Durkheim. Durkheim (1915) defined religion as a unified

system of beliefs and practices which serves to bind

adherents into a moral community. This definition stresses

a sociological feature of religion that is relevant to the

study of deviant behavior. That is, religion is not said to

make individuals afraid to sin, but to unite many

individuals into a moral community. It is the community of

moral adherents that controls the individual member from

violating ascetic standards.





-19-


This structural feature of religion is not an

omnipresent and constant aspect of social life; rather, it

is a variable feature. That is, societies and communities

vary in the extent to which religion binds them into moral

communities (Stark et al., 1982). In contemporary,

industrial societies like the United States, where social

norms are often highly secular, ambiguous, and unshared,

many people do not live in moral communities. People who do

not reside in moral communities, even the very religious and

devout, are more likely to violate ascetic norms. It is

only in communities where religious influences permeate the

culture and the social interactions of its members, where

religion is an integral aspect of everyday life, that

individual religiosity deters anti-ascetic behavior. Where

religion is not as pervasive, the deterrent effect of

individual religiosity is substantially reduced.

Higgins and Albrecht (1977) were the first

investigators to observe such a relationship. They

suggested that a possible reason why their findings differed

from those of Hirschi and Stark (1969) might be due to the

varying religious climates of the communities studied. That

is, the null finding of Hirschi and Stark may be due to the

fact that their sample was drawn from the nonreligious West,

whereas the Higgins and Albrecht sample was drawn from the

more religious South.

Stark et al. (1980) were able to support this argument.

They found a highly significant correlation between church





-20-


membership rates and the overall crime rates in 193 SMSAs.

In a second analysis based upon self-report data, these

authors found that there is also a very substantial negative

relationship between religiosity and delinquency in those

secondary schools in which religious students are the

majority (Stark et al., 1982). This relationship diminishes

as the proportion of religious students decreases and

vanished in the highly secularized West Coast schools.

According to Tittle and Welch (1983), because most

religions are devoted to the practice and promotion of moral

behavior, it follows that participation in religious

activities exposes one to definitions unfavorable toward

anti-ascetic behavior. The probability is greatest that

religious individuals who inhabit moral communities are more

likely to be exposed to an excess of definitions unfavorable

toward anti-ascetic behavior; hence, such individuals should

be least likely to engage in anti-ascetic behaviors.

Whether a control or a differential association

framework is preferred, the resulting empirical model is the

same. This model states that the preventive effect of

individual religiosity on ascetic norm violations is

greatest in those communities where religion is most

pervasive. This model may be stated formally as a testable

hypothesis as follows:

H4: The greater the degree of aggregate
religiosity, the stronger the effects of
religiosity and personal asceticism on
anti-ascetic behavior.





-21-


Forth Revision: The Integrated
Moral Communities-Norm Qualities Hypothesis


Though presently unexplored, the hypotheses generated

from the three revisions of the Hellfire hypothesis just

reviewed can be integrated into a theoretically more

complete model. That is, the relationship between

religiosity, personal asceticism, and anti-ascetic behavior

may be conditional upon not just the proscriptive or

prescriptive norm qualities of the various religious

affiliations, nor simply upon the degree of aggregate

religiosity; but rather, upon both denominational

proscriptiveness and aggregate religiosity. As such, the

relationship between religiosity and personal asceticism on

anti-ascetic behavior varies by both denominational norms

(either proscriptive or prescriptive), and the extent to

which the communities under examination represent moral

communities (i.e., high versus low aggregate religiosity).

The following hypothesis is generated from such an

integration:

H5: The greater the degree of denominational
proscriptiveness (attributed or perceived)
and the greater the degree of aggregate
religiosity, the stronger the effects
of religiosity and personal asceticism on
anti-ascetic behavior.













CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY



Data


The data for this study come from research directed by

Ronald L. Akers and Marvin D. Krohn designed to examine

adolescent substance use and delinquent behavior and

supported by the Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth

Development (See Akers et al., 1979; Krohn and Massey, 1980;

Krohn et al., 1982). These data will be referred to here as

the "Boys Town data." These data were collected by

administering anonymous, confidential questionnaires to

3,065 male and female adolescents attending grades seven

through twelve in seven school districts in three midwestern

states. In the collection of these data, Akers and his

associates followed a two-stage sampling design. First,

schools from within each of the participating school

districts were selected; second, two to three classrooms per

grade level per school from among the required or general

enrollment classes were selected. Schools were selected so

as to be representative in terms of size and location within

their districts. In the smaller districts this meant

selecting all or almost all of the junior and senior high

schools in the district. Classrooms were also selected in


-22-






-23-


terms of school and average classroom size. Although

classrooms were sampled, each student had an approximately

equal chance of being included in the sample. This design

was structured to limit the involvement of as few schools

and school personnel as possible, to minimize intrusion into

the school routine, and to facilitate the administration of

the questionnaire to groups of respondents.

The questionnaire was administered to all students in

attendance in the selected classrooms on the day of the

survey who had obtained written parental permission.

Overall, 74% of the parental permission forms distributed

one week prior to the administration of the questionnaire

were returned. Ninety-five percent of those returning these

forms were granted permission to participate. Attrition

from this parental permission procedure combined with

absenteeism on the day of the survey reduced the proportion

of students who answered the questionnaire to 67% of the

total number enrolled in the sampled classrooms. While this

is somewhat lower than the response rate obtained in many

the national studies, it is better than others have reported

when the affirmative permission procedure is adopted (see

Radosevich et al., 1979). The design followed by Akers and

his colleagues does not technically constitute a random

sample of subjects. In fact, there was no attempt to obtain

a probability sample nor to insure that the sample was

regionally or nationally representative. Nevertheless, the

sample is sufficient to allow tests of the various






-24-


religiosity-deviant behavior hypotheses derived from the

literature review presented in Chapter Two.

Careful steps were taken to insure the rights of the

research participants. The usual university procedures were

followed regarding approval of the projects procedures for

protection of the rights of the respondents and of the

school districts. Prior to the administration of the

questionnaire, the sampled classrooms were visited. During

each visit the students were informed of the survey and were

given an envelope containing a letter explaining the purpose

and content of the study to the parents and a parental

consent form. The students were told that their

participation in the study was completely voluntary, that

their participation was not a condition for class credit or

any other school requirement, and that approval of the study

by the district and school officials in no way made their

participation mandatory. The students were assured that

their anonymity would be protected and that their responses

would be held in strictest confidence. The identification

of the participating school districts, communities, and

schools was also protected.

Finally, a small purposive subsample (n = 106) of the

respondents in five of the seven districts volunteered for

follow-up interviews two to eight weeks after the

administration of the questionnaire. These follow-up

interviews were intended to serve as reliability and partial

validity checks on the questionnaire responses. Research





-25-


has consistently shown that the self-report questionnaire

technique is reliable and valid in measuring adolescent

substance use and delinquent behavior (Whitehead and Smart,

1972; Block et al., 1974; Groves, 1974; Single et al., 1975;

Hardt and Peterson-Hardt, 1980; Zimmerman and Broder, 1980;

Hindelang et al., 1981; Akers et al., 1983). The checks on

these data by Akers and his associates (1979:640-641)

confirm this; internal consistency on interlocking items was

high (Gammas = .91 and higher). In addition, a comparison

of the responses to the substance use items on the

questionnaire with responses to the same items asked during

the follow-up interviews demonstrated a high degree of test-

retest reliability with Gammas = .89 and higher (Akers et

al., 1979:641). Given the high consistency on these

sensitive items, there is little reason to suspect lower

reliability in the responses to other items.



Dependent Variables


Indicators of Delinquent Behavior


Appropriate tests of the Hellfire hypothesis (H1)

require indicators of serious deviant behavior broad enough

to tap a wide range of norm violations. In the past,

serious deviant behavior has been operationalized by

indices of self-reported offending. Two types of

indicators of serious deviant behavior are available in

these data. The first set of measures contains indices of





-26-


delinquency. Respondents were asked to indicate the

frequency--never, once or twice, several times, or very

often--that they had engaged in behaviors on a delinquency

checklist. The items on this checklist include vandalism,

motor vehicle theft, assault, use of or threatening to use a

weapon, theft of things worth $2 to $50, and theft of things

worth more than $50. The distribution of responses on these

items indicates that fewer than 11% of the subjects are

involved in any of these delinquent behaviors more

frequently than once or twice. Because of these highly

skewed distributions, binary variables distinguishing

between those youth who admit at least some involvement (1)

and those who claim that they have never engaged in each

delinquent behavior (0) are constructed. In addition to

each of these dichotomized dependent variables, a

dichotomous delinquency index is also constructed. This

index distinguishes those youth who indicate no delinquency

involvement (0) from those admitting at least some

involvement in one or more of the items on the checklist

(1).

The other measures of serious deviant behavior

available in these Boys Town data are indicators of hard

drug usage. Respondents were asked to indicate the

frequency with which they had used stimulants, depressants,

psychedelics, and narcotics. Response categories for these

items were fixed and range along a six-point ordinal scale

from 0 = never to 5 = use nearly every day. Like the






-27-


delinquency items discussed above, the distributions on

these hard drug use items are highly skewed. Therefore,

these items are also dichotomized to distinguish nonusers

(0) from users (1). In addition, a dichotomous hard drug

use index is also constructed. This index distinguishes

abstinent youth (0) from those who report at least some use

of one or more of these substances (1).



Indicators of Anti-Ascetic Behavior


Each of the modifications of the Hellfire hypothesis

assert that the effect of religiosity and personal

asceticism on deviant behavior is strongest for violations

of ascetic standards. Indicators of such anti-ascetic

behaviors have typically included alcohol use, marijuana

use, and premarital sex. Items measuring each of these

indicators are available in these data. As with the

frequency of hard drug use items discussed above,

respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which

they had used beer, wine, liquor, and marijuana. Though the

response categories for these items range from 0 = never to

5 = use nearly every day, all values indicating at least some

use are collapsed to form a single category. The employment

of this coding procedure permits the dichotomization of

these less serious substance use items (0 = nonuser,

1 = user). A general binary variable distinguishing

abstainers from users of alcohol is also constructed. The

final dependent variable is a dichotomous distinction





-28-


between those adolescents reporting no experience with

premarital sex (0) and those claiming at least some

involvement (1).



Religious Variables


Religiosity


Religiosity is here defined as the extent to which one

is religious, pious, or devout; the degree to which one

expresses a sincere and earnest regard for religion. Such

an orientation toward religion can serve many and diverse

roles, from providing meaning to one's life, to yielding a

sense of personal fulfillment, to securing access to social

contacts and interpersonal relationships, to offering a set

of standards against which to judge and guide one's actions

(Rohrbaugh and Jessor, 1975). The present concern is with

only one such aspect, namely, the role of religiosity as a

control against deviance. The aim is to present evidence of

the relationship of religiosity to measures of deviant

behavior.

The complexity of religiosity as a concept is reflected

in debates about its operationalization and about its single

or multi-dimensionality. Religiosity has been measured in

as many disparate ways as the frequency of attendance at

religious services to the intensity of feelings of personal

inspiration. Regarding the issue of dimensionality, early

scholars were generally in agreement that the key element in





-29-


religiosity was a personal belief in a transcendent reality

such as God (James, 1902; Durkheim, 1915). More recent

scholars, however, have urged a multi-dimensional view.

Their perspective acknowledges the centrality of religious

beliefs or ideology, but encompasses other elements as well

such as the consequential influence or salience of religion

on one's daily life, and the actual participation in

religious rituals (Glock and Stark, 1965).

While it would be preferable to construct measures of

religiosity which systematically cover each of these

dimensions, the items available in the Boys Town data are

limited to two single-item measures of religiosity.

Fortunately, the validity of such single-item measures of

religiosity has been demonstrated (Gorsuch and McFarland,

1972). No measures of religious participation nor of

religious ideology were included in the survey. The two

religiosity measures available and their corresponding

response categories and metrics are


Religiousness:
How religious a person are you?
(1) not religious at all
(2) a little religious
(3) more than a little religious
(4) quite religious

Participatory Salience:
Check the importance to you of the church group
activities in which you participate or would
like to participate:
(1) not important at all
(2) unimportant
(3) important
(4) very important







-30-


Personal Asceticism


As indicated earlier, most of the previous research on

the relationship of religiosity with anti-ascetic behavior

is limited by the presence of omitted variable bias. The

key omitted variable is the degree of religiously based

personal asceticism. This measure serves as a crucial link

between religiosity and anti-ascetic behavior; for

religiosity is not only consequential in its direct

preventive effect on ascetic deviance, but is also

influential in its effect on one's beliefs and values. That

is, the greater the degree of religiosity the greater the

likelihood that one will maintain religious beliefs opposed

to violations of ascetic norms. In turn, these religiously

based personal attitudes also serve to prevent anti-ascetic

behaviors. Thus, religiosity's effect on ascetic norm

violations is both direct and mediated through personal

ascetic beliefs and values.

Personal asceticism is operationalized in these data by

two items which asked the respondents to indicate their

attitude toward both alcohol and marijuana use. The

response categories for each of these items were collapsed

to construct dichotomous distinctions between those

holding proscriptive definitions of use (1) and those with

prescriptive definitions (0).

To insure that these indicators of personal asceticism

are a reflection of religious norm qualities, the effects of

the normative orientations of significant adults and peers






-31-


are controlled for. These control variables are measured by

four questionnaire items which asked the respondents to

report their perceptions of the norms governing alcohol and

marijuana use (either proscriptive or prescriptive) held by

those adults and peers whose opinions the respondent highly

valued. Krohn et al. (1982) have shown with these data that

respondent's attitudes toward alcohol and marijuana use are

consistent with religious norms when controlling for the

effects of peer and adult norms and therefore can constitute

religiously based beliefs and values.



Conditional Variables


Religious Norm Qualities


According to the Norm Qualities hypothesis (H3), the

effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-

ascetic behavior vary with the differing normative

orientations toward alcohol and marijuana of the various

religious affiliations. That is, some denominations take a

strong stand against substance use while others tend to be

more prescriptive. These varying moral messages constitute

important normative climates which should affect the impact

of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic

behavior. To test this hypothesis it is, of course,

necessary to operationalize these varying religious moral

messages. Two measures of denominational proscriptiveness

are available in these data. The first is the more






-32-


traditional indicator of denominational proscriptiveness

that is based on normative orientations attributed to the

religion based on knowledge of doctrine or liturgy; the

other is a measure of respondents' perceptions of the norms

of the religious group with which they identify.

Prior research has frequently grouped mainstream

American religions according to attributed moral climate

(Linden and Currie, 1977; Schlegel and Sanborn, 1979; Jensen

and Erickson, 1979; McIntosh et al., 1981; Nelson and

Rooney, 1982; Hadaway et al., 1982; Cochran and Bock, 1984;

Bock et al., 1985). These efforts have consistently

categorized Baptists, Methodists, and Fundamentalist

Protestants together because of the clear ascetic stands

against sensual indulgences that these denominations are

known to take. Other categorizations typically include the

remaining Protestant denominations (i.e., Lutherans,

Presbyterians, and Episcopalians), Catholics, Jews, and the

non-affiliated. Though these groupings are rarely combined,

they are often treated similarly because of their relatively

prescriptive normative orientations regarding alcohol use.

These prescriptive/proscriptive categorizations of

mainstream religious affiliations are consistent with their

liturgical use or non-use of alcohol during religious

ceremonies (Bock et al., 1985). That is, those affiliations

that are typically attributed as prescriptive tend also to

include alcohol (wine) in their religious practices, while







-33-


the three proscriptive denominations prohibit such

liturgical consumption.

Bainton (1945) has identified a third normative camp

that encourages even excessive and unprescribed use.

However, this permissive or "orgiastic" category has no

representatives in mainstream American religious life.

Therefore, attributed denominational proscriptiveness is

operationalized by a dichotomous variable distinguishing

between these two dominant religious normative climates.

Respondents who indicated that their religious preference

was either Baptist, Methodist, or Pentacostal are grouped

together as proscriptive denominations and are contrasted

with those whose religious preference was Catholic, Jewish,

Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or none (0 =

prescriptive, 1 = proscriptive). Respondents who indicated

"other" as their religious preference are coded as missing.

Perceived denominational proscriptiveness is measured

by responses to a question about what the respondents

believe their religion teaches about the use of alcohol and

marijuana. As with the other perceived norm qualities

measures, perceived denominational proscriptiveness is coded

to distinguish those who perceive their religion to be

proscriptive in its stand on alcohol and marijuana use

from those who perceive their religion to be more

prescriptive.

The effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on

anti-ascetic behaviors will be evaluated for each category






-34-


of attributed and perceived denominational proscriptivness.

The effects are expected to vary by category with the

strongest preventive effects predicted for those in the

proscriptive groupings.



Aggregate Religiosity


A test of the Moral Communities hypothesis (H4)

requires a measure which, at a minimum, distinguishes moral

communities from non-moral communities. A moral community

is said to exist where "a majority profess religious faith"

(Stark et al., 1980: 44). This definition leads to an

operationalization of the concept "moral community" by an

indicator of aggregate religiosity (see Stark et al., 1980;

1982 and Tittle and Welch, 1983). Here, aggregate

religiosity is measured by the percent per school district

expressing strong religiosity.

The seven communities (i.e., school districts) that

participated in the Boys Town project are categorized into

moral communities according to their levels of aggregate

religiosity. Those communities in which a majority (i.e.,

greater than 50%) express that they are quite religious are

grouped together under the heading "high aggregate

religiosity" which serves as an indicator of the presence of

a "moral community" in the sense used by Stark et al. Those

in which 50% or less express that they are very religious

are similarly grouped, though under the heading "low

aggregate religiosity"--an indicator of the relative






-35-


absence of a "moral community" as here defined. The effects

of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic

behavior are expected to vary across levels of aggregate

religiosity with stronger effects predicted for those

residing in moral communities than for those isolated from

such communities.



Control Variables


Eight control variables are employed in this study:

four have already been introduced (i.e., the perceived

normative orientations of both significant adults and peers

regarding the use of alcohol and marijuana), the other four

controls are the sociodemographic variables of age, race,

gender, and SES. These variables are each coded in a

straightforward manner: age is coded continuously in years,

race and gender are each dummy coded with black and female,

respectively, as the reference categories (all nonwhite,

nonblack respondents have been coded as missing), finally

SES is a measure of father's occupation (i.e., 9 point

Census occupation category index). Table 2 in Appendix B

presents the variables to be used in this analysis, their

codings, and their distributions.



Method of Analysis


The method of analysis employed in this study is an

analytic technique suitable for binary response dependent






-36-


variables. This technique utilizes a logistic regression

procedure available in SAS (SAS, 1983). Although it is

tempting to use the more common OLS multiple regression

technique to investigate the influence of religiosity and

personal asceticism on the indicators of deviant behavior,

the presence of dichotomous dependent variables introduces

several problems into the use of the general linear model

approach commonly estimated by ordinary least squares--OLS

(Hanushek and Jackson, 1977).

In order for multiple regression to provide the best,

linear unbiased estimates (BLUE), the error terms must be

normally distributed and independent of the values of the

explanatory variables. However, in the case of dichotomous

dependent variables the error terms are, by definition, also

restricted to take on but two values. In such a situation

the error terms are clearly not normally distributed. Error

terms created by the dichotomous nature of the observations

are also likely to be correlated with the values of the

explanatory variables--clearly in violation of the above

OLS assumption. Furthermore, in these situations (where the

dependent variable, and consequently the error terms, can

take on only two values), the assumption of equal variance

of the error terms is also violated. Use of an OLS

technique, therefore, would yield inefficient estimates and

would render tests of significance meaningless.

A common solution to these problems concerning the

distribution of the error term is the use of a generalized






-37-


or weighted least squares technique. However, this

"solution" does not address the additional problem of

inappropriate functional form due to the use of a linear

solution for equations involving dichotomous dependent

variables. Fitting a linear function to such variables would

create an equation that yields probability estimates that

extend beyond the possible probability range bound between 0

and 1. These observations suggest, therefore, that a non-

linear function is more reasonable. The appropriate non-

linear function is that of the general S-curve. Such a

sigmoid function implies that a change in probability

becomes more difficult to obtain as the probability

approaches the natural limits of 0 and 1. Clearly such a

solution is theoretically more appropriate.

The use of a maximum likelihood logit technique

overcomes the difficulties presented by both the violation

of the OLS error term assumptions and the inadequate

linear functional form. Moreover, as multiple regression

minimizes the distance between the observations and the

regression line, logistic regression operates to maximize

the probability of obtaining the observed data given the set

of independent variables (see Chapter 7 of Hanushek and

Jackson, 1977 and Chapter 6 of Agresti, 1984). Although

this technique involves a different algorithm than the OLS

solution, its use and interpretation are somewhat analogous.

For instance, where in OLS regression an F statistic is

computed to test the statistical significance of the model,







-38-


a similar test is available in logistic regression through

the calculation of a chi-square statistic. Likewise, the

statistical significance of the relative effects of the

explanatory variables can also be computed. A proportional

effect for each independent variable with an interpretation

analogous to that of the unstandardized regression

coefficients in OLS can also be calculated (refer to the

partial derivative formula in Hanushek and Jackson,

1977:188-189). To do so the logistic regression

coefficients must be transformed into instantaneous rate of

change coefficients which estimate the proportional change

in the predicted probability of falling into category 1

rather than category 0 of the dependent variable for each

one-unit change in an independent variable, controlling for

the influence of all other independent variables when

evaluated as a linear effect tangent to the logistic curve

at a particular point of comparison. The proportional

effect of an independent variable, Xk, is Pk, where Pk =

bk[P(l p)], where bk is the logistic regression

coefficient, and where [p(l p)] is the variance of the

dependent variable at the instantaneous point of comparison,

p (typically the mean of the dependent variable). These

instantaneous rate of change coefficients describe the

relative effects of an independent variable as a function of

its contribution to the slope of the line tangent to the

logistic curve at this single point of comparison. Thus,

the value of the proportional change in the predicted






-39-


probability of Y = 1 will vary according to the value of p

chosen. Here, Pk will be evaluated at the mean of the

dependent variable. Choosing another value of p would yield

different estimates of the proportional effects, but the

size of the coefficients relative to one another would

remain the same. While such estimates are technically

improper, they do provide an interpretation similar to that

for OLS regression coefficients and are therefore

informative. Of course the more technically correct

interpretation of these logistic regression coefficients

(i.e., multiplicative effects on the odds) is also

provided. The former are employed solely for their clarity

of interpretation.

Finally, SAS reports an additional estimate of the

relative effects of each of the independent variables (Rk).

This statistic is a measure of association for the

relationship between each independent variable and the

dependent variable controlling for the effects of the other

independent variables in the model. As such, it is

claimed by Frank Harrell, the author of the SAS logistic

regression procedure, to be analogous to the partial r

statistic available in OLS regression.

In addition to these estimates of the relative effects

of the independent variables, the predicted probability of

falling into category 1 of the dependent variables P(Y=1)

for both those who indicate high levels of religiosity and

those with low levels of religiosity is also reported.






-40-


To compute these probabilities, one must first solve for L,

the logit coefficient. This statistic is a function of the

model intercept plus the sum of the products of each of the

logistic regression coefficients (bk) and some value of Xk

(i.e., L = a + JbkXk). The means of the control variables

and both the maximum and minimum values of the religiosity

and personal asceticism variables are used for the values

of Xk in this equation. Once L is computed, the predicted

probability of falling into category 1 of the dependent

variable (i.e., P(Y=1)) can then be easily derived by

dividing the inverse of L by one plus the inverse of L,

i.e., [eL / 1 + e )]. Employing both the minimum and maximum

values of the religiosity and personal asceticism measures

enables the comparison of the predicted probabilities for

those who are strongly religious with that for those who are

weakly religious. The reader should be cautioned, however,

that such comparisons are valid only at the mean of the

control variables.

One final comment, this SAS logistic regression

procedure employs listwise deletion in its handling of

missing data. This often resulted in a sizable reduction in

the number of observations to be analyzed. Such reductions,

of course, can have quite a substantive impact on one's

findings. It was determined that the vast majority of

deleted observations contained missing information on the

SES measure, an important contextual variable necessary as a

control in these analyses. A follow-up analysis, however,






-41-


indicated that there were no substantial differences

regarding the distributions of the dependent or religion

variables between those observations with missing data on

SES and those with complete information (tables not

reported). In addition, several models were reanalyzed with

the SES variable excluded, thereby avoiding any substantive

problems due to listwise deletion. No notable differences

were observed (tables not reported). I am fairly confident,

therefore, that these reductions in the number of

observations analyzed had little or no substantive impact on

the findings reported below.














CHAPTER FOUR

HYPOTHESES AND MODELS



The review of the literature presented in Chapter Two

traces several significant revisions and modifications of

the original Hellfire hypothesis which asserts a negative

relationship between religiosity and deviance. In this

chapter I present the hypotheses derived from that

literature review and add simple path diagram models

corresponding to each hypothesis.



The Hirschi and Stark Hellfire Hypothesis and Model



H1: The greater the degree of religiosity,
the lower the probability of delinquent behavior.


RELIGIOSITY


) DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR


Figure 4.1 The Hellfire Model.


-42-






-43-


The Middleton and Putney Anti-Asceticism Hypothesis
and Model



H2: The greater the degree of religiosity,
the lower the probability of anti-ascetic behavior.


a. The greater the degree of religiosity,
the greater the degree of personal asceticism.


b. The greater the degree of personal asceticism,
the lower the probability of anti-ascetic behavior.


RELIGIOSITY> ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR




PERSONAL ASCETICISM


Figure 4.2 The Anti-Asceticism Model.






-44-


The Jensen and Erickson Norm Qualities Hypothesis
and Models



H3: The greater the degree of denominational
proscriptiveness, the stronger the effects of
religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-
ascetic behavior.

a. The greater the degree of attributed denominational
proscriptiveness, the stronger the effects of
religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-
ascetic behavior.

b. The greater the degree of perceived denominational
proscriptiveness, the stronger the effects of
religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-
ascetic behavior.


PRESCRIPTIVE
(Attributed or Perceived)


RELIGIOSITY )-ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR




PERSONAL ASCETICISM


PROSCRIPTIVE
(Attributed or Perceived)


RELIGIOSITY




PERSONAL ASCETICISM


ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR


Figure 4.3 The Norm Qualities Models.






-45-


The Stark et al. Moral Communities Hypothesis
and Models



H4: The greater the degree of aggregate religiosity,
the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal
asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior.


LOW AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY
(absence of a moral community)


RELIGIOSITY ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR




PERSONAL ASCETICISM


HIGH AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY
(presence of a moral community)


RELIGIOSITY vANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR




PERSONAL ASCETICISM


Figure 4.4 The Moral Communities Models.






-46-


The Integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities
Hypothesis and Models



H5: The greater the degree of denominational
proscriptiveness (attributed or perceived) and
the greater the degree of aggregate religiosity,
the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal
asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior.








[A] LOW AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY
(absence of a moral community)

PRESCRIPTIVE
(Attributed or Perceived)


RELIGIOSITY > ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR




PERSONAL ASCETICISM




[B] LOW AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY
(absence of a moral community)

PROSCRIPTIVE
(Attributed or Perceived)


RELIGIOSITY >ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR




PERSONAL ASCETICISM


Figure 4.5 The Moral Communities-Norm Qualities Models.






-47-


HIGHER AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY

[C] HIGH AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY
(presence of a moral community)

PRESCRIPTIVE
(Attributed or Perceived)


RELIGIOSITY >ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR




PERSONAL ASCETICISM


HIGH AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY
(presence of a moral community)


PROSCRIPTIVE
(Attributed or Perceived)


RELIGIOSITY ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR




PERSONAL ASCETICISM


Figure 4.5 continued.












CHAPTER FIVE

TESTS OF THE HIRSCHI AND STARK
HELLFIRE HYPOTHESIS



Table 3 in Appendix C presents the results of several

logistic regression analyses each testing the Hirschi and

Stark Hellfire hypothesis (H1). Each model reported

regresses a dichotomous indicator of serious deviant

behavior on the two measures of religiosity--religiousness

and importance of church activities--as well as the four

socio-demographic control variables (i.e., age, race,

gender, and SES). Each model contains the following

statistical information: in the top portion of the table are

(1) the logistic regression coefficients (bk) and (2) their

standard errors--se(bk), (3) the proportional changes in the

predicted probability of Y = 1 for one-unit changes in the

independent variables (Pk--also referred to as instantaneous

rate of change coefficients), (4) estimates of the relative

effects of the independent variables (Rk or partial Rs), and

(5) the intercept; in the middle of the table are (6) the -2

log likelihood for the model containing the intercept only

as well as for (7) the complete model, (8) the model chi-

square, (9) the coefficient of multiple correlation for the

model (RL see SAS, 1979:183), (10) the mean of the dependent

variable (Y), and (11) the sample size (N); and at the

bottom of the table are (12) the overall predicted


-48-






-49-


probabilities of falling into category 1 of the dependent

variable, P(Y=1), for both the strongly and the weakly

religious. Parameter estimates are arbitrarily defined to

be statistically discernible from zero when the attained

significance levels for the various statistical tests are

less than .05. While such tests of significance are

technically inappropriate due to the design of the data

collection, they will be retained for their informative

value.



Religiosity and Involvement in Delinquent Behavior


The first model reported in Table 3 (Model 1) presents

a test of the Hellfire hypothesis with the dichotomous

delinquency index. The findings indicate some support for

the Hellfire hypothesis. That is, both of the religiosity

measures are related to involvement in delinquent behavior

in the theoretically expected, negative, direction (i.e.,

bk= -.223 and -.409) and each effect parameter is

statistically discernible from zero. The logistic

regression coefficient of bk = -.223 for religiousness means

that the odds of delinquent involvement is multiplied by

exp(-.223) = .8 for every one-unit increase in

religiousness. Thus, the odds of involvement in delinquent

behavior are estimated to be .83 = .51 times as high for the

"quite religious" adolescents as for those who indicate that

they are "not religious at all." The odds of delinquent





-50-


involvement is multiplied by exp(-.409) = .66 for every one-

unit increase in participatory salience. Thus, the odds of

involvement in delinquent behavior are estimated to be .663

= .29 times as high for those adolescents for whom

participation in church activities is "very important" as

for those for whom such participation is "not important at

all." The closer the value of this ratio is to zero the

stronger the inverse effect. An odds of 1 suggests no

relationship and the closer this value is to positive

infinity, the stronger the positive relationship. The

values of the partial R coefficients indicate that the

impact of the religiousness variable is less than that of

participatory salience on self-reported involvement in

delinquent behavior (Rk= -.062 versus -.103, respectively).

The instantaneous rate of change coefficients when evaluated

at the mean of Y indicate that for each one-unit increase in

religiousness, the proportional changes in the predicted

probability of delinquency involvement decreases by four

percentage points (Pk= -.041). Thus, youth who claim to be

"quite religious" have a predicted probability of

involvement in delinquent behavior that is 12% less than

that for those who indicate that they are "not religious at

all." Likewise, the proportional change in the predicted

probability of delinquent behavior decreases by 7.5

percentage points for each one-unit increase in the

importance of church activities. For those adolescents who






-51-


feel that involvement in church activities is "very

important," the predicted proportional probability of

involvement in delinquency is almost 23 percentage points

less than that for those to whom such involvement is "not

important at all."


Perhaps the strongest evidence in support of the

Hellfire hypothesis can be found in the overall probability

of self-reported delinquency involvement, P(Y=1), predicted

for the strongly religious compared to that for the weakly

religious. Again, the reader is cautioned that these

probability estimates are valid only at the means of the

control variables. For those youth who are "quite

religious" and for whom involvement in church activities is

"very important," the predicted probability of delinquency

is only .09. However, for those who are "not religious at

all" and for whom participation in church activities is "not

important at all," the predicted probability is much

greater, P(Y=1)= .40. The difference in these predicted

probabilities is .31, with the weakly religious far more at

risk than the strongly religious. In fact the weakly

religious are about 4.4 times more likely to report some

involvement in delinquent behavior than the strongly

religious. In sum, the data lend solid support to the

Hellfire hypothesis; the likelihood of involvement in

delinquent behavior is substantially reduced for those

adolescents who are most religious.





-52-


Religiosity and Involvement in Specific Forms
of Delinquent Behavior


The next six models presented in Table 3 (Models 2

through 7) report the findings of the logistic regression

analyses testing the Hellfire hypothesis on the dichotomous

dependent variables representing specific forms of

delinquent behavior (i.e., vandalism, motor vehicle theft,

assault, weapon use, and both petty and grand theft). Each

model provides some additional, though limited, support for

the Hellfire hypothesis.

With only one exception--the effect of religiousness

on vandalism--the religiosity variables are inversely

related with each form of delinquent behavior examined.

The multiplicative effects on the odds for each one-unit

increase in religiousness vary from exp(-.193) = .82 for

petty theft to exp(-.338) = .71 for assault, excluding the

positive effect of religiousness on vandalism. Thus, the

odds of involvement in these forms of delinquency are

estimated to be between .713 = .36 and .823 = .55 times as

high for "quite religious" teens as for the "not religious

at all." Similarly, the odds of such delinquency

involvements are estimated to be between [exp(-.463)]3 = .25

and [exp(-.087)]3 = .77 times as high for those youths for

whom participation in church activities is "very important"

as for those who report that such participation is "not

important at all." Finally, the instantaneous rate of

change coefficients (Pk) reported in these models range from






-53-


a low of -.014 for the effect of religiousness on self-

reported involvement in grand theft to a high of -.116 for

participatory salience and vandalism. These values indicate

that, when evaluated at the mean of the dependent variables,

and while controlling for the effects of the other

independent variables, each one-unit change in the

religiosity indicators results in from 1.4 to 11.6

percentage point decreases in the predicted probabilities of

involvement in these delinquent behaviors. These findings

suggest that religiosity does play a role in reducing

involvement in delinquent behavior as predicted by the

Hellfire hypothesis.

Similarly, the partial R coefficients (Rk), while

statistically significant, indicate that the substantive

effects of religiosity on reducing involvement in specific

types of delinquency is weak. The strongest partial

correlation reported is that for participatory salience and

vandalism (Rk= -.132); the weakest, statistically

significant, partial effect is that of religiousness on

weapon use (Rk= -.038). Overall, participation in

delinquent activity is affected by religiosity, but this

effect varies by the type of delinquent act.

Table 4 in Appendix C presents data which indicate that

this variation in effect is systematic with the severity of

the delinquent act. The severity rankings of these six

offenses presented in Table 4 are based on the findings of

Wolfgang and Figlio (1984). According to their research






-54-


vandalism is the least serious of these six delinquent

behaviors and obtains a severity score of 1.1; petty theft

is next with a score of 2.9 followed by grand theft at 3.6,

motor vehicle theft at 4.4, assault at 7.3, and finally

weapon use--the most serious--at 9.3. While the partial

correlations for religiousness tend to remain rather steady

(i.e., partial rhos generally between -.05 and -.06), the

partial correlation coefficients for participatory salience

decrease in value as the severity of the offense increases.

This provides partial support for the arguments of Middleton

and Putney (1962) and Burkett and White (1974) who claim

that the impact of religiosity on reducing involvement in

deviant behavior is strongest for low consensus or

victimless crimes. Recall that this modification of the

Hellfire hypothesis is referred to as the Anti-asceticism

hypothesis (H2).

This general support for the Hellfire hypothesis with

variations by type lending some credence to the Anti-

asceticism hypothesis is also seen in Table 5 of Appendix C.

The overall predicted probabilities of delinquency

involvement, P(Y=1), are substantially less for the strongly

religious than for the weakly religious in each model. The

predicted probability of involvement in vandalism for the

strongly religious (i.e., those adolescents who report that

they are "quite religious" and for whom involvement in

church activities is "very important") is .31. While the

predicted probability of involvement in vandalism for the






-55-


weakly religious (i.e., those adolescents who are "not

religious at all" and for whom involvement in church

activities is "not important at all") is .63. The

difference between these predicted probabilities is .32 with

the weakly religious twice as likely to report involvement

in vandalism as the strongly religious.

Involvement in motor vehicle theft is unlikely for both

the strongly and weakly religious with predicted

probabilities of .04 and .15 respectively. However, these

values indicate that the weakly religious are about 3.7

times more likely to engage in motor vehicle theft than the

strongly religious. The weakly religious are 2.9 times more

likely to engage in assaults than are the strongly religious,

though such behavior is unlikely for both groups (i.e.,

P(Y=1) = .23 and .08, respectively). Similar probabilities

are also predicted for involvement in weapon use (P(Y=1)

= .19 and .07, respectively) and grand theft (P(Y=1)= .10

and .02, respectively). For petty theft, the probabilities

of involvement are greater for each group (P(Y=1)= .60

and .22, respectively). However, weakly religious

adolescents are still about 2.7 times more likely to steal

things of minor value that are their religiously committed

peers.

Table 5 arrays these overall predicted probabilities

according to the severity of each offense. The predicted

probabilities are greatest for the two least serious

offenses--vandalism and petty theft. For the remaining






-56-


four offenses the predicted probabilities are quite low and

tend to increase only very slightly as severity increases.

Note, also, the decreasing values of the risk factors (i.e.,

how many times more likely the weakly religious are to

report involvement in delinquency than the strongly

religious) as the severity of the offense increases from

grand theft to weapon use. These values suggest, to a

marginal degree, that the effects of religiosity may wane as

offense seriousness increases.

Thus, as with the findings presented in Table 4, these

results are both supportive of the Hellfire hypothesis and

are also somewhat consistent with the claims of Middleton

and Putney (1962) and Burkett and White (1974). I will

return to this point latter (See Chapter Six). However,

before proceeding to tests of the Anti-asceticism

hypothesis, additional models testing the Hellfire

hypothesis with indicators of hard drug use will be

examined.



Religiosity and Use of Hard Drugs


The findings for hard drug use parallel those for other

delinquent behaviors, but the magnitude of the relationships

tend to be weaker. Both of the religiosity indicators in

Model 8 in Table 3 are inversely related to the index of

overall hard drug use (bk= -.379 for religiousness and -.617

for participatory salience). These logistic regression

coefficients mean that the odds of hard drug usage are






-57-


multiplied by exp(-.379) = .68 for every one-unit increase

in religiousness and by exp(-.617) = .54 for every one-unit

increase in participatory salience. Thus, the odds of hard

drug use are estimated to be .683 = .32 times as high for

the "quite religious" as for the "not religious at all"

and .543 = .16 times as high for those adolescents for whom

participation in church activities is "very important" as

for those to whom such participation is "not important at

all." The partial R for religiousness, however, is only

-.098 and the proportional change in the predicted

probability for each one-unit change in religiousness is

-.039. Thus, students who consider themselves to be "quite

religious" are 11.7 percentage points less likely to be hard

drug users than those who report that they are "not

religious at all." For participatory salience the partial R

is -.148 and the predicted proportional change in

probability is -.064; each one-unit increase in the

importance of church activities results in a decrease of 6.4

percentage points in the probability of using hard drugs.

Adolescents for whom participation in church activities is

"very important" are 19.2% less likely to report experience

with hard drugs use than those for whom such participation

is "not important at all."

The overall predicted probability of drug use for the

strongly religious (those reporting maximum values of both

religiousness and participatory salience) is .02 when

evaluated at the means of the control varliables; for the






-58-


weakly religious (those reporting minimum values) the

overall predicted probability is much greater at .28. Thus,

even though the likelihood of use is slim, the risk for the

weakly religious is still 14 times greater than that for the

strongly religious.

The final four models reported in Table 3 (Models 9

through 12) present the results of logistic regression

analyses for each of the types of hard drugs that compose

the dichotomous hard drug use index discussed above--

stimulants, depressants and tranquilizers, psychedelics, and

narcotics and opiates. The results of these analyses mirror

those just presented above in Model 8. In all four of these

models, the two religiosity indicators are inversely related

with the dependent variables. However, the strength of

these relationships is generally weak. That is, the partial

Rs range in value from -.068 to -.146. For stimulants,

depressants, and psychedelics, the impact of participatory

salience is stronger than the impact of religiousness. For

narcotics, religiousness has the stronger effect.

In sum, these data provide additional, but limited,

support for the Hellfire hypothesis. While the independent

effects of the two religiosity indicators are quite weak,

and the variance accounted for is small, the combined impact

of these religiosity measures is more substantial. That is,

weakly religious adolescents are considerably more likely to

report use of hard drugs than are the strongly religious.

The predicted probability of hard drug use overall and for






-59-


each substance is low even for the weakly religious, but

they are far more likely to use hard drugs than the

strongly religious. In fact, the chance that an adolescent

who is strongly religious is using any of these drugs is

essentially zero.



Conclusions


In conclusion, each of the twelve models presented in

Table 3 provide some support for Hirschi and Stark's

Hellfire hypothesis. From these models, the following

conclusions may be drawn:

1) The two indicators of religiosity are nearly always
inversely related with the indicators of serious
deviant behavior. As such, they support the
Hellfire hypothesis.

2) However, the strengths of these relationships are
quite weak, thus limiting the support for the
hypothesis.

3) The relative effect of participatory salience
(i.e., the importance of involvement in church
activities) is somewhat more powerful than the
effect of religiousness in predicting involvement
in delinquency per se, vandalism, petty theft,
grand theft, the use of hard drugs in general, and
the use of stimulants, depressants, and
psychedelics.

4) On the other hand, religiousness is a stronger
predictor of involvement in motor vehicle theft,
assault, weapon use, and the use of narcotics.

5) The overall predicted probabilities of involvement
in both general and offense specific delinquency,
and the use of hard drugs is substantially less for
the strongly religious (i.e., those adolescents who
claim to be "quite religious" and for whom
participation in church activities is "very
important") than for the weakly religious (i.e.,






-60-


those who report minimum values of religiousness
and participatory salience). These findings
provide the strongest support for the Hellfire
hypothesis.

6) Values of the partial correlation coefficients for
participatory salience tend to decrease in strength
as offense severity increases. Likewise, the risk
factors also tend to decrease as offense severity
increases. Both of these trends suggest that the
effects of religiosity may wane as offense
severity, and therefore, societal consensus,
increase. Such findings are consistent with the
arguments of Middleton and Putney (1962) and
Burkett and White (1974) and lend some support to
the Anti-asceticism hypothesis, a modification of
the original Hellfire hypothesis. It to tests of
this modified hypothesis to which I now turn.













CHAPTER SIX

TESTS OF THE MIDDLETON AND PUTNEY
ANTI-ASCETICISM HYPOTHESIS



The original Hellfire hypothesis of Hirschi and Stark

has been modified by arguing that it applies to a more

restricted range of deviant behavior. That is, religiosity

is more strongly related to "immorality," "vice," and

"victimless" behaviors such as premarital sex and the use of

marijuana and alcohol, which are not as consistently

disapproved of in the secular setting, than to personal or

property crimes (Burkett and White, 1974; Albrecht et al.,

1977; Anderson and Wakefield, 1983; Elifson et al., 1983).

As noted earlier, the norms against offenses of morality

have been called ascetic norms and this modification has

been referred to as the Anti-asceticism hypothesis (H2).

The statistical information reported in Tables 6 through 9

of Appendix D is similar to that presented in the previous

chapter.



Religiosity and Premarital Sex


Model 1 of Table 6 presents the results of a logistic

regression analysis testing the Anti-asceticism hypothesis

with a dichotomous indicator of self-reported involvement in

premarital sexual intercourse. These findings provide some


-61-






-62-


support for the hypothesis in that religiosity is inversely

related to premarital sex. That is, both of the religiosity

variables are inversely related to involvement in premarital

sex (bk= -.329 for religiousness and -.169 for participatory

salience).

These coefficients suggest that the odds of involvement

in premarital sexual intercourse are multiplied by

exp(-.329) = .72 for every one-unit increase in

religiousness; therefore, the odds of premarital sex are

estimated to be .723 = .37 times as high for the "quite

religious" as for the "not religious at all." For each one-

unit increase in participatory salience, the odds of

premarital sexual involvement are multiplied by exp(-.169)

= .84. Thus, for those adolescents for whom involvement in

church activities is "very important" the odds of premarital

sex are .843 = .60 as high as they are for those youth for

whom involvement in church activities is "not important at

all."

For each one-unit increase in religiousness, the

proportional change in the predicted probability of

involvement in premarital sex decreases by 7.3 percentage

points (Pk= -.073). Thus, for adolescents who report that

they are "quite religious," the proportional probability of

involvement in premarital sexual intercourse is about 22

percentage points less than that for youth who are "not

religious at all." Likewise, the proportional change in the

predicted probability of premarital sex for each one-unit





-63-


increase in participatory salience is -.038. This figure

converts into an 11.4 percentage point difference in the

likelihood of premarital sex between those youth for whom

participation in church activities is "very important" and

those for whom such participation is "not important at

all."

The overall predicted probability of involvement in

premarital sexual intercourse for the strongly religious is

only .18, while for the weakly religious, the predicted

probability is .50. The difference between these predicted

probabilities is .32 with the weakly religious almost three

times (2.8) more likely to report involvement in premarital

sex.

Though these findings show that the effects of

religiosity on premarital sexual intercourse are both

statistically discernible from zero and are in the

hypothesized direction, the relative strength of these

effects is quite weak. Indeed, the partial correlations

(Rk) between the two religiosity measures and the

dichotomous premarital sex index are only -.098 and -.042,

respectively, for religiousness and participatory salience.

Thus, while the data suggest that religiosity does serve

to reduce the likelihood of involvement in premarital

sexual intercourse among adolescents, its effect is quite

weak.






-64-


Religiosity and Marijuana Use


Model 2 in Table 6 of Appendix D reports the findings

of the logistic regression analysis testing the Anti-

asceticism hypothesis on adolescent marijuana use. Again

the support for the hypothesis is mixed; although increases

in religiosity are significantly related to decreases in the

likelihood of use, the relative effects of the religiosity

indicators are weak.

Each of the religiosity measures is inversely related

with the self-reported marijuana use (bk= -.331 for

religiousness and -.458 for participatory salience). Thus,

the odds of marijuana use are multiplied by exp(-.331) = .72

and exp(-.458) = .63 for every one-unit increase in

religiousity and participatory salience, respectively. As

such the odds of marijuana use are .723 = .37 times as high

for "quite religious" adolescents as for those who are "not

religious at all." Likewise, for youth who report maximum

levels of participatory salience, the odds of marijuana use

are .633 = .25 times as high as for those reporting minimum

levels.

When these logistic regression coefficients are

transformed into instantaneous rate of coefficients

evaluated at the mean of the dependent variable, the

resulting proportional changes in the predicted probability

of marijuana use indicate that one-unit increases in the

religiosity variables result in 8.1 and 11.2 percentage

point decreases in the likelihood of use. That is, each





-65-


one-unit increase in religiousness leads to 8.1 and 11.2

percentage point decreases in the predicted probability of

marijuana use among the youth surveyed. Thus, adolescents

who indicate that they are "quite religious" are 24.3

percentage points less likely to use marijuana than youth

who report being "not religious at all."

One-unit increases in the importance of participation

in church activities is related to 11.2 percentage point

decreases in the predicted probability of use. For those

youth for whom such participation is "very important," the

predicted proportional probability of self-reported

marijuana use is 33.6 percentage points less than that for

whom participation in church activities is "not important at

all." The cumulative effect of these religiosity indicators

is such that the weakly religious are four times more likely

to report marijuana use than are strongly religious

adolescents. The overall predicted probabilities of use,

P(Y=1), are .69 and .17, respectively, for the weakly and

strongly religious. In sum, increases in religiosity are

significantly related to decreases in the likelihood of

marijuana use, providing modest support for the Anti-

asceticism hypothesis.



Religiosity and Alcohol Use


Logistic regression analyses testing the Anti-

asceticism hypothesis with measures of self-reported alcohol

use are presented in Models 3 through 6 of Table 6. The






-66-


first of these models examines the effects of the two

religiosity indicators on the use of alcohol in general;

Models 4, 5, and 6 test these effects on the use of beer,

wine, and liquor, respectively. The results reported in

these models yield mixed support for the Anti-asceticism

hypothesis.

The effect of the religiousness variable is

statistically discernible from zero only in Model 6, the

use of liquor. The strength of this effect, however, is

quite weak (Rk= -.049). The partial correlation coefficients

for the religiousness variable indicate that it has

virtually no effect on the general use of alcohol (Rk=

-.000), and essentially no effect on the use of either beer

or wine (Rk= -.024 and .000, respectively). Participatory

salience, on the other hand, attains a weak, inverse effect

on each of the indicators of alcohol use with the exception

of wine (Rk =-.08 to -.14). The null finding with regard

to the use of wine may be due to the fact that wine is

frequently consumed during religious ceremonies such as

communion. The liturgical use of wine may result in higher

than expected rates of use among the strongly religious.

However, the multiplicative effect on the odds of

alcohol consumption for the participatory salience measure

indicates that its influence is quite substantial. The odds

of alcohol use, per se, are estimated to be [exp(-.541)]3

= .20 times as high for youths reporting maximum

participatory salience as for youth placing minimum






-67-


importance on participation in church activities. Similar

odds are estimated for the use of beer, [exp(-.517)]3 = .21,

and the use of liquor, [exp(-.403)]3 = .30.

Likewise, the instantaneous rate of change coefficients

(Pk) for participatory salience also suggests that its
influence on alcohol use may be greater than these partial

correlation statistics indicate. For instance, each one-

unit increase in participatory salience is related to an 8.1

percentage point decrease in the predicted probability of

general alcohol consumption. This translates into a

difference of -24.3 percentage points in the probability of

use predicted for those adolescents for whom participation

in church activities is "very important" compared to those

for whom such activities are "not important at all."

Similar proportional effects are observed between

participatory salience and both the use of beer and liquor

(Pk= -.078 and -.085, respectively). The proportional
effect of participatory salience on the use of wine is half

of that of its effects on the other alcoholic beverage types

(Pk= -.047).

The most telling evidence in support of the Anti-

asceticism hypothesis is shown not in the separate,

independent effects of the two religiosity variables, but

rather in their combined or cumulative effect. In each of

the four models examined, strongly religious adolescents

have an overall predicted probability of use that is

substantially less that for the weakly religious. The






-68-


probability of alcohol use among weakly religious youth is

quite high--between .84 and .93. For the strongly

religious, these probabilities are much lower, ranging

from .51 for the use of liquor to .74 for the use of wine.

The differences in these predicted probabilities of use

between the strongly and the weakly religious range

between .10 for wine and .35 for liquor. With the

exception of wine, which may be used liturgically, these

differences indicate that the weakly religious are at

least 20% more likely to use alcohol than the strongly

religious. These comparisons are, of course, evaluated at

the means of the control variables.

In sum, the inverse effects of the religiosity

indicators on anti-ascetic behavior (i.e., premarital sexual

intercourse and the use of marijuana and alcohol) are

notable and their cumulative effect is such that the

strongly religious adolescents are substantially less likely

to engage in such behaviors than are youth who are weakly

religious. While these findings provide support for the

Anti-asceticism hypothesis, they are equally supportive of

the original Hellfire hypothesis. That is, religiosity has

been shown to be inversely related to a large variety of

deviant behaviors including violations of both secular and

ascetic norms. Only by comparing the results presented here

with those from the analyses testing the Hellfire hypothesis

can a true test of the arguments of Middleton and Putney be

made. If the claims of those espousing the Anti-asceticism






-69-


argument are true, than the effects of religiosity should be

stronger for violations of ascetic norms than the more

serious and consistently disapproved delinquent behaviors.

It is to such a comparison that I now turn.



A Comparison of the Effects of Religiosity on
Delinquent and Anti-Ascetic Behaviors


Table 7 of Appendix D presents the partial R statistics

for the effects of both religiousness and participatory

salience on delinquent and anti-ascetic deviant behaviors.

The Anti-asceticism hypothesis that the effect of

religiosity is greater for violations of ascetic norms than

for violations of more widely held norms is not

supported by these data. The relative effects of the

religiosity variables are very stable across both anti-

ascetic behaviors and other forms of adolescent deviance.

In fact, there is some indication that religiosity is a less

effective restraint on anti-ascetic behaviors than on hard

drug use and delinquency. That is, the religiousness

variable has no effect (Rk= -.000) on the use of alcohol,

and the weakest partial correlation coefficient for

participatory salience is with premarital sexual

intercourse (Rk= -.042); both are indicators of anti-ascetic

behavior.

Additional evidence counter to the Anti-asceticism

hypothesis can be found in a comparison of the risk

factors reported in Table 8 of Appendix D. Larger risk






-70-


factor values are associated with the delinquent behavior

measures than with the indicators of anti-ascetic behavior.

These values suggest that the weakly religious are only

between 1.3 and 4.0 times more likely than the strongly

religious to engage in behaviors that violate ascetic norms,

but are 4.4 to 14.0 times more likely to engage in behaviors

that are more consistently disapproved of. As such, the

greatest differences between the strongly and the weakly

religious occur in behaviors where normative ambiguity is

the least and social disapproval is the greatest. These

findings are, of course, quite contrary to what is predicted

by the Anti-asceticism hypothesis. Thus, while some

evidence from Chapter Five hinted at support for the

arguments of Middleton and Putney (1962) and Burkett and

White (1974), the results of these analyses reveal no

support for the Anti-asceticism hypothesis beyond that which

is also equally supportive of the original Hellfire

hypothesis of Hirschi and Stark. Higher religiosity acts as

an insulator against all forms of adolescent deviance; for

none is it a highly effective insulator, but it works

equally in predicting delinquent acts and hard drug use as

well as the anti-ascetic offenses of morality.



Religiosity, Personal Asceticism, and Marijuana Use


Model 1 of Table 9 in Appendix D presents the findings

of analyses testing Burkett's revision of the Anti-

asceticism hypothesis (H2a and H2b) with data on adolescent






-71-


marijuana use. According to Burkett (1977; 1980),

religiosity has both a direct inverse effect and an indirect

inverse effect on anti-ascetic behavior. The indirect

effect is said to be mediated through a religiously

based morality of personal asceticism. The results of the

analyses examined here fail to support Burkett's claims.

First, religiosity is not related to personal

asceticism. The effects of both of the religiosity measures

on personal asceticism are essentially zero (Rk= -.023 for

religiousness and .000 for participatory salience), second,

personal asceticism is not related to marijuana use (Rk =

-.020). In fact, the only notable effect observed is the

direct inverse effect of participatory salience on self-

reported marijuana use (bk= -.461). Third, estimates of the

direct effect of religiousness and participatory salience

remain essentially unchanged with the addition of these

measures to the model. That is, the logistic regression

coefficients for religiousness and participatory salience

are essentially identical in both models (i.e., bk = -.331

versus -.334 for religiousness and -.458 versus -.461 for

participatory salience) indicating no change in their direct

influence on the odds with the inclusion of the personal

asceticism measure and its controls. Likewise, the partial

R statistic (Rk) for the relative influence of participatory

salience on marijuana use is -.130 in both the model with

and the model without these extra variables. The relative

effect of religiousness increases only from -.097 to -.098.






-72-


The instantaneous rate of change coefficients for the two

religiosity variables also remain unchanged by the inclusion

of these additional measures (Pk= -.081 for religiousness

and -.112 for participatory salience in each model).

Finally, the overall predicted probability of marijuana use

among strongly religious adolescents (now defined as those

adolescents who indicate maximum values on both of the

religiosity indicators as well as on the personal asceticism

variable) decreases by only .02 (from .17 to .15). The

probability of use predicted for the weakly religious (also

redefined as those adolescents who report minimum values of

religiosity and personal asceticism) increases by only .03

(from .69 to .72). The conclusion generated from each of

these findings is that Burkett's claim for the inclusion of

a measure of religiously based personal asceticism into the

Anti-asceticism model receives no support from these data on

adolescent marijuana use.



Religiosity, Personal Asceticism, and Alcohol Use


The same conclusion regarding Burkett's revision of the

Anti-asceticism hypothesis is reached when the data on

adolescent alcohol use are examined (See Model 2 in Table

9). Neither measure of religiosity is related to personal

asceticism (Rk = -.000 for both). However, personal

asceticism does show a notable inverse effect on alcohol use

(bk= -.404). The direct effects of the religiosity






-73-


indicators, on the other hand, remain unchanged (Rk= -.000

for religiousness in both models, and -.142 versus -.143 for

participatory salience). Likewise, the instantaneous rate

of change coefficients (Pk) remain stable across both

models. Finally the predicted probability of use among the

weakly religious is .93 in both models, while the

probability of use predicted for the strongly religious

decreases from .69 to .60. This decrease of .09 in the

predicted probability among the strongly religious provides

some support for Burkett's claims; however, the cumulative

evidence presented here fails to support his arguments.



Conclusions


The tables discussed in this chapter have served as

tests of both the Anti-asceticism hypothesis and Burkett's

revision of this hypothesis (1977; 1980). The results of

these tests support the Anti-asceticism hypothesis but give

little comfort to Burkett's revision. The data fit the

original Hellfire hypothesis equally as well as the Anti-

asceticism hypothesis. Some of the more specific

conclusions drawn from these analyses are

1) With the exception of the effect of religiousness
on the general use of alcohol and the use of beer
and wine specifically, both religiosity variables
are inversely related with the indicators of anti-
ascetic behavior. These findings support the
Anti-asceticism hypothesis.

2) However, all of the religiousness effects are weak
(i.e., Rk < -.100). The strength of the relative
effects of participatory salience on premarital






-74-


sexual intercourse and on the use of wine are also
weak. More moderate effects (i.e., -.100 < Rk <
-.250) of participatory salience are observed for
the remaining measures of anti-ascetic behavior.
The weak or modest nature of these religiosity
effects serves to limit the support provided to
the Anti-asceticism hypothesis.

3) The overall predicted probability estimates,
P(Y=1), indicate sufficiently large differences
(i.e., greater than .20) between the weakly
religious and the strongly religious in terms of
involvement in premarital sexual intercourse and
the use of marijuana, alcohol in general, and
wine. Smaller differences between predicted
probabilities are observed for the use of beer
and liquor. These findings also provide limited
support for the Anti-asceticism hypothesis.

4) The above conclusions provide mixed support for
the Anti-asceticism hypothesis. They also provide
equally limited support to the original Hellfire
hypothesis. However, none of these findings
provide a true test of the Anti-asceticism
hypothesis. Only by comparing the results
reported in this chapter with those in Chapter
Five can an appropriate test of the Anti-
asceticism hypothesis be made. The strengths of
the relative effects of the religiosity
indicators are very stable over all forms of
deviant behavior analyzed. Therefore, the
effects of religiousness and participatory
salience are not greater on behaviors that violate
ascetic norms as claimed by Middleton and Putney
(1962) and Burkett and White (1974). Additional
evidence of nonsupport for the Anti-asceticism
hypothesis is observed in a comparison of the risk
factors. Larger values are associated with the
delinquent behaviors. The result of these
comparisons provides no support for the Anti-
asceticism hypothesis.

5) Finally, Burkett's suggestion that the Anti-
asceticism hypothesis be revised by the addition
of indirect religiosity effects mediated through a
religiously based morality of personal asceticism
receives no support with these data. The
religiosity measures are not related to personal
asceticism and personal asceticism fails to attain
a statistically significant, inverse effect on
anti-ascetic behavior. In addition, essentially
no changes are observed in the parameter estimates






-75-


of the religiosity measures (i.e., bk, Pk' and Rk)
and no significant improvements in the predictive
capacities of the estimated models (i.e., RL
and P(Y=1)) are evidenced.














CHAPTER SEVEN

TESTS OF THE JENSEN AND ERICKSON NORM
QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS



Each of the analyses examined so far have been

restricted to simple social-psychological models which

stress the constraining function of religiosity on deviant

behavior. Though these models are based on reasonable

hypotheses, the empirical support provided to them has been

somewhat limited. This may be due, in part, to

specification error. That is, these hypothetical models

limit analysis to an overly simplistic process, perhaps

they should incorporate more structural or group-level

processes.

For instance, Jensen and Erickson (1979) argue that one

of the major shortcomings of the extant literature is the

failure of previous researchers to examine the differential

effects of religiosity across religious affiliations.

Indeed, a majority of the prior research has failed to

consider the possibility of an interaction between religious

affiliation and religiosity on deviant behavior. Jensen and

Erickson claim that the varying moral messages of different

religions constitute important normative climates which

affect the deterrent impact of religiosity on anti-ascetic


-76-






-77-


behaviors, particularly substance use. Thus, while some

denominations take a strong proscriptive stand against use,

others are more prescriptive, and, according to Jensen and

Erickson, the religiosity effect is stronger among those

from proscriptive normative climates.

The analyses reported in this chapter test the primary

hypothesis derived from these ideas (referred to as the Norm

Qualities hypothesis H3); first with marijuana use as the

dependent variable, then with alcohol use. Logistic

regression models testing the effects of religiousness,

participatory salience, and personal asceticism are

presented for each level of both attributed and perceived

denominational proscriptiveness (prescriptive and

proscriptive). The results of these tests for marijuana use

are reported in Table 10, and for alcohol use in Table 11 of

Appendix E.



Marijuana Use: Attributed Denominational
Proscriptiveness


Models 1 and 2 of Table 10 present the findings of

analyses testing the effects of religiosity and personal

asceticism on self-reported marijuana use across levels of

attributed denominational proscriptiveness. Comparing the

results in Model 2 to those in Model 1 (i.e., comparing the

attributed proscriptive denominations model to the

attributed prescriptive denominations model) provides the






-78-


statistical evidence needed to test the Norm Qualities

hypothesis. Comparisons of the statistical data in Table

10 provide little support for the hypothesis.

For instance, the independent effects of the personal

asceticism and both of the religiosity variables are

inversely related to marijuana use for those adolescents

belonging to prescriptive denominations (Model 1); however,

only the inverse effect of participatory salience is

statically discernible from zero for those youth from

denominations which traditionally have held proscriptive

norms toward sensual indulgences (Model 2). Likewise, the

relative effects of these variables are just as strong or

stronger in the prescriptive model as they are in the

proscriptive model (i.e., in the attributed prescriptive

model versus the attributed proscriptive model, bk = -.411

vs. -.098, respectively, for religiousness; -.444 vs. -.476

for participatory salience; and -.425 vs. .210 for personal

asceticism). Thus the odds of marijuana use are estimated

to be [exp(-.411)]3 = .29 times as high for the "quite

religious" as for the "not religious at all" from attributed

prescriptive denominations (Model 1) compared to a multiplica-

tive effect on the odds of [exp(-.098)]3 = .74 for those

youths belonging to denominations traditionally attributed

as proscriptive (Model 2). For participatory salience,

these estimates are more similar (i.e., [exp(-.444)]3 = .26

in the prescriptive model versus [exp(-.476)]3 = .25 in the

proscriptive model). Finally, a very large difference





-79-


contrary to that predicted by the Norm Qualities hypothesis

is observed in a comparison of the multiplicative effects on

the odds for the personal asceticism variable in these

models. That is, while the odds of marijuana use are, as

expected, much lower for the ascetic youth than for the non-

ascetic youth in the prescriptive model (Model 1), the odds

of use for ascetic youth in the proscriptive model (Model 2)

are greater than that estimated for the non-ascetic youth

(i.e., exp(-.425) = .65 versus exp(.210) = 1.23). The

instantaneous rate of change coefficients (Pk) also suggest

that greater proportional reductions in the predicted

probabilities of use are associated with the religion

variables in the prescriptive model than in the proscriptive

model.

These findings are, of course, contrary to that

predicted by the Norm Qualities hypothesis. The cumulative

effect of these variables also provides little support for

the hypothesis. While the overall predicted probability of

marijuana use for the weakly religious is smaller for those

youth from proscriptive denominations--P(Y=l) = .54

versus .73--and is consistent with the Norm Qualities

hypothesis, the predicted probabilities of use for the

strongly religious fail to support the hypothesis. That is,

strongly religious adolescents from proscriptive

denominations are more likely to use marijuana than those

from prescriptive denominations--P(Y=l) = .21 and .12,

respectively. The differences in the predicted






-80-


probabilities of use between the weakly and strongly

religious when evaluated at the means of the control

variables are greater for those from prescriptive

denominations (.61) than for those from denominations

attributed to be proscriptive (.33). Likewise, a larger

risk factor value is associated with denominational

prescriptiveness (i.e., risk factors = 6.1 and 2.6,

respectively for Models 1 and 2).

In sum, these data on the normative orientations of the

various religious affiliations (as traditionally attributed

to them) fail to support the Norm Qualities hypothesis. In

fact, each of the comparisons made suggests that the impact

of religiosity and personal asceticism on marijuana use is

greater for those adolescents with prescriptive

denominational affiliations, rather than for those from

proscriptive denominations as the Norm Qualities hypothesis

would predict.



Marijuana Use: Perceived Denominational
Proscriptiveness


Models 3 and 4 of Table 10 present the statistical data

necessary for a second test of the Norm Qualities hypothesis

on adolescent marijuana use. The comparisons made here are

based on proscriptive/prescriptive denominational groupings

measured by the respondents' perceptions of the normative

orientation of their religious affiliations. Unlike the

data on attributed norm qualities these comparisons based on





-81-


perceived norm qualities yield some support for the Norm

Qualities hypothesis. That is, the relative effect of

personal asceticism is greater among those youth belonging

to denominations that are perceived to be proscriptive

In Model 3 of Table 10, the perceived denominational

prescriptiveness model, all three of the religion variables

are inversely related to marijuana use (bk= -.364 for

religiousness, -.457 for participatory salience, and -.164

for personal asceticism); however, personal asceticism does

not have a statistically significant effect. For those who

perceive the moral climate of their religious denomination

toward marijuana use as proscriptive (Model 4), personal

asceticism is inversely related to use (bk= -1.858), so are

the two religiosity variables (bk= -.022 and -.163 for

religiousness and participatory salience, respectively), but

the effects of the religiosity measures are not

statistically distinguishable from zero. Thus the religious

variables that affect adolescent marijuana use vary by

perceived denominational proscriptiveness.

Likewise, the effectiveness of these measures varies by

perceived denominational proscriptiveness. That is, when

cross-model comparisons are made, stronger relative effects

are observed for the two religiosity measures in Model 3

(perceived prescriptiveness) than in Model 4 (perceived

proscriptiveness), but the relative effect of personal

asceticism is stronger in the proscriptive model (Model 4).

These findings suggest that the deterrent effect of






-82-


religiosity, per se, on marijuana use is stronger among

those youth who do not perceive their religion taking a

strong proscriptive stand. However, where the normative

orientation of one's religion is perceived to be

proscriptive, personal asceticism has the strongest

deterrent impact. Thus, both the variables that affect

marijuana use and their relative effects vary across levels

of perceived denominational proscriptiveness. Therefore,

these comparisons provide mixed support for the Norm

Qualities hypothesis.

This mixed support is also evident in a comparison of

the combined or cumulative effect of these measures across

models. The smallest predicted probability of

marijuana use is .13 for the strongly religious in the

proscriptive model (Model 4) and the greatest probability of

use is .69 for the weakly religious in the prescriptive

model (Model 3). These probability rankings are consistent

with that predicted by the Norm Qualities hypothesis.

However, the predicted probability of use for the strongly

religious in the prescriptive model is essentially equal to

that in the proscriptive model (i.e., P(Y=1)= .14 and .13).

Likewise, the risk factor values for both models are nearly

identical (4.9 and 4.8 for Models 3 and 4 respectively) and

the difference in the predicted probability of use between

the weakly and strongly religious in the prescriptive model

is larger than the difference in the proscriptive model (.55

versus .49). These results are counter to that expected by





-83-


the Norm Qualities hypothesis and serve to limit the support

provided to it by these data.



Alcohol Use: Attributed Denominational
Proscriptiveness


The effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on

self-reported alcohol use across levels of attributed

denominational proscriptiveness provide yet another test of

the Norm Qualities hypothesis and are presented in Models 1

and 2 of Table 11 in Appendix E. Unlike the findings for

marijuana use the findings on alcohol use provide rather

solid support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis. While

participatory salience is the only religion variable in

either model to be significantly related to alcohol use (bk

-.045 in Model 1 and -.211 in Model 2), the relative effects

of all three religion variables are greater in the

proscriptive model (Model 2). For instance, bk= -.045 for

religiousness in the attributed prescriptive model (Model 1)

indicates that the odds of alcohol use are multiplied by

only exp(-.045) = .96 for every one-unit increase in

religiousness, while in the proscriptive model (Model 2),

the multiplicative effect on the odds of use is somewhat

stronger at exp(-.211) = .81. Thus, the odds of alcohol use

are estimated to be .963 = .87 times as high for the "quite

religious" as for the "not religious at all" in prescriptive

denominations. The odds of use estimated for "quite

religious" adolescents belonging to denominations






-84-


traditionally attributed as proscriptive are .813 = .53

times as high as the odds estimated for those adolescents

from proscriptive denominations who are "not religious at

all."

Within the prescriptive model (Model 1), a one-unit

increase in participatory salience is estimated to have an

exp(-.350) = .70 multiplicative effect on the odds of

alcohol use, while within the proscriptive model (Model 2),

its multiplicative effect is much more powerful (i.e.,

exp(-.535) = .59). These effects translate into estimated

odds of alcohol use that are .703 = .35 (in Model 1)

and .593 = .20 (in Model 2) times as high for those

adolescents for whom participation in church activities is

"very important" as for those youth who feel such

involvement is "not important at all." Thus, the inhibitory

effect of participatory salience, like that of

religiousness, is stronger in the proscriptive model (Model

2). The effect of personal asceticism on alcohol use is

also more powerful in the proscriptive model (i.e.,

exp(-.560) = .57 in Model 2 versus exp(-.380) = .68 in Model

1).

The instantaneous rate of change coefficients indicate

similar effects. For adolescents from prescriptive

denominations, each one-unit increase in religiousness is

associated with a 4.2 percentage point decrease in the

predicted probability of alcohol use. For youth from

denominations that are more prescriptive in their stands on






-85-


alcohol consumption, the proportional decrease in predicted

probability for each one-unit increase in religiousness is

only 0.5 percentage points. Thus, teens from proscriptive

denominations who are "quite religious" are 12.6 percentage

points less likely to use alcohol than are those who are

"not religious at all," while almost no change in the

predicted proportional probability of use can be observed

between those adolescents from prescriptive denominations

who are "quite religious" and those who are "not religious

at all."

Likewise, within proscriptive denominations, each one-

unit increase in participatory salience results in a 10.7

percentage point decrease in the predicted probability of

use. As such, adolescents for whom involvement in church

activities is "very important" are 32.1 percentage points

less likely to use alcohol than are those for whom such

participation is "not important at all." However, among

adolescents belonging to prescriptive denominations, a one-

unit increase in participatory salience is associated with

only a 4.2% decrease in the proportional probability of use

which translates into a 12.6 percentage point difference

between those youth at maximum and minimum levels of

participatory salience.

Finally, the instantaneous rate of change

coefficients for personal asceticism also indicate a

stronger effect in the proscriptive model than in the

prescriptive model. That is, youth from proscriptive






-86-


denominations who define alcohol use proscriptively have a

predicted probability of use that is 11.2 percentage points

less than that of adolescents also from proscriptive

denominations but who hold prescriptive beliefs. The

proportional difference in the predicted probability of use

between prescriptive and proscriptive teens belonging to

prescriptive denominations is much less (4.7 percentage

points).

However, cross-model comparisons of the partial

correlation coefficients for the relative effects of these

three variables indicate small differences (i.e., Rk=

-.000 versus -.000 for religiousness, -.082 versus -.130 for

participatory salience, and -.011 versus -.013 for personal

asceticism in Models 1 and 2, respectively). In sum,

however, nearly every comparison the independent effects of

religiosity and personal asceticism on alcohol use are only

slightly stronger in the proscriptive model (Model 2) than

in the prescriptive model (Model 1). As such, they provide

some support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis.

Additional support for the hypothesis is evident in

comparisons of the cumulative impact these religion

variables have on adolescent alcohol use. Those adolescents

most likely to use alcohol are weakly religious and belong

to prescriptive denominations (P(Y=1)= .93); those least

likely to use alcohol are strongly religious and are members

of proscriptive denominations (P(Y=1)= .38). The predicted

probability of use for the weakly religious is nearly






-87-


identical in both models (.93 versus .91), yet the

probability of use predicted for the strongly religious is

far greater for those from prescriptive denominations than

from proscriptive denominations (.74 versus .38). As the

Anti-asceticism hypothesis undergoes revision and

respecification leading to the Norm Qualities hypothesis,

the predicted probability of alcohol use for the weakly

religious remains stable at about .93. However, the

predicted probability of use for the strongly religious,

originally estimated at .69, reduces down to .60 under

Burkett's revision, and reduces further to .38 when

estimated for those adolescents belonging to denominations

that traditionally take a strong stand against alcohol use.

In sum, solid support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis

is provided by these data on adolescent alcohol consumption.

The strength of both the independent and the combined

effects of the religiosity and personal asceticism variables

on self-reported alcohol use increase as attributed

denominational proscriptiveness increases.



Alcohol Use: Perceived Denominational
Proscriptiveness


This support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis is

compromised when measures of perceived denominational

prescriptiveness and proscriptiveness are used. The

findings reported in Models 3 and 4, in fact, run directly

counter to the Norm Qualities hypothesis. That is, the






-88-


effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on adolescent

alcohol use is stronger under perceived prescriptive

denominational norms (Model 3) than under perceived

proscriptive denominational norms (Model 4). This finding

may be due, in part, to the skewed distribution of the

perceived denominational proscriptiveness variable which

resulted in an n of only 137 subjects for the proscriptive

model. Perhaps the findings would be different had a larger

sample been available for analysis.



Conclusions


The four sets of comparisons presented in this chapter

(see Table 12 of Appendix F) provide grounds for the

following conclusions regarding the Norm Qualities

hypothesis:

1) Both the independent and the combined effects of
the three religion variables on self-reported
adolescent marijuana use are as strong or stronger
for those youth belonging to religious affiliations
traditionally attributed to be prescriptive in
normative orientations. These findings do not to
support the Norm Qualities hypothesis.

2) When denominational proscriptiveness is measured by
the subject's perception of their religion's
normative stance regarding marijuana use, then
support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis is
somewhat mixed. Both the variables that affect
adolescent marijuana use and the strength of their
effects vary across levels of perceived
denominational proscriptiveness. The deterrent
impact of the two indicators of religiosity is
stronger within religious affiliations perceived to
be prescriptive, while personal asceticism deters
use among those youth belonging to perceived
proscriptive denominations.






-89-


3) Strong support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis is
provided by the data on adolescent alcohol use when
analyzed across levels of attributed denominational
proscriptiveness. Nearly every comparison of the
independent effects of religiosity and personal
asceticism on alcohol use is stronger in the
proscriptive model than in the prescriptive model.
Likewise, comparisons of the cumulative impact of
these variables also support the Norm Qualities
hypothesis. While the predicted probability of use
remains constant across models for the weakly
religious, the probability of use for the strongly
religious is substantially less for those
adolescents belonging to proscriptive denominations
than for those from prescriptive religions (i.e.,
P(Y=1)= .38 versus .74, respectively).

4) However, extremely little support for the Norm
Qualities hypothesis is evident in these data on
self-reported adolescent alcohol use when
comparisons are made across levels of perceived
denominational proscriptiveness.

Why is the support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis so

varied? Why is the hypothesis supported for adolescent

marijuana use when analyzed across levels of perceived

denominational proscriptiveness but not for attributed

denominational proscriptiveness? Why is the hypothesis

so strongly supported for adolescent alcohol use when

analyzed across levels of attributed denominational

proscritiveness but not when analyzed across levels of

perceived denominational proscriptiveness? Perhaps the

following tentative explanations will serve to answer these

questions.

First, with regard to the findings on adolescent

marijuana use, the prescriptive/proscriptive denominational

attributions are based on the traditional stands these

religious affiliations take regarding alcohol use. These






-90-


may not be wholly accurate attributions, for there really

are no long-standing official doctrines relating

specifically to marijuana use. Thus, the lack of support

for the Norm Qualities hypothesis observed for marijuana use

may be a function of inaccurate attributions of

denominational norm qualities. However, it is quite

likely that during the time of this survey (1977) many

individual churches took an open and vigorous stand against

adolescent marijuana use. Those adolescents who attended

church when sermons were delivered, and Sunday school

discussions were held, denouncing the use of marijuana were

better able to accurately perceive the normative orientation

of their church while those failing to attend were less

accurate in their perceptions. Thus, accuracy in perception

may be related to religiosity which, in turn, is inversely

related to marijuana use. It may be such a spurious

relationship that accounts for the support provided to the

Norm Qualities hypothesis when analyzed across levels of

perceived denominational proscriptiveness. Then again,

perhaps the hypothesis is supported by these data simply

because it is valid.

There is, on the other hand, a long tradition of

official church doctrine regarding the use of alcohol

(Chalfant et al., 1981; Salisbury, 1964). These

prescriptive/proscriptive doctrines permit the clean and

accurate attribution of normative orientation, and, in turn,

provides perhaps the best test of the Norm Qualities




Full Text

PAGE 1

THE VARIABLE EFFECTS OF RELIGIOSITY ON DEVIANT BEHAVIOR By JOHN K. COCHRAN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1987

PAGE 2

Copyright 1987 by John K. Cochran

PAGE 3

Dedicated to Mom and Dad, Anne, and Kelly, and Walt

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the contributions made by my committee members: Professors Ronald L. Akers (chair), E. Wilbur Bock, Charles E. Frazier, Charles W. Thomas, and Alan Agresti. Their efforts and patience are greatly appreciated well beyond what can be stated here. I would also like to express my appreciation to Marvin D. Krohn, Lonn Lanza Kaduce, and Marcia J. Radosevich who, under the direction of Ronald L. Akers, were collaborators on all phases of the research project from which my data come. In addition, I would like to thank Dr. Ronald Feldman and his staff at The Boys Town center for the Study of Youth Development (Boys Town, Neb.) whose support and resources made possible the collection of these data by Akers and his associates. I would like to mention my appreciation for Professor Leonard Beeghley for his f r iendship, sage advice, and understanding throughout this dissertation project. I also wish to express my gratitude to Mrs. Adele Koehler whose vast word processing skills and knowledge of graduate school guidelines aided me immensely. It is only by the grace of God and Adele's talents that this project was ever completed. iv

PAGE 5

On a more personal note, I would like to especially thank Professors Charles E. Frazier and Ronald L. Akers whom I have had the good fortune to work with and learn from. Their guidance, patience, professional example, and friendship have served and will continue to serve me well. I remain forever indebted to Ron and Chuck and pray I never let them down. Finally, more than anyone else, I want to thank Anne, my wife, whose continued support, encouragement, and understanding were the driving forces behind my efforts. V

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. iv ABSTRACT.............................................. ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 TWO HELLFIRE AND BEYOND: THEORY AND HYPOTHESES ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND THREE FOUR DEVIANCE..................................... 5 The Early Literature......................... 5 The Hirschi and Stark Hellfire Hypothesis.... 6 First Revision: The Middleton and Putney Anti-Asceticism Hypothesis................. 9 Second Revision: The Jensen and Erickson Norm Qualities Hypothesis.................. 14 Thi r d Revision: The Stark et al. Moral Communities Hypothesis..................... 18 Fourth Revision: The Integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities Hypothesis...... 21 METHODOLOGY 22 Data......................................... 22 Dependent variables.......................... 25 Religious variables.......................... 28 Conditional variables........................ 31 Control Variables............................ 35 Method of Analysis........................... 35 HYPOTHESES AND MODELS ..... 42 The Hirschi and Stark Hellfire Hypothesis and Model.................................. 42 The Middleton and Putney Anti-Asceticism Hypothesis and Model....................... 43 The Jensen and Erickson Norm Qualities Hypothesis and Models...................... 44 The Stark et al. Moral Communities Hypothesis and Models...................... 45 The Integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities Hypothesis and Models............ 46 vi

PAGE 7

FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE Page TESTS OF THE HIRSCHI AND STARK HELLFIRE HYPOTHESIS................................... 48 R e ligiosity and Involvement in Delinquent Behavior................................... 49 Religiosity and Involvement in Specific For m s of Delinquent Behavior............... 52 R e ligiosity and Use of Hard Drugs............ 56 Conclusions.................................. 59 TESTS O F THE MIDDLETON AND PUTNEY ANTI ASCETICISM HYPOTHESIS ..................... 61 R e ligiosity and Premarital Sex............... 61 Religiosity and Marijuana use................ 64 R e ligiosity and Alcohol Use.................. 65 A Comparison of the Effects of Religiosity on Delinquent and Anti-Ascetic Behaviors... 69 R e ligiosity, Personal Asceticism, and Marijuana Use.............................. 70 Religiosity, Personal Asceticism, and Alcohol Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 2 Conclusions.................................. 73 T E STS O F THE JENSEN AND ERICKSON NORM QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS ....................... 76 Marijuana use: Att r ibuted Denominational Proscriptiveness........................... 77 Ma r ijuana use: Perceived Denominational Proscriptiveness........................... 80 Alcohol use: Att r ibuted Denominational Proscriptiveness........................... 83 Alcohol Use: P e rceived Denominational Proscr i ptiv e ness........................... 87 Conclusions.................................. 88 TESTS OF THE STARK ET AL. MORAL COMMUNITIES HYPOTHESIS ................ 92 Aggregat e Religiosity and Marijuana use...... 92 Aggregate R e ligiosity and Alcohol use........ 94 Conclusions.................................. 95 TESTS OF THE INTEGRATED MORAL COMMUNITIES NORM QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS .................. 97 Ma r ijuana use................................ 97 Alcohol Use..................... . . . . . . 99 Conclusions.................................. 101 vii

PAGE 8

TEN SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ................... 102 Summary ...................................... 105 The Anti-Asceticism Hypothesis Revisited: A Brief Note ............................... 114 Discussion................................... 118 APPENDICES A TABLE OF PRIOR RESEARCH ON THE RELIGIOSITY DEVIANCE RELATIONSHIP 128 B TABLE OF THE VARIABLES, THEIR CODINGS, AND DISTRIBUTIONS................................ 133 C RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE HIRSCHI AND STARK HELLFIRE HYPOTHESIS 139 D RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE MIDDLETON AND PUTNEY ANTI-ASCETICISM HYPOTHESIS ............... 153 E RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE JENSEN AND ERICKSON NORM QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS 163 F RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE STARK ET AL. MORAL COMMUNITIES HYPOTHESIS 174 G RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE INTEGRATED MORAL COMMUNITIES-NORM QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS 180 H TABLE OF PREDICTED PROBABILITIES ACROSS THEORETICAL MODELS 191 REFERENCES. 19 2 BIOGRAPHICA L SK E TCH 202 viii

PAGE 9

Abstract of Diss ertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE VARIABLE EFFECTS OF RELIGIOSITY ON DEVIANT BEHAVIOR by John K. Coc hran May 1987 Chair: Dr. Ronald L. Akers Major Department: sociology Since its original formulation in 1969 by Hirschi and Stark, the Hellfire hypothesis has undergone several significant revisions. This hypothesis asserts that the extent of involvement in deviant behavior is inversely related to the degree of religiosity. Early revisions of this hypothesis have stressed the particular salience of religiosity on behaviors in violation of ascetic norms such as alcohol and marijuana use over those for ms of deviance that are more secularly defined such as property crimes and personal offenses. Other revisions have called for the inclusion o f both direct and indirect religiosity effects. The indirect effects are believed to be mediated through a religiously based morality of personal asceticism. Additional modifications argue for the inclusion of interaction effects. For instance, the influence of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behaviors is said to vary across religious affiliations. That is, these religious influences are expected to be ix

PAGE 10

stronger among persons who identify with religious organizations that proscribe sensual indulgences like alcohol or marijuana use. Weaker effects, in turn, are expected for members of churches or denominations that are more tolerant of such behavior. Likewise, the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism are expected to vary by community type. Stronger effects are hypothesized for those persons who reside in communities where the majority express strong religious faith. Each of these respecifications and modifications of the original Hellfire hypothesis are tested with survey data or self-report e d deviance based on a sample of 3,065 male and female adolescents in grades seven through twelve in three midwestern states. The method of analysis employed is logistic regression and the results are quite mixed. While religiosity is inversely related with deviant behavior, its influence va r ies widely across forms of deviance. In addition, it appears that many of the revisions of the original hypothesis apply mainly to the consumption of alcohol and much less so for marijuana use. Limitations of the study are addressed and an attempt is made to ground the results in theory. X

PAGE 11

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION The belief that a lack of religious commitment is a major element in the etiology of deviant behavior is a view held by at least a third of the general populations of both the United States (Jensen, 1981) and Great Britain (Banks et al., 1975). This view has also been repeatedly suggested in print over the years (Cooley, 1927; Coogan, 1945, 1954; Teeters and Reinmann, 1950; Hronke, 1955; Lee, 1957; Webb and Webb, 1957; Benson, 1960; Neumeyer, 1961; Travers and Davis, 1961; Blatt, 1967; Reckless, 1967; Hoover, 1968; Schafer and Knudten, 1970). In addition, this belief has long been reflected in the common practice of requiring, or at least encouraging, regular church attendance as a part of crime / delinquency prevention and rehabilitation programs (Gannon, 1967; Misra, 1983). Nevertheless, many social scientists have been skeptical about the existence of an inverse religiosity deviant behavior relationship (Benson, 1960; Falk, 1961; President's Commission, 1967; Hirschi and Stark, 1969; Schur, 1969; Sutherland and Cressey, 1974). Indeed, many have argued that the relationship is probably positive -1

PAGE 12

-2(Ellis, 1910; Bonger, 1916; Lombroso, 1918; Steiner, 1924; Reckless and Smith, 1932; von Hentig, 1948; Barnes and Teeters, 1951; Argyle, 1959; Luden, 1964). Others skeptical of the existence of an inverse relationship between religiosity and deviant behavior, base their objections, 1n part, on what seems to be conflicting evidence in the literature (see Martin and Fitzpatrick, 1964; O'Dea, 1966; Knudten and Knudten, 1971). This controversy has been fueled in recent years by a growing body of research suggesting that religiosity and deviant behavior are, in fact, inversely related. Tittle and Welch (1983) report that only ten of the sixty-five studies they reviewed failed to report a significant negative relationship between religiosity and some indicator of deviant behavior. However, many contemporary social scientists still remain skeptical and are hesitant to grant the "religious factor" much worth. Often they base their criticisms on the absence of any sound theoretical explanations. Others claim that the observed relationships are essentially coincidental or spurious. While such criticisms can be legitimately leveled against the early research efforts, they lose much of their validity when applied to the more recent literature. These works consistently utilize more sophisticated methodologies and have produced improved theoretical specifications of an originally simplistic model. In the following chapter, I

PAGE 13

-3present a critical review of this body of literature and highlight the key theoretical developments. I analyze these developments as essentially progressive modifications or respecifications of the original "Hellfire and Delinquency hypothesis" tested by Hirschi and Stark (1969). I label the first modification, following the lead of Middleton and Putney (1962) and Burkett and White 1974), the "Antiasceticism hypothesis." The next, suggested by Jensen and Erickson (1979), I call the "Norm Qualities hypothesis." I follow that with the "Moral Communities hypothesis," based on the works of Stark et al. (1980; 1982). Finally, I suggest an integration of these modifications which I label the "Moral Communities-Norm Qualities hypothesis." In subsequent chapters I submit each of these hypotheses and the models derived from them to statistical tests with survey data on self-reported adolescent deviance (i.e., delinquency, substance use, and premarital sex). Thus, this dissertation represents the first time that all of the hypotheses which dominate the extant literature regarding the effects of religiosity on deviant and delinquent behavior are tested with one source of data in a single research effort. In addition, this study addresses many of the theor etical and methodological shortcomings of previous research Finally, a wider variety of deviant and delinquent behaviors is examined in this study than in any other work to date. As such, it is this author's opinion

PAGE 14

-4that this project will make a significant contribution to the literature and will not be just another study on the religiosity-deviant behavior relationship.

PAGE 15

CHAPTER TWO HELLFIRE AND BEYOND: THEORY AND HYPOTHESES ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGION AND DEVIANCE The Early Literature The early literature dealing with religiosity and deviance (i.e., studies conducted prior to 1969) is replete with works by reformers, priests, ministers, and others with a vested interest in demonstrating that religion acts do discourage deviance. In some cases they evaluated the effectiveness of church youth centers in preventing delinquency (Fitzpatrick, 1967) and in others they attempted to demonstrate how church sponsored homes for delinquents were able to instill moral values (Coogan, 1954). Many, however, discovered a relationship between religiosity and delinquent behavior opposite to that expected. That is, delinquents were often found to be more religious than nondelinquents (Schlapp and Smith, 1928; Middleton and Fay, 1941; Kvaraceus, 1944; Diaz, 1952; Falk, 1961; Gannon, 1967). With few exceptions, such studies were based on samples of institutionalized or known delinquents (e.g., Wattenberg, 1950). Their results, therefore, are questionable; for in many cases, it was in the interests of the institutionalized child to claim a highly religious character. In other studies, extreme groups of delinquents -5

PAGE 16

-6and nondelinquents were selected and compared. For example, Travers and Davis (1961) compared a sample of known delinquents to a sample of alter boys. The use of such extreme groups insured that these investigators would find a negative relationship between religiosity and delinquency. Finally, some of the studies conducted during this period did find an appreciable inverse effect (Healy and Bronner, 1936; Glueck and Glueck, 1950; Dominic, 1954; Miller, 1965). However, these studies are clearly dated and their findings should be viewed with some skepticism. (For a more thorough and critical review of these early works see Knudten and Knudten, 1971). The Hirschi and Stark Hellfire Hypothesis It was not until 1969 with the publication of "Hellfire and Delinquency" (Hirschi and Stark) that the religiosity deviant behavior relationship was again brought into prominence in the sociology of deviance. Hirschi and Stark tested the notion that "religious sanctioning systems play an important role in ensuring and maintaining conformity to social norms" (1969: 202). Religion was said to perform this role (1) through its system of beliefs which legitimizes social values, (2) through its rites and rituals that reinforce the commitment to these values, and (3) through its system of eternal rewards and punishment which ensures the embodiment of these values in actual behavior (1969: 202-203). In sum, religion both ensures conformity

PAGE 17

-7through its beliefs, rites, and rituals and deters deviance through the threat of hellfire for sinners. hypothesis" may be stated formally as This "Hellfire H 1 : The greater the degree of religiosity, the lower the probability of delinquent behavior. Using survey data from a sample of 4,007 students entering public junior and senior high schools in West Contra Costa County, California, Hirschi and Stark found that church attendance and belief in supernatural sanctions were not significantly related to self-reported delinquency. They claimed that religion was not an important factor in explaining deviant behavior. Their findings "quickly became the accepted word on the subject, frequently cited and widely reprinted" (Stark et al., 1982: 5). For some, these findings resulted in the argument that the "religious factor had finally been la id to rest" ( Jensen and Erickson, 197 9: 158), but for others they have served as a catalyst for the "resurgence of study into the relationship between religiosity and delinquency" (Anderson and Wakefield, 1983: 4). More recent research has suggested that religiosity is relevant to predicting deviant behavior (see Ellis, 1985 for a lucid review of this literature or Table 1 in Appendix A for a brief presentation). The year following Hirschi and Stark's landmark study Rhodes and Reiss (1970) examined the relationship between delinquency and truancy and religion using data obtained from over 20,000 junior and senior high school students in the Nashville and Davidson County,

PAGE 18

-8Tennessee, school systems. They concluded that there is a r eligious factor in delinquent a n d truant behavior. Five years later, in a study of high school and college student s Rohrbaugh and Jessor found religiosity to be ''correlated positively and significantly with other measures of personal controls and negatively with measures of deviance pronene s s and d e viant behavior" (1975: 153). In 1977, Higgins and Albrecht used self-report data from 1,383 Atlanta tenth graders to study the relationship betwe e n chu r ch attendance and a variety of delinquent behaviors. They found modest to moderately strong negative relationships between the frequency of church attendance and a list of seventeen delinquent behaviors. They suggested that their findings div e rge from Hi r schi and Stark's because of differences in the research settings. That is, religiosity may be more signif i cant in the South than in the West. Further support for the Hellfire hypothesis has been found by Albrecht et al. (1977). Using data collected from 244 Mormon teenagers in three western states, these authors found that when religious indicators were co m bined with m ea s ures of peer and family relationships into a contingent consistency model, good predi c tion of d ev iance was obtained (R 2 = .54 to .69). Jens e n and Erickson (1979) and Tittle and Welch (1983) have also found support for the Hellfire hypothesis.

PAGE 19

-9However, Elifson et al., in a study of 568 students attending grades nine through twelve in 21 public high schools in suburban DeKalb County (Atlanta), Georgia, found that "within a multivariate context religion's contribution as an independent variable was not statistically significant" (1983: 505). Likewise, Burkett and White (1974) in a replication of the original Hirschi and Stark study, observed that the frequency of church attendance was not significantly related to a six-item self-reported delinquency index for white senior class students in three Pacific Northwest high schools. Finally, Anderson and Wakefield (1983) found only mixed support for the Hellfire hypothesis with data from 170 Louisiana college students. That is, while significant inverse relationships were observed between religiosity and victimless crimes, no relationship was observed for c rimes against the person. These inconsistent findings suggest that the Hellfire hypothesis may be too broad and in need of revision. First Revision: The Middleton and Putney Anti-Asceticism Hypothesis Much of the prior research has used composite indices of delinquent behavior as the dependent variable. such indices fail to tap the forms of deviance that However, religion should theoretically be expected to influence in a contemporary, secular society. Agreeing with this argument, Middleton and Putney (1962: 142) state that

PAGE 20

-10there has been a failure to distinguish two different types of ethical standards--the ascetic and the social. Social standards proscribe actions which in general are harmful the social group, and tend to be shared as a part of a general social ideology. The fact that religious ideology may also proscribe these actions is incidental In contrast, ascetic standardsabstinence from sensual indulgences, gambling, and the like--derive primarily from an ascetic religious tradition. Within the context of religious ideology violations of ascetic standards may be spiritually harmful to the perpetrator. But since these violations are usually not directly or obviously harmful to the social group ascetic standards have less persuasiveness to the secularly oriented individual. He is therefore more likely to violate them. In short, ... difference in behavior of the religious and the nonreligious are confined to specific areas and are a product of difference in standards rather than of differential upholding of standards. Basing their ideas on this suggestion by Middleton and Putney, Burkett and White (1974) claimed that only when secular values are ambiguous in their definition of an activity as wrong can religiosity have an important deterrent impact. They suggest that behaviors such as premarital sex, gambling, and substance use, which are not consistently disapproved of in the secular setting, are more likely personal or property c rimes to be affected by religiosity. Using self-report data from 855 seniors in three Pacific Northwest high schools, Burkett and White found religiosity to be more predictive of adolescent alcohol and marijuana use than of a delinquency index based on property crimes and violent offenses. They concluded that "blanket generalizations regarding the relationship between religious participation and delinquency are not

PAGE 21

-11warranted," and that "religious participation is more closely related to some kinds of delinquent behavior than to others" (1974: 459). McLuckie et al. (1975: 132), in a survey of drug use based on a sample of over 30,000 students in grades seven through twelve, found that "a full 88.9% of those who regularly attend services, 1.e., attend once a week or more, are neither users nor quitters. Only 11.1% of regular attenders have ever used drugs. Among those who never attend, on the other hand, 25.8% have used drugs at one time or another." They also found that the zero-order correlation between attendance and drug use remained basically unchanged at the first order when several sociodemographic factors were controlled. In 1975, Rohrbaugh and Jessor observed that an eight item composite religiosity scale correlated significantly and positively to intolerance of premarital sex and marijuana use in a sample of male and female college and high school students. Religiosity was also seen to "function as a personal control by regulating problem behavior as theoretically expected" (1975: 146). That is, the composite religiosity scale correlated negatively with behavioral indicators of premarital sex and marijuana use for both high school and college students. Albrecht and his colleagues (Albrecht et al., 1977) also found support for the expectations of Burkett and White when they observed that religious variables were more

PAGE 22

-12strongly related to victimless than to victim deviance. Furthe r Linden and Cur r ie (1977), Jensen and Erickson (1979), Schlegel and Sanborn (1979), Turn e r and Willis (1979), Nelson and Rooney (1982), Elifson et al. (1983), And e rson and Wakefield (1983), Cochran and Bock (1984), Hadaway et al. (1984), Bock et al. (1985), and Cochran et al. (1986) have all found statistically significant, negativ e relationships between religiosity and some indicator of anti-ascetic behavior such as alcohol or drug use. In fact, the cumulative evidence suggests that religiosity and certain forms of anti-ascetic behavior are so related as to constitute an empirical generalization (Bock e t al., 1985). Thus, the original Hellfire hypothesis should be r e vised as follows: H 2 : The greater the degree of religiosity, the lower the probability of anti-ascetic behavior. Unfortunat e ly, in nearly all of t h e research reviewed to this poi n t a crucial element which serves as a key link between r e ligiosity and anti-ascetic behavior has been omitted. The omitted va r iable is the degree of r e ligiously based personal asceticism. In separate analyses of adolescent substance use, St e ven Burkett (1977; 1980) concluded t h at (1) the great e r the degree of involvement in religious a c tivities, the greater the likelihood that one will maintain religious beliefs opposed to the use of alcohol and marijuana, and (2) the more persons adhere to such beliefs, the less likely they are to use these

PAGE 23

-13substances. Thus, according to Burkett, "it is in the acceptance of a belief relating to a religiously based morality of personal asceticism, then, that the relationship between church attendance and use is most apparent" (1977: 2 67) Both Rohrbaugh and Jessor (1975) and Perkins (1985) have also recognized the importance of including a measure of the consequential salience of religion in one's daily life. Rohrbaugh and Jessor (1975) asked each of their respondents to indicate how much of an influence religion has on the way they choose to act and spend their time each day. Perkins (1985), however, assessed the respondent's personal attitude toward alcohol. While the Perkins measure is more directly relevant to a study on the effects of religiosity on anti-ascetic deviance than the consequential religiosity indicator used by Rohrbaugh and Jessor, neither measure is as theoretically appropriate as that used by Burkett (1977; 1980). Burkett asked his subjects to indicate the degree to which they believe that alcohol or marijuana use is a sin. In addition, neither Rohrbaugh and Jessor (1975) nor Perkins (1985) utilized their measures as variables linking religiosity to anti-asceticism. Only Burkett (1977; 1980) has included an indicator of religiously based personal asceticism in the theoretically appropriate manner. From his work we can add two corollaries to the anti-asceticism revision of the original Hellfire hypothesis:

PAGE 24

-14H 2 a: The greater the degree of religiosity, the greater the degree of personal asceticism. H 2 b: The greater the degree of personal asceticism, the lower the probability of anti-ascetic behavior. Second Revision: The Jensen and Erickson Norm Qual1t1es Hypothesis With few exceptions, empirical examinations of the religiosity-deviance relationship have been restricted to analyses at the individual level. These individual-level models stress that religious beliefs and activities function to deter the individual from engaging in behaviors which violate ascetic norms through the threat of supernatural sanctions. Though such a model is quite reasonable, particularly given the overwhelming consistency of supportive research, it makes no reference to social structure or process. A model that incorporates this individual-level process into a more sociological or structural framework would provide a more thorough specification and a better theoretical explanation. Such a model can be found in the work of Jensen and Erickson (1979). They suggest that one of the more severe flaws of the past research in this area is the failure to examine the differential effects of religiosity on anti ascetic behaviors across religious affiliations. Few studies have specified denominational breakdowns and nearly all have failed to consider the possibility of an

PAGE 25

-15interaction between religious affiliation and religiosity on deviance. Such studies have ignored the possibility that religiosity may be more relevant to understanding particular forms of deviance such as substance use in some denominations than in others (Jensen and Erickson, 1979: 159-160). In a study of 3,268 Arizona high school students, Jensen and Erickson (1979) observed that participation in a religion (i.e., Mormon) that strongly emphasizes asceticism and clearly proscribes drug use is particularly consequential for such activities. That is, church attendance is more strongly related to substance use among Mormon youth than among Catholics or Protestants. However, Jensen and Erickson also found that the prominence of this interaction between religion and religiosity weakens as the seriousness of substance increases. This is somewhat consistent with the expectations of Burkett and White (1974) for all denominations are probably quite similar in their stands on serious drug use. More distinctive differences are likely where denominational standards are more varied (e.g., alcohol and marijuana use) Nelson and Rooney (1982) with data from nearly 5,000 high school seniors from six states in the northeast also found that denomination and religiosity interact such that church attendance has a special impact on self-reported alcohol and marijuana use within the more proscriptive denominations. That is, members of Baptist, Methodist, and

PAGE 26

-16other fundamentalist Protestant sects reported a stronger inverse relationship between religiosity and substance use than did Catholics or members of the prescriptive Protestant denominations. Likewise, Nelson and Rooney witnessed a weakening of this interaction as the seriousness of the substance used increased. Cochran and Bock (1984) and Bock et al. (1985) each utilize the NORC General Social Surveys data and find that the relationship between religiosity and alcohol use varies across religious affiliations. In these studies, religiosity has the greatest deterrent impact on adult alcohol use for members of proscriptive denominations (i.e., those which take a strong stand against alcohol). In addition, Schlegel and Sanborn (1979) and Hadaway et al. (1982) have also found evidence of a significant interaction between religious affiliation and religiosity on self reported substance use. However, McIntosh et al. (1981) failed to find any significant affiliation-religiosity interactions. In fact their findings indicate that the effect of religiosity on adolescent drug use is quite stable across denominations. Linden and Currie (1977) even found evidence of a denomination-religiosity interaction contrary to that expected by Jensen and Erickson. That is, they observed a stronger inverse relationship between church attendance and drug use within the prescriptive denominations than within the proscriptive denominations.

PAGE 27

-17Thus, though the evidence is somewhat mixed and far from conclusive, the varying moral messages of religious affiliations appear to constitute important normative climates which impact upon the religiosity-anti-asceticism relationship. The addition of information on religious affiliation may permit a more precise specification of the revised Hellfire hypothesis and may be formally stated as fol lows: The greater the degree of denominational proscriptiveness, the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior. Without exception, however, each of the studies that have attempted to examine the influence of denomination on the relationship between religiosity and anti-ascetic behavior have categorized religious affiliations according to the proscriptiveness attributed to them by researchers. While such categorizations are fair and valid in only a very general sense, they are gross in the manner in which they treat as equal denominations with significant differences in doctrine. Only Cochran et al. (1986) have maintained these salient distinctions by analyzing the effect of religiosity on alcohol use within each denomination separately. However, even this study can be faulted for failing to consider differences that may exist in denominations with the same name. Perhaps a better method for distinguishing between proscriptive and prescriptive affiliations is available. Rather than categorizing according to attributions of proscriptiveness or prescriptiveness,

PAGE 28

-18denominations can be categorized by how they are perceived by their members. Krohn et al. (1982) found that the perceived normative climate of one's religious reference group was r e lated to both attitude towards and the use patterns of alcohol and marijuana. Employing indicators of both attributed and perceived denominational proscriptiveness results in the following corollaries to the above respecification of the r e vised Hellfire hypothesis: The greater the degree of attributed denominational proscriptivness, the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior. The greater the degree of perceived denominational proscriptivenss, the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior. Third Revision: The Stark et al. Moral Communities Hypothesis A second alternative model to the traditional individual-level model can be derived from the work of Durkheim. Durkheim (1915) defined religion as a unified system of beliefs and practices which serves to bind adherents into a moral community. This definition stresses a sociological feature of religion that is relevant to the study of deviant behavior. That is, religion is not said to make individuals afraid to sin, but to unite many individuals into a moral community. It is the community of moral adherents that controls the individual member from violating ascetic standards.

PAGE 29

-19This structural feature of religion is not an omnipresent and constant aspect of social life; rather, it is a va r iable feature. That is, societies and communities vary in the extent to which religion binds them into moral communities (Stark et al., 1982). In contemporary, indust r ial societies like the United States, where social norms are often highly secular, ambiguous, and unshared, m any people do not live in moral communities. People who do not reside in moral communities, even the very religious and devout, are more likely to violate ascetic norms. It is only in communities where religious influences permeate the culture and the social interactions of its members, where religion is an integral aspect of everyday life, that individual religiosity deters anti-ascetic behavior. Where religion is not as pervasive, the deterrent effect of individual religiosity is substantially reduced. Higgins and Albrecht (1977) were the first investigators to observe such a relationship. They suggested that a possible reason why their findings differed from those of Hirschi and Stark (1969) might be due to the varying religious climates of the communities studied. That is, the null finding of Hirschi and Stark may be due to the fact that their sample was drawn from the nonreligious West, whereas the Higgins and Albrecht s a mple was drawn from the more religious South. Stark et al. (1980) were able to support this argument. They found a highly significant correlation between church

PAGE 30

-20membership rates and the overall crime rates in 193 SMSAs. In a second analysis based upon self-report data, these authors found that there is also a very substantial negative relationship between religiosity and delinquency in those secondary schools in which religious students are the majority (Stark et al., 1982). This relationship diminishes as the proportion of religious students decreases and vanished in the highly secularized West Coast schools. According to Tittle and Welch (1983), because most religions are devoted to the practice and promotion of moral behavior, it follows that participation in religious activities exposes one to definitions unfavorable toward anti-ascetic behavior. The probability is greatest that religious individuals who inhabit moral communities are more likely to be exposed to an excess of definitions unfavorable toward anti-ascetic behavior; hence, such individuals should be least likely to engage in anti-ascetic behaviors. Whether a control or a differential association framework is preferred, the resulting empirical model is the same. This model states that the preventive effect of individual religiosity on ascetic norm violations is greatest in those communities where religion is most pervasive. This model may be stated formally as a testable hypothesis as follows: The greater the degree of aggregate religiosity, the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior.

PAGE 31

-21Forth Revision: The Integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities Hypothesis Though presently unexplored, the hypotheses generated from the three revisions of the Hellfire hypothesis just reviewed can be integrated into a theoretically more complete model. That is, the relationship between religiosity, personal asceticism, and anti-ascetic behavior may be conditional upon not just the proscriptive or prescriptive norm qualities of the various religious affiliations, nor simply upon the degree of aggregate religiosity; but rather, upon both denominational proscriptiveness and aggregate religiosity. As such, the relationship between religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior varies by both denominational norms (either proscriptive or prescriptive), and the extent to which the communities under examination represent moral communities (i.e., high versus low aggregate religiosity). The following hypothesis is generated from such an integration: The greater the degree of denominational proscriptiveness (attributed or perceived) and the greater the degree of aggregate religiosity, the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior.

PAGE 32

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Data The data for this study come from research directed by Ronald L. Akers and Marvin D. Krohn designed to examine adolescent substance use and delinquent behavior and supported by the Boys Town Center for the Study of Youth Development (See Akers et al., 1979; Krohn and Massey, 1980; Krohn et al., 1982). These data will be referred to here as the "Boys Town data." These data were collected by administ er ing anonymous, confidential questionnaires to 3,065 male and female adolescents attending grades seven through twelve in seven school districts in three midwestern states. In the collection of these data, Akers and his associates followed a two-stage sampling design. First, schools from within each of the participating school districts w e re selected; second, two to three classrooms per grade level per school from a m ong the requi re d or general enrollment classes were selected. Schools were selected so as to be representative in terms of size and location within their dist r icts. In the smaller districts this meant selecting all or almost all of the junior and senior high schools in the district. Classrooms w e re also selected in -22

PAGE 33

-23terms of school and average classroom size. Although classrooms were sampled, each student had an approximately equal chance of being included in the sample. This design was structured to limit the involvement of as few schools and school personnel as possible, to minimize intrusion into the school routine, and to facilitate the administration of the questionnaire to groups of respondents. The questionnaire was administered to all students in attendance in the selected classrooms on the day of the survey who had obtained written parental permission. Overall, 74% of the parental permission forms distributed one week prior to the administration of the questionnaire were returned. Ninety-five percent of those returning these forms were granted permission to participate. Attrition from this parental permission procedure combined with absenteeism on the day of the survey reduced the proportion of students who answered the questionnaire to 67% of the total number enrolled in the sampled classrooms. While this is somewhat lower than the response rate obtained in many the national studies, it is better than others have reported when the affirmative permission procedure is adopted (see Radosevich et al., 1979). The design followed by Akers and his colleagues does not technically constitute a random sample of subjects. In fact, there was no attempt to obtain a probability sample nor to insure that the sample was regionally or nationally representative. Nevertheless, the sample is sufficient to allow tests of the various

PAGE 34

-24religiosity-deviant behavior hypotheses derived from the literature review presented in Chapter Two. Careful steps were taken to insure the rights of the research participants. The usual university procedures were followed regarding approval of the projects procedures for protection of the rights of the respondents and of the school districts. Prior to the administration of the questionnaire, the sampled classrooms were visited. During each visit the students were informed of the survey and were given an envelope containing a letter explaining the purpose and content of the study to the parents and a parental consent form. The students were told that their participation in the study was completely voluntary, that their participation was not a condition for class credit or any other school requirement, and that approval of the study by the district and school officials in no way made their participation mandatory. The students were assured that their anonymity would be protected and that their responses would be held in strictest confidence. The identification of the participating school districts, communities, and schools was also protected. Finally, a small purposive subsample (n = 106) of the respondents in five of the seven districts volunteered for follow-up interviews two to eight weeks after the administration of the questionnaire. These follow-up interviews were intended to serve as reliability and partial validity checks on the questionnaire responses. Research

PAGE 35

-25has consistently shown that the self-report questionnaire technique is reliable and valid in measuring adolescent substance use and delinquent behavior (Whitehead and Smart, 1972; Block et al., 1974; Groves, 1974; Single et al., 1975; Hardt and Peterson-Hardt, 1980; Zimmerman and Broder, 1980; Hindelang et al., 1981; Akers et al., 1983). The checks on these data by Akers and his associates (1979:640-641) confirm this; internal consistency on interlocking items was high (Gammas = .91 and higher). In addition, a comparison of the responses to the substance use items on the questionnaire with responses to the same items asked during the follow-up interviews demonstrated a high degree of test retest reliability with Gammas= .89 and higher (Akers et al., 1979:641). Given the high consistency on these sensitive items, there is little reason to suspect lower reliability in the responses to other items. Dependent variables Indicators of Delinquent Behavior Appropriate tests of the Hellfire hypothesis (H 1 ) require indicators of serious deviant behavior broad enough to tap a wide range of norm violations. In the past, serious deviant behavior has been operationalized by indices of self-reported offending. Two types of indicators of serious deviant behavior are available in these data. The first set of measures contains indices of

PAGE 36

-26delinquency. Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency--never, once or twice, several times, or very often--that they had engaged in behaviors on a delinquency checklist. The items on this checklist include vandalism motor vehicle theft, assault, use of or threatening to use a weapon, theft of things worth $2 to $50, and theft of things worth more than $50. The distribution of responses on these items indicates that fewer than 11% of the subjects are involved in any of these delinquent behaviors more frequently than once or twice. Because of these highly skewed distributions, binary variables distinguishing between those youth who admit at least some involvement (1) and those who claim that they have never engaged in each delinquent behavior (0) are constructed. In addition to each of these dichotomized dependent variables, a dichotomous delinquency index is also constructed. This index distinguishes those youth who indicate no delinquency involvement (0) from those admitting at least some involvement in one or more of the items on the checklist ( l) The other measures of serious deviant behavior available in these Boys Town data are indicators of hard drug usage. Respondents were asked to indicate the frequency with which they had used stimulants, depressants, psychedelics, and narcotics. Response categories for these items were fixed and range along a six -point ordinal scale from O = never to 5 = use nearly every day. Like the

PAGE 37

-27delinquency items discussed above, the distributions on these hard drug use items are highly skewed. Therefore, these items are also dichotomized to distinguish nonusers (0) from users (1). In addition, a dichotomous hard drug use index is also constructed. This index distinguishes abstinent youth (0) from those who report at least some use of one or m ore of these substances (1). Indicators of Anti-Ascetic Behavior Each of the modifications of the Hellfire hypothesis assert that the effect of religiosity and personal asceticism on d e viant behavior is strongest for violations of ascetic standards. Indicators of such anti-ascetic behaviors have typically included alcohol use, marijuana use, and premarital sex. Items m easuring each of these indicators are available in these data. As with the frequency of hard drug use items discussed above, respondents w e re asked to indicat e the frequency with which they had used be e r, wine, liquor, and marijuana. Though the response catego r ies for these items range from 0 = never to 5 = use nearly every day, all values indicating at least some use are collapsed to form a single category. The e m ployment of this coding procedure permits the dichotomization of these less s e rious substance use items (0 = nonuser, 1 = user). A general binary variable distinguishing abstainers from users of alcohol is also constructed. The final dependent variable is a dichotomous distinction

PAGE 38

-28between those adolescents reporting no experience with premarital sex (0) and those claiming at least some involvement (1). Religious variables Religiosity Religiosity is here defined as the extent to which one is religious, pious, or devout; the degree to which one expresses a sincere and earnest regard for religion. Such an orientation toward religion can serve many and diverse roles, from providing meaning to one's life, to yielding a sense of personal fulfillment, to securing access to social contacts and interpersonal relationships, to offering a set of standards against which to judge and guide one's actions (Rohrbaugh and Jessor, 1975). The present concern is with only one such aspect, namely, the role of religiosity as a control against deviance. The aim is to present evidence of the relationship of religiosity to measures of deviant behavior. The complexity of religiosity as a concept is reflected in debates about its operat ionalization and about its single or multi-dimensionality. Religiosity has been measured in as many disparate ways as the frequency of attendance at religious services to the intensity of feelings of personal inspiration. Regarding the issue of dimensionality, early scholars were generally in agreement that the key element in

PAGE 39

-29religiosity was a personal belief in a transcendent reality such as God (James, 1902; Durkheim, 1915). More recent scholars, however, have urged a multi -dimensional view. Their perspective acknowledges the centrality of religious beliefs or ideology, but encompasses other elements as well such as the consequential influence or salience of religion on one's daily life, and the actual participation in religious rituals (Glock and Stark, 1965). While it would be preferable to construct measures of religiosity which systematically cover each of these dimensions, the items available in the Boys Town data are limited to two single-item measures of religiosity. Fortunately, the validity of such single-item measures of religiosity has been demonstrated (Gorsuch and McFarland, 1972). No measures of religious participation nor of religious ideology were included in the survey. The two religiosity measures available and their corresponding response categories and metrics are Religiousness: How religious a person are you? (1) not religious at all (2) a little religious (3) more than a little religious (4) quite religious Participatory Salience: Check the importance to you of the church group activities in which you participate or would like to participate: (1) not important at all ( 2 ) u n i m po r tan t ( 3 ) imp or tan t (4) very important

PAGE 40

-30Personal Asceticism As indicated earlier, most of the previous research on the relationship of religiosity with anti-ascetic behavior is limited by the presence of omitted variable bias. The key omitted va ri able is the degree of religiously based personal asceticism. This measure serves as a crucial link between religiosity and anti-ascetic behavior; for religiosity is not only consequential in its direct preventive effect on ascetic deviance, but is also influential in its effect on one's beliefs and values. That is, the greater the degree of religiosity the greater the likelihood that one will maintain religious beliefs opposed to violations of ascetic norms. In turn, these religiously based personal attitudes also serve to prevent anti-ascetic behaviors. Thus, religiosity's effect on ascetic norm violations is both direct and mediated through personal ascetic beliefs and values. Personal asceticism is operationalized in these data by two items which asked the respondents to indicate their attitude toward both alcohol and marijuana use. The response categories for each of these items were collapsed to construct dichotomous distinctions between those holding proscriptive definitions of use (1) and those with prescriptive definitions (0). To insure that these indicators of personal asceticism are a reflection of religious norm qualities, the effects of the normative orientations of significant adults and peers

PAGE 41

-31are controlled for. These control variables are measured by four questionnaire items which asked the respondents to report their perceptions of the norms governing alcohol and marijuana use (either proscriptive or prescriptive) held by those adults and peers whose opinions the respondent highly valued. Krohn et al. (1982) have shown with these data that respondent's attitudes toward alcohol and marijuana use are consistent with religious norms when controlling for the effects of peer and adult norms and therefore can constitute religiously based beliefs and values. Conditional variables Religious Norm Qualities According to the Norm Qualities hypothesis (H 3 ), the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti ascetic beha v ior vary with the differing normative orientations toward alcohol and marijuana of the va r ious religious affiliations. That is, some denominations take a strong stand against substance use while others tend to be more prescriptive. These varying moral messages constitute important normative climates which should affect the impact of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior. To test this hypothesis it is, of course, necessary to operationalize these varying religious moral messages. Two measures of denominational proscriptiveness are available in these data. The first is the more

PAGE 42

-32traditional indicator of denominational proscriptiveness that is based on normative orientations attributed to the religion based on knowledge of doctrine or liturgy; the other is a measure of respondents' perceptions of the norms of the religious group with which they identify. Prior research has frequently grouped mainstream American religions according to attributed moral climate (Linden and Currie, 1977; Schlegel and Sanborn, 1979; Jensen and Erickson, 1979; McIntosh et al., 1981; Nelson and Rooney, 1982; Hadaway et al., 1982; Cochran and Bock, 1984; Bock et al., 1985). These efforts have consistently categorized Baptists, Methodists, and Fundamentalist Protestants together because of the clear ascetic stands against sensual indulgences that these denominations are known to take. Other categorizations typically include the remaining Protestant denominations (i.e., Lutherans, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians), Catholics, Jews, and the non-affiliated. Though these groupings are rarely combined, they are often treated similarly because of their relatively prescriptive normative orientations regarding alcohol use. These prescriptive/proscriptive categorizations of mainstream religious affiliations are consistent with their liturgical use or non-use of alcohol during religious ceremonies (Bock et al., 1985). That is, those affiliations that are typically att r ibuted as prescriptive tend also to include alcohol (wine) in their religious practices, while

PAGE 43

-33the three prosc r iptive denominations prohibit such liturgical consumption. Bainton (1945) has identified a thi r d normative camp that encourages even excessive and unprescribed use. However, this permissive or "orgiastic" category has no re p resentatives in mainst r ea m fu~ e rican religious life. Therefore, attributed de n ominational proscriptiveness is operationalized by a dichoto m ous va r iable distinguishing between thes e two dominant religious normative climates. Responde n ts who indicated that their religious preference was eithe r Baptist, Methodi s t, or Pentacostal are grouped togeth e r as proscriptive denominations and are contrasted with those whose religious preference was Catholic, Jewish, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyt er ian, or none (0 = prescriptive, 1 =proscriptive). Respondents who indicated "other" a s their religious prefe r ence are coded as missing. Perceived denominational proscriptiveness is measured by responses to a question about what the respondents believe their religion teaches about t h e use of alcohol and marijuana. As with the other perceived norm qualities measures, per c eived denominational proscriptiveness is coded to distinguish those who perceive their religion to be proscriptive in its stand on al c ohol and marijuana use from those who perceive their religion to be more prescriptive. The effects of r e ligiosity and personal asceticism on anti-asc e tic behaviors will be evaluated for each category

PAGE 44

-34of attributed and perceived denominational proscriptivness. The effects are expected to vary by category with the strongest preventive effects predicted for those in the proscriptive groupings. Aggregate Religiosity A test of the Moral Communities hypothesis (H 4 ) requires a measure which, at a minimum, distinguishes moral communities from non-moral communities. A moral community is said to exist where "a majority profess religious faith" (Stark et al., 1980: 44). This definition leads to an operationalization of the concept "moral community" by an indicator of aggregate religiosity (see Stark et al., 1980; 1982 and Tittle and Welch, 1983) Here, aggregate religiosity is measured by the percent per school district expressing strong religiosity. The seven co mm u n i t i es ( i e sch o o 1 d i s tr i c ts ) that participated in the Boys Town project are categorized into moral communities according to their levels of aggregate religiosity. Those communities in which a majority (i.e., greater than 50%) express that they are quite religious are grouped together under the heading "high aggregate religiosity" which serves as an indicator of the presence of a "moral community" in the sense used by Stark et al. Those in which 50% or less express that they are very religious are similarly grouped, though under the heading "low aggregate religiosity"--an indicator of the relative

PAGE 45

-35absence of a "moral community" as here defined. The effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior are expected to vary across levels of aggregate religiosity with stronger effects predicted for those residing in moral communities than for those isolated from such communities. Control variables Eight control variables are employed in this study: four have already been introduced (i.e., the perceived normative orientations of both significant adults and peers regarding the use of alcohol and marijuana), the other four controls are the sociodemographic variables of age, race, gender, and SES. These variables are each coded in a straightforward manner: age is coded continuously in years, race and gender are each dummy coded with black and female, respectively, as the reference categories (all nonwhite, nonblack respondents have been coded as missing), finally SES is a measure of father's occupation (i.e., 9 point Census occupation category index). Table 2 in Appendix B presents the variables to be used in this analysis, their codings, and their distributions. Method of Analysis The method of analysis employed in this study is an analytic technique suitable for binary response dependent

PAGE 46

-36variables. This technique utilizes a logistic regression procedure available in SAS (SAS, 1983). Although it is tempting to use the more common OLS multiple regression technique to investigate the influence of religiosity and personal asceticism on the indicators of deviant behavior, the presence of dichotomous dependent variables introduces several problems into the use of the general linear model approach commonly estimated by ordinary least squares--OLS (Hanushek and Jackson, 1977). In order for multiple regression to provide the best, linear unbiased estimates (BLUE), the error terms must be normally distributed and independent of the values of the explanatory variables. However, in the case of dichotomous dependent variables the error terms are, by definition, also restricted to take on but two values. In such a situation the error terms are clearly not normally distributed. Error terms created by the dichotomous nature of the observations are also likely to be correlated with the values of the explanatory variables--clearly in violation of the above OLS assumption. Furthermore, in these situations (where the dependent variable, and consequently the error terms, can take on only two values), the assumption of equal variance of the error terms is also violated. Use of an OLS technique, therefore, would yield inefficient estimates and would render tests of significance meaningless. A common solution to these problems concerning the distribution of the error term is the use of a generalized

PAGE 47

-37or weighted least squares technique. However, this "solution" does not address the additional problem of inapprop r iate functional form due to the use of a linear solution for equations involving dichotomous dependent variables. Fitting a linear function to such variables would create an equation that yields probability estimates that extend beyond the possible probability range bound between o and 1. These observations suggest, therefore, that a non linear fun c tion is more reasonable. The appropriate non linear function 1s that of the general S-curve. Such a sigmoid fun c tion implies that a change in probability becomes more difficult to obtain as the probability approaches the natural limits of 0 and 1. Clearly such a solution is theoretically more appropriate. The use of a maximum likelihood logit technique overcomes the difficulties pr e sented by both the violation of the OLS error term assumptions and the inadequate linear functional form. Moreover, as multiple regression minimizes the distance b e tween the observations and the regression line, logistic regression operates to maximize the probability of obtaining the observed data given the set of independent variables (see Chapter 7 of Hanushek and Jackson, 1977 and Chapter 6 of Agresti, 1984). Although this technique involves a different algorithm than the OLS solution, its use and interpretation are somewhat analogous. For instance, where in OLS regression an F statistic is computed to test the statistical significance of the model,

PAGE 48

-38a similar test is available in logistic regression through the calculation of a chi-square statistic. Likewise, the statistical significance of the relative effects of the explanatory variables can also be computed. A proportional effect for each independent variable with an interpretation analogous to that of the unstandardized regression coefficients in OLS can also be calculated (refer to the partial derivative formula in Hanushek and Jackson, 1977:188-189). To do so the logistic regression coefficients must be transformed into instantaneous rate of change coefficients which estimate the proportional change in the predicted probability of falling into category 1 rather than category O of the dependent va r iable for each one-unit change in an independent variable, controlling for the influence of all other independent variables when evaluated as a linear effect tangent to the logistic curve at a particular point of comparison. The proportional effect of an independent variable, Xk, is Pk, where Pk= bk[p(l p)], where bk is the logistic regression coefficient, and where [p(l p)] is the variance of the dependent variable at the instantaneous point of comparison, p (typically the mean of the dependent variable). These instantaneous rate of change coefficients describe the relative effects of an independent variable as a function of its contribution to the slope of the line tangent to the logistic curve at this single point of comparison. Thus, the value of the proportional change in the predicted

PAGE 49

-39probability of Y = 1 will vary according to the value of p chosen. Here, Pk will be evaluated at the mean of the dependent variable. Choosing another value of p would yield different estimates of the proportional effects, but the size of the coefficients relative to one another would remain the same. While such estimates are technically improper, they do provide an interpretation similar to that for OLS regression coefficients and are therefore informative. Of course the more technically correct interpretation of these logistic regression coefficients (i.e., multiplicative effects on the odds) is also provided. The former are employed solely for their clarity of interpretation. Finally, SAS reports an additional estimate of the relative effects of each of the independent variables (Rk). This statistic is a measure of association for the relationship between each independent variable and the dependent va r iable controlling for the effects of the other independent variables in the model. As such, it is claimed by Frank Harrell, the author of the SAS logistic regression procedure, to be analog ous to the partial r statistic available in OLS regression. In addition to these estimates of the relative effects of the independent variables, the predicted probability of falling into category 1 of the dependent variables P(Y=l) for bo th those who indicate high levels of religiosity and those with low levels of religiosity is also reported.

PAGE 50

-40To compute these probabilities, one must first solve for L, the logit coefficient. This statistic is a function of the model intercept plus the sum of the products of each of the logistic regression coefficients (bk) and some value of Xk (i.e., L =a+ IbkXk). The means of the control variables and both the maximum and minimum values of the religiosity and personal asceticism variables are used for the values of Xk in this equation. Once Lis computed, the predicted probability of falling into category 1 of the dependent variable (i.e., P(Y=l)) can then be easily derived by dividing the inverse of L by one plus the inverse of L, i.e., [eL / 1 + eL)]. Employing both the minimum and maximum values of the religiosity and personal asceticism measures enables the comparison of the predicted probabilities for those who are strongly religious with that for those who are weakly religious. The reader should be cautioned, however, that such comparisons are valid only at the mean of the control variables. One final comment, this SAS logistic regression procedure employs listwise deletion in its handling of missing data. This often resulted in a sizable reduction in the number of observations to be analyzed. Such reductions, of course, can have quite a substantive impact on one's findings. It was determined that the vast majority of deleted observations contained missing information on the SES measure, an important contextual variable necessary as a control in these analyses. A follow-up analysis, however,

PAGE 51

-41indicated that there were no substantial differences regarding the distributions of the dependent or religion va r iables between those observations with missing data on SES and those with complete information (tables not reported). In addition, several models were reanalyzed with the SES variable excluded, thereby avoiding any substantive problems due to listwise deletion. No notable differences were observed (tables not reported). I am fairly confident, therefore, that these reductions in the number of observations analyzed had little or no substantive impact on the findings reported below.

PAGE 52

CHAPTER FOUR HYPOTHESES AND MODELS The review of the literature presented in Chapter Two traces several significant revisions and modifications of the original Hellfire hypothesis which asserts a negative relationship between religiosity and deviance. In this chapter I present the hypotheses derived from that literature review and add simple path diagram models corresponding to each hypothesis. The Hirschi and Stark Hellfire Hypothesis and Model H 1 : The greater the degree of religiosity, the lower the probability of delinquent behavior. RELIGIOSITY---------------, DELINQUENT BEHAVIOR Figure 4.1 The Hellfire Model. -42

PAGE 53

-43The Middleton and Putney Anti-Asceticism Hypothesis and Model H 2 : The greater the degree of religiosity, the lower the probability of anti-ascetic behavior. a. The greater the degree of religiosity, the greater the degree of personal asceticism. b. The greater the degree of personal asceticism, the lower the probability of anti-ascetic behavior. RELIGIOSITY-~----+---------->ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR PERSONAL ASCETICISM Figure 4.2 The Anti-Asceticism Model.

PAGE 54

[A] -44The Jensen and Erickson Norm Qualities Hypothesis and Models The greater the degree of denominational proscriptiveness, the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti ascetic behavior. a. The greater the degree of attributed denominational proscriptiveness, the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti ascetic behavior. b. The greater the degree of perceived denominational proscriptiveness, the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti ascetic behavior. PRESCRIPTIVE (Attributed or Perceived) RELIGIOSITY ~~----+----------)ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR [B] PERSONAL ASCETICISM PROSCRIPTIVE (Attributed or Perceived) RELIGIOSITY--------------ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR PERSONAL ASCETICISM Figure 4.3 The Norm Qualities Models.

PAGE 55

-45The Stark et al. Moral Communities Hypothesis and Models H 4 : The great e r the de g ree of aggregate r e ligiosity, the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal asceticis m on anti-asc et ic behavior. [A] LOW AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY (absence of a moral community) RELIGIOSITY----------------ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR [B] PERSONAL ASCETI C ISM HIGH AGGREGAT E RELIGIOSITY (presence of a moral community) RELIGIOSITY-~----+----------)ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR PERSONAL ASCETICISM Figur e 4.4 The Moral Communities Models.

PAGE 56

[A] -46The Integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities Hypothesis and Models The greater the degree of denominational proscriptiveness (attributed or perceived) and the greater the degree of aggregate religiosity, the stronger the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior. LOW AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY (absence of a moral community) PRESCRIPTIVE (Attributed or Perceived) RELIGIOSITY~------------~ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR [BJ PERSONAL ASCETICISM LOW AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY (absence of a moral community) PROSCRIPTIVE (Attributed or Perceived) RELIGIOSITY-------------~ASCET:CISM >ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR Figure 4.5 The Moral Communities-Norm Qualities Models.

PAGE 57

-47HIGHER AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY [C] HIGH AGGREGATE RELIGIOSITY (presence of a moral community) PRESCRIPTIVE (Attributed or Perceived) RELIGIOSITY...-------------~ANTI-ASCETIC BEHAVIOR [D] / PERSONAL ASCETICISM HIGH AGGREGAT E RELIGIOSITY (presence of a moral community) PROSCRIPTIVE (Attributed or Perceived) Figure 4.5 continued.

PAGE 58

CHAPTER FIVE TESTS OF THE HIRSCHI AND STARK HELLFIRE HYPOTHESIS Table 3 in Appendix C presents the results of several logistic regression analyses each testing the Hirschi and Stark Hellfire hypothesis (H 1 ). Each model reported regresses a dichotomous indicator of serious deviant behavior on the two measures of religiosity--religiousness and importance o f church activities--as well as the four socio-demographic control variables (i.e., age, race gender, and SES). Each model contains th e follo wing statistical information: in the top portion of the table are (1) the logistic regression coefficients (bk) and (2) their standard errors-se(bk), (3) the proportional changes in the predicted probability of Y = 1 for one-unit changes in the independent variables (Pk--also referred to as instantaneous rate of change coefficients), (4) estimates of the relative effects of the independent variables (Rk or partial Rs), and (5) the intercept; in the middle of the table are (6) the -2 log likelihoods for the model containing the intercept only as well as for (7) the complete model, (8) the model chi square, (9) the coefficient of mu ltiple correlation for the model (RL see SAS, 1979:183), (10) the mean of the dependent va ri able (Y), and (11) the sample size (N); and at the bottom of the table are (12) the overall predicted -48

PAGE 59

-49probabilities of falling into category 1 of the dependent variable, P(Y=l), for both the strongly and the weakly religious. Parameter estimates are arbitrarily defined to be statistically discernible from zero when the attained significance levels for the various statistical tests are less than .05. While such tests of significance are technically inappropriate due to the design of the data collection, they will be retained for their informative value. Religiosity and Involvement in Delinquent Behavior The first model reported in Table 3 (Model 1) presents a test of the Hellfire hypothesis with the dichotomous delinquency index. The findings indicate some support for the Hellfire hypothesis. That is, both of the religiosity measures are related to involvement in delinquent behavior in the theoretically expected, negative, direction (i.e., bk= -.223 and -.409) and each effect parameter is statistically discernible from zero. The logistic regression coefficient of bk= -.223 for religiousness means that the odds of delinquent involvement is multiplied by exp(-.223) = .8 for every one-unit increase in religiousness. Thus, the odds of involvement in delinquent behavior are estimated to be .8 3 = .51 times as high for the "quite religious" adolescents as for those who indicate that they are "not religious at all." The odds of delinquent

PAGE 60

-50involvement is multiplied by exp{-.409) = .66 for every one unit increas e in participatory salience. Thus, the odds of involvement in delinquent behavior are estimated to be .66 3 = .29 times as high for those adolescents for whom participation in church a c tivities is "very important" as for those for whom such participation is "not impo r tant at all." The closer the value of this ratio is to zero th e stronger the inverse effect. An odds of 1 suggests no relationship a n d the closer this value is to positive infi n ity, the stronger the positive relationship. The values of the partial R coefficients indicat e that the impact of the religiousness variable is less than that of participatory salience on self-reported involvement in delinquent b e havior {Rk= -.062 v e rsus -.103, respectively). The instantaneous rate of change coefficients when evaluated at the mean of Y indicate that for each one-unit increase in r e ligiousness, the proportional changes in the predicted probability of delinquency involvement decreases by four percentage points {Pk= -.041). Thus, youth who claim to be "quite religious" have a predicted probability of involvement in delinquent behavior that is 12% less than that for those who indicate that they are "not religious at all." Likewise, the proportional change in the predicted probability of delinquent behavior decreases by 7.5 percentage po i nts for each one-unit in c rease in the importance of chu rc h activities. For those adolescents who

PAGE 61

-51feel that involvement in church activities is "very important," the predicted proportional probability of involvement in delinquency is almost 23 percentage points less than that for those to whom such involvement is "not important at all." Perhaps the strongest evidence in support of the Hellfire hypothesis can be found in the overall probability of self-reported delinquency involvement, P(Y=l), predicted for the strongly religious compared to that for the weakly religious. Again, the reader is cautioned that these probability estimates are valid only at the means of the control variables. For those youth who are "quite religious" and for whom involvement in church activities is "very important," the predicted probability of delinquency is only .09. However, for those who are "not religious at all" and for whom participation in church activities is "not important at all," the predicted probability is much greater, P(Y=l)= .40. The difference in these predicted probabilities is .31, with the weakly religious far more at risk than the strongly religious. In fact the weakly religious are about 4.4 times more likely to report some involvement in delinquent behavior than the strongly religious. In sum, the data lend solid support to the Hellfire hypothesis; the likelihood of involvement in delinquent behavior is substantially reduced for those adolescents who are most religious.

PAGE 62

-52Religiosity and Involvement in Specific Forms of Delinquent Behavior The next six models presented in Table 3 (Models 2 through 7) report the findings of the logistic regression analyses testing the Hellfire hypothesis on the dichotomous dependent variables representing specific forms of delinquent behavior (i.e., vandalism motor vehicle theft, assault, weapon use, and both petty and grand theft). Each model provides some additional, though limited, support for the Hellfire hypothesis. With onl y one exception--the effect of religiousness on vandalism-th e religiosity variables are inversely related with each form of delinquent behavior examined. The mult iplicative effects on the odds for each one-unit increase in religiousness vary from exp(-.193) = .82 for petty th eft to exp(-.338) = .71 for assau lt, excluding the positive effect of religiousness on vandalism. Thus, the odds of involvement in these forms of delinquency are estimated to be between .71 3 = .36 and .82 3 = .55 times as high for "quite religious" teens as for the "not religious at all." Similarly, the odds of such delinquency involvements are estimated to be between [exp(-.463)] 3 = .25 and [exp(-.087) J 3 = .77 tim es as high for those youths for whom participation in church activities is "very important" as for t h os e who rep ort that such participation is "not important at all." Finally, the instantaneous rate of change coefficients (Pk) reported in these models range from

PAGE 63

--------------------------53a low of -.014 for the effect of religiousness on self reported involvement in grand theft to a high of -.116 for participatory salience and vandalism. These values indicate that, when evaluated at the mean of the dependent variables, and while controlling for the effects of the other independent variables, each one-unit change in the religiosity indicators results in from 1.4 to 11.6 percentage point decreases in the predicted probabilities of involvement in these delinquent behaviors. These findings suggest that religiosity does play a role in reducing involvement in delinquent behavior as predicted by the Hellfire hypothesis. Similarly, the partial R coefficients (Rk), while statistically significant, indicat e that the substantive effects of religiosity on reducing involvement in specific types of delinquency is weak. The strongest partial correlation reported is that for participatory salience and vandalism (Rk= -.132); the weakest, statistically significant, partial effect is that of religiousness on weapon use (Rk= -.038). Overall, participation in delinquent activity is affected by religiosity, but this effect va r ies by the type of delinquent act. Table 4 in Appendix C presents data which indicate that this variation in effect is systematic with the severity of the delinquent act. The severity rankings of these six offenses presented in Table 4 ar e based on the findings of Wolfgang and Figlio (1984). According to their research

PAGE 64

-54vandalism is the least serious of these six delinquent behaviors and obtains a severity score of 1.1; petty theft is next with a score of 2.9 followed by grand theft at 3.6, motor vehicle theft at 4.4, assault at 7.3, and finally weapon use--the most serious--at 9.3. While the partial correlations for religiousness tend to remain rather steady (i.e., partial rhos generally between -.05 and -.06), the partial correlation coefficients for participatory salience decrease in value as the severity of the offense increases. This provides partial support for the arguments of Middleton and Putney (1962) and Burkett and White (1974) who claim that the impact of religiosity on reducing involvement in deviant behavior is strongest for low consensus or victimless crimes. Recall that this modification of the Hellfire hypothesis is referred to as the Anti-asceticism hypothesis (H 2 ). This general support for the Hellfire hypothesis with variations by type lending some credence to the Anti asceticism hypothesis is also seen in Table 5 of Appendix C. The overall predicted probabilities of delinquency involvement, P(Y=l), are substantially less for the strongly religious than for the weakly religious in each model. The predicted probability of involvement in vandalism for the strongly religious (i.e., those adolescents who report that they are ''quite religious" and for whom involvement in church activities is "very important") is .31. While the predicted probability of involvement in vandalism for the

PAGE 65

-55weakly religious (i.e., those adolescents who are "not religious a t all" and for whom involvement in church activities is "not important at all") is .63. The difference between these predicted probabilities is .32 with th e weakly religious twice as likely to report involvement in vandalism as the strongly religious. Involvement in motor vehicle theft is unlikely for both the strongly and weakly religious with predicted probabilities of .04 and .15 respe c tively. However, these values indicate that the weakly religious are about 3.7 times more likely to engage in motor vehicle theft than the strongly religious. The weakly religious are 2.9 times more likely to engage in assaults than are the strongly religious, though such behavior is unlikely for both groups (i.e., P(Y=l) = .23 and .08, respectively). Similar probabilities are also pr e dicted for involvement in weapon use (P(Y=l) = .19 and .07, respe c tively) and grand theft (P(Y=l)= .10 and .02, respectively). For petty theft, the probabilities of involvement are greater for each group (P(Y=l)= .60 and .22, respectively). However, weakly religious adolescents are still about 2.7 times more likely to steal things of minor value that are their religiously committed peers. Table 5 arrays these overall predicted probabilities according to the severity of each offense. The predicted probabilities are greatest for the two least serious offenses--vandalism and petty theft. For the remaining

PAGE 66

-56four offenses the predicted probabilities are quite low and tend to increase only very slightly as severity increases. Note, also, the decreasing values of the risk factors (i.e., how many times more likely the weakly religious are to report involvement in delinquency than the strongly religious) as the severity of the offense increases from grand theft to weapon use. These values suggest, to a marginal degree, that the effects of religiosity may wane as offense se r iousness increases. Thus, as with the findings presented in Table 4, these results are both supportive of the Hellfire hypothesis and are also somewhat consistent with the claims of Middleton and Putney (1962) and Burkett and White (1974). I will return to this point latter (See Chapter Six). However, before proceeding to tests of the Anti-asceticism hypothesis, additional models testing the Hellfire hypothesis with indicators of hard drug use will be examined. Religiosity and use of Hard Drugs The findings for hard drug use parallel those for other delinquent behaviors, but the magnitude of the relationships tend to be weaker. Both of the religiosity indicators in Model 8 1n Table 3 are inversely related to the index of overall hard drug use (bk= -.379 for religiousness and -.617 for participatory salience). These logistic regression coefficients mean that the odds of hard drug usage are

PAGE 67

-57multiplied by exp(-.379) = .68 for every one-unit increase in religiousness and by exp(-.617) = .54 for every one-unit increase in participatory salience. Thus, the odds of hard drug use are estimated to be .68 3 = .32 times as high for the "quite religious" as for the "not religious at all" and .543 = .16 times as high for those adolescents for whom participation in church activities is "very important" as for those to whom such participation is "not important at all." The partial R for religiousness, however, is only -.098 and the proportional change in the predicted probability for each one-unit change in religiousness is -.039. Thus, students who consider themselves to be "quite religious" are 11. 7 percentage points less likely to be hard drug users than those who report that they are "not religious at all." For participatory salience the partial R is -.148 and the predicted proportional change in probability is -.064; each one-unit in c rease in the importance of church activities r e sults in a decrease of 6.4 percentage points in the probability of using hard drugs. Adolescents for whom participation in church activities is "very important" are 19.2% less likely to report exp e rience with hard drugs use than those for whom such participation is "not important at all." The overall predicted probability of drug use for the strongly religious (those reporting ma x i m um values of both religiousness and participatory salience) is .02 when evaluated at the means of the co n trol varliables; for the

PAGE 68

-58weakly religious (those reporting minimum values) the overall predicted probability is much greater at .28. Thus, even though the likelihood of use is slim, the risk for the weakly religious is still 14 times greater than that for the strongly religious. The final four models reported in Table 3 (Models 9 through 12) present the results of logistic regression analyses for each of the types of hard drugs that compose the dichotomous hard drug use index discussed abovestimulants, depressants and tranquilizers, psychedelics, and narcotics and opiates. The results of these analyses mirror those just presented above in Model 8. In all four of these models, the two religiosity indicators are inversely related with the dependent variables. However, the strength of these relationships is generally weak. That is, the partial Rs range in value from -.068 to -.146. For stimulants, depressants, and psychedelics, the impact of participatory salience is stronger than the impact of religiousness. For narcotics, religiousness has the stronger effect. In sum, these data provide additional, but limited, support for the Hellfire hypothesis. While the independent effects of the two religiosity indicators are quite weak, and the variance accounted for is small, the combined impact of these religiosity measures is more substantial. That is, weakly religious adolescents are considerably more likely to report use of hard drugs than are the strongly religious. The predicted probability of hard drug use overall and for

PAGE 69

-59each substance is low even for the weakly religious, but they are far more likely to use hard drugs than the strongly religious. In fact, the chance that an adolescent who is strongly religious is using any of these drugs is essentially zero. Conclusions In conclusion, each of the twelve models presented in Table 3 provide some support for Hirschi and Stark's Hellfire hypothesis. From these models, the following conclusions may be drawn: 1) The two indicators of religiosity are nearly always inversely related with the indicators of serious deviant behavior. As such, they support the Hellfire hypothesis. 2) However, the strengths of these relationships are quite weak, thus limiting the support for the hypothesis. 3) The relative effect of participatory salience (i.e., the importance of involvement in church activities) is somewhat more powerful than the effect of religiousness in predicting involvement in delinquency per se, vandalism, petty theft, grand theft, the use of hard drugs in general, and the use of stimulants, depressants, and psychedelics. 4) On the other hand, religiousness is a stronger predictor of involvement in motor vehicle theft, assault, weapon use, and the use of narcotics. 5) The overall predicted probabilities of involvement in both general and offense specific delinquency, and the use of hard drugs is substantially less for the strongly religious (i.e., those adolescents who claim to be "quite religious" and for whom participation in church activities is "very important") than for the weakly religious (i.e.,

PAGE 70

-60those who report minimum values of religiousness and participatory salience). These findings provide the strongest support for the Hellfire hypothesis. 6) values of the partial correlation coefficients for participatory salience tend to decrease in strength as offense severity increases. Likewise, the risk factors also tend to decrease as offense severity increases. Both of these trends suggest that the effects of religiosity may wane as offense severity, and therefore, societal consensus, increase. Such findings are consistent with the arguments of Middleton and Putney (1962) and Burkett and White (1974) and lend some support to the Anti-asceticism hypothesis, a modification of the original Hellfire hypothesis. It to tests of this modified hypothesis to which I now turn.

PAGE 71

CHAPTER SIX TESTS OF THE MIDDLETON AND PUTNEY ANTI-ASCETICISM HYPOTHESIS The original Hellfire hypothesis of Hirschi and Stark has been modified by arguing that it applies to a more restricted range of deviant behavior. That is, religiosity is more strongly related to "immorality," "vice," and "victimless" behaviors such as premarital sex and the use of marijuana and alcohol, which are not as consistently disapproved of in the secular setting, than to personal or property crimes (Burkett and White, 1974; Albrecht et al., 1977; Anderson and Wakefield, 1983; Elifson et al., 1983). As noted earlier, the norms against offenses of morality have been called ascetic norms and this modification has been referred to as the Anti-asceticism hypothesis (H 2 ). The statistical information reported in Tables 6 through 9 of Appendix Dis similar to that presented in the previous chapter. Religiosity and Premarital Sex Model 1 of Table 6 presents the results of a logistic regression analysis testing the Anti-asceticism hypothesis with a dichotomous indicator of self-reported involvement in premarital sexual intercourse. These findings provide some -61

PAGE 72

-62support for the hypothesis in that religiosity is inversely related to premarital sex. That is, both of the religiosity va r iables are inv e rsely related to involvement in premarital sex (bk= -.329 for religiousness and -.169 for participatory salience). These coefficients suggest that the odds of involvement in premarital sexual intercourse are multiplied by exp(-.329) = .72 for every one-unit increase in religiousness; therefore, the odds of premarital sex are estimated to be .12 3 = .37 times as high for the "quite religious" as for the "not religious at all." For each one unit increas e in participatory salience, the odds of pre m a r ital s e xual involvement are multiplied by exp(-.169) = .84. Thus, for those adolescents for whom involvement in church a c tivities is "very important" the odds of premarital s e x ar e .84 3 = .60 as high as they are for those youth for whom involvement in church activities is "not important at a ll." For each one-unit increase in religiousness, the proportional change in the predicted p robability of involvement in premarital sex decreases by 7.3 percentage points (Pk= -.073). Thus, for adolescents who report that they are "quite religious," the proportional probability of involvement in premarital sexual int e rcourse is about 22 percent a ge points less than that for youth who are "not religious at all." Likewise, the proportional change in the predicted probability of premarital sex for each one-unit

PAGE 73

-63increase in participatory salience is -.038. This figure converts into an 11.4 percentage point difference in the likelihood of premarital sex between those youth for whom participation in church activities is "very important" and those for whom such participation is "not important at all." The overall predicted probability of involvement in premarital sexual intercourse for the strongly religious is only .18, while for the weakly religious, the predicted probability is .50. The difference between these predicted probabilities is .32 with the weakly religious almost three times (2.8) more likely to report involvement in premarital sex. Though these findings show that the effects of religiosity on premarital sexual intercourse are both statistically discernible from zero and are in the hypoth e sized direction, the relative strength of these effects is quite weak. Indeed, the partial correlations (Rk) between the two religiosity measures and the dichotomous premarital sex index are only -.098 and -.042, respectively, for religiousness and participatory salience. Thus, while the data suggest that religiosity does serve to reduce the likelihood of involvement in premarital sexual intercourse among adolescents, its effect is quite weak.

PAGE 74

-64Religiosity and Marijuana use Model 2 in Table 6 of Appendix D reports the findings of the logistic regression analysis testing the Anti asceticism hypothesis on adolescent marijuana use. Again the support for the hypothesis is mixed; although increases in religiosity are significantly related to decreases in the likelihood of use, the relative effects of the religiosity indicators are weak. Each of the religiosity measures is inversely related with the self-reported marijuana use (bk= -.331 for religiousness and -.458 for participatory salience). Thus, the odds of marijuana use are multiplied by exp(-.331) = .72 and exp(-.458) = .63 for every one-unit increase in religiousity and participatory salience, respectively. As such the odds of marij uana use are .72 3 = .37 times as high for "quite religious" adolescents as for those who are "not religious at all ." Likewise, for youth who report maximum levels of participatory salience, the odds of marijuana use are .63 3 = .25 times as high as for those reporting minimum levels. When these logistic regression coefficients are transformed into instantaneous rate of coefficients evaluated at the mean of the dependent variable, the resulting proportional changes in the predicted probability of marijuana use indicate that one-unit increases in the religiosity variables result in 8.1 and 11.2 percentage poin t decreases in the likelihood of use. That is, each

PAGE 75

-65one-unit increase in religiousness leads to 8.1 and 11.2 percentage point decreases in the predicted probability of marijuana use among the youth surveyed. Thus, adolescents who indicate that they are "quite religious" are 24.3 percentage points less likely to use marijuana than youth who report being "not religious at all." One-unit increases in the importance of participation in church activities is related to 11.2 percentage point decreases in the predicted probability of use. For those youth for whom such participation is "very important," the predicted proportional probability of self-reported marijuana use is 33.6 percentage points less than that for whom participation in church activities is "not important at all." The cumulative effect of these religiosity indicators is such that the weakly religious are four times more likely to report marijuana use than are strongly religious adolescents. The overall predicted probabilities of use, P(Y=l), are .69 and .17, respectively, for the weakly and strongly religious. In sum, increases in religiosity are significantly related to decreases in the likelihood of marijuana use, providing modest support for the Anti asceticism hypothesis. Religiosity and Alcohol use Logistic regression analyses testing the Anti asceticism hypothesis with measures of self-reported alcohol use are presented in Models 3 through 6 of Table 6. The

PAGE 76

-66first of these models examines the effects of the two religiosity indicators on the use of alcohol in general; Models 4, 5, and 6 test these effects on the use of beer, wine, and liquor, respectively. The results reported in these models yield mixed support for the Anti-asceticism hypothesis. The effect of the religiousness variable is statistically discernible from zero only in Model 6, the use of liquor. The strength of this effect, however, is quite weak (Rk= -.049). The partial correlation coefficients for the r e ligiousness variable indicate that it has virtually no effect on the general use of alcohol (Rk= -.000), and essentially no effect on the use of either beer or wine (Rk= -.024 and .000, respectively). Participatory salience, on the other hand, attains a weak, inverse effect on each of the indicators of alcohol use with the exception of wine (Rk = -.08 to -.14). The null finding with regard to the use of wine may be due to the fact that wine is frequently consumed du r ing religious ceremonies such as communion. The liturgical use of wine may result in higher than expected rates of use among the strongly religious. However, the multiplicative effect on the odds of alcohol consumption for the participatory salience measure indicates that its influence is quite substantial. The odds of alcohol use, per se, are estimated to be [exp(-.541)] 3 = .20 times as high for youths reporting maximum participatory salience as for youth placing minimum

PAGE 77

-67importance on participation in church activities. Similar odds are estimated for the use of beer, [exp(-.517)] 3 = .21, and the use of liquor, [exp(-.403) J 3 = .30. Likewise, the instantaneous rate of change coefficients (Pk) for participatory salience also suggests that its influence on alcohol use may be greater than these partial correlation statistics indicate. For instance, each one unit increase in participatory salience is related to an 8.1 percentage point decrease in the predi c ted probability of gen e ral alcohol consumption. This translates into a difference of -24.3 percentage points in the probability of use predicted for those adolescents for whom participation in church a c tivities is "very important" compared to those for whom such activities are "not important at all." Similar proportional effects are obser v ed between participatory salience and both the use of beer and liquor (Pk= -.078 and -.085, respectively). The proportional effect of participatory salience on the use of wine is half of that of its effects on the other alcoholic beverage types (Pk= -.047). The most telling evidence in support of the Anti asc e ticism hypothesis is shown not in the separate, independent effects of the two religiosity variables, but rath e r in their combined o r cumulative effect. In each of the four models examined, strongly religious adolescents have an overall predicted probability of use that is substantially less that for the weakly religious. The

PAGE 78

-68probability of alcohol use among weakly religious youth is quite high--between .84 and .93. For the strongly religious, these probabilities are muc h lower, ranging fro m .51 for the use of liquor to .74 for the use of wine. The diff er enc e s in these predi c ted p robabilities of use betwe e n the strongly and the weakly religious range b e tween .10 for wine and .35 for liquor. With the e xception of wine, which may be used liturgically, these diff e rences indicate that the weakly religious are at least 20% more likely to us e alcohol than the st r ongly religious. These compa r isons are, of course, evaluated at the means of the control variables. In sum, the inv e rse effects of the religiosity indicators on anti-ascetic behavior (i.e., premarital sexual intercourse and the use of marijuana and alcohol) are notable and their cumulative effect is such that the strongly religious adolescents are sub s tantially less likely to engage in such behaviors than are youth who are weakly religious. While these findings p rovide support for the Anti-asceticism hypothesis, they are equally supportive of the original Hellfire hypothesis. That is, religiosity has b een shown to be inversely relat e d to a large variety of deviant behaviors including violations of both secular and ascetic norms. Only by comparing the results presented here with those from the analyses testing the Hellfire hypothesis can a true test of the arguments of Middleton and Putney be made. If the claims of those espousing the Anti-asceticism

PAGE 79

-69argument are true, than the effects of religiosity should be stronger for violations of asc e tic norms than the more serious and consistently disapproved delinquent behaviors. It is to such a comparison that I now turn. A Comparison of the Effects of Religiosity on Delinquent and Anti-Ascetic Behaviors Table 7 of Appendix D presents the partial R st a tistics for the effects of both religiousness and participatory salience on delinquent and anti-ascetic deviant behaviors. The Anti-asceticism hypothesis that the effect of re ligiosity is great e r for violations of ascetic norms than for violations of more widely held nor m s is not support e d by these data. The r e lative effects of the religiosity va r iables are very stable across both anti ascetic behaviors and other forms of adolescent deviance. In fact, there is some indication that r e ligiosity is a less effective r e straint on anti-ascetic behaviors than on hard drug use and delinquency. That is, the religiousness variable has no effect (Rk= -.000) on the use of alcohol, and the weakest partial correlation coefficient for participatory salience is with premarital sexual intercourse (Rk= -.042); both are indicators of anti-ascetic behavior. Additional evidence counter to the Anti-asceticism hypothesis can be found in a compa r ison of the risk factors reported in Table 8 of Appendix D. Larger risk

PAGE 80

-70factor values are associated with the delinquent behavior measures than with the indicators of anti-ascetic behavior. These values suggest that the weakly religious are only between 1.3 and 4.0 times more likely than the strongly religious to engage in behaviors that violate ascetic norms, but are 4.4 to 14.0 times more likely to engage in behaviors that are more consistently disapproved of. As such, the greatest differences between the strongly and the weakly religious occur in behaviors where normative ambiguity is the least and social disapproval is the greatest. These findings are, of course, quite contrary to what is predicted by the Anti-asceticism hypothesis. Thus, while some evidence from Chapter Five hinted at support for the arguments of Middleton and Putney (1962) and Burkett and White (1974), the results of these analyses reveal no support for the Anti-asceticism hypothesis beyond that which is also equally supportive of the original Hellfire hypothesis of Hirschi and Stark. Higher religiosity acts as an insulator against all forms of adolescent deviance; for none is it a highly effective insulator, but it works equally in predicting delinquent acts and hard drug use as well as the anti-ascetic offenses of morality. Religiosity, Personal Asceticism, and Marijuana use Model 1 of Table 9 in Appendix D presents the findings of analyses testing Burkett's revision of the Antiasceticism hypothesis (H 2 a and tt 2 b) with data on adolescent

PAGE 81

-71marijuana use. According to Burkett (1977; 1980), religiosity has both a direct inverse effect and an indirect inverse effect on anti-ascetic behavior. The indirect effect is said to be mediated through a religiously based morality of personal asceticism. The results of the analyses examined here fail to support Burkett's claims. First, religiosity is not related to personal asceticism. The effects of both of the religiosity measures on personal asceticism are essentially zero (Rk= -.023 for religiousness and .000 for participatory salience), second, personal asceticism is not related to marijuana use (Rk = -.020). In fact, the only notable effect observed is the direct inverse effect of participatory salience on self reported marij uana use (bk= -.461). Third, estimates of the direct effect of religiousness and participatory salience remain essentially unchanged with the addition of these measures to the model. That is, the logistic regression coefficients for religiousness and participatory salience are essentially identical in both models (i.e., bk= -.331 versus -.334 for religiousness and -.458 versus -.461 for participatory salience) indicating no change in their direct influence on the odds with the inclusion of the personal asceticism measure and its controls. Likewise, the partial R statistic (Rk) for the relative influence of participatory salience on marijuana use is -.130 in both the model with and the model without these extra variables. The relative effect of religiousness increases only from -.097 to -.098.

PAGE 82

-72The instantaneous rate of change coefficients for the two religiosity variables also remain unchanged by the inclusion of these additional measures (Pk= -.081 for religiousness and -.112 for participatory salience in each model). Finally, the overall predicted probability of marijuana use among strongly religious adolescents (now defined as those adolescents who indicate maximum values on both of the religiosity indicators as well as on the personal asceticism variable) decreases by only .02 (from .17 to .15). The probability of use predicted for the weakly religious (also redefined as those adolescents who report minimum values of religiosity and personal asceticism) increases by only .03 (from .69 to .72). The conclusion generated from each of these findings is that Burkett's claim for the inclusion of a measure of religiously based personal asceticism into the Anti-asceticism model receives no support from these data on adolescent marijuana use. Religiosity, Personal Asceticism, and Alcohol use The same conclusion regarding Burkett's revision of the Anti-asceticism hypothesis is reached when the data on adolescent alcohol use are examined (See Model 2 in Table 9). Neither measure of religiosity is related to personal asceticism (Rk = -.000 for both). However, personal asceticism does show a notable inverse effect on alcohol use (bk= -.404). The direct effects of the religiosity

PAGE 83

-73indicators, on the other hand, remain unchanged (Rk= -.000 for religiousness in both m odels, and -.142 versus -.143 for participatory salience). Likewise, the instantaneous rate of change coefficients (Pk) remain stable across both models. Finally the p redi c ted p robability of use among the weakly religious is .93 in both m odels, while the probability of use predi c ted fo r the strongly religious d ecreases from .69 to .60. This decrease of .09 in the predi c ted probability a m ong the strongly religious provides some support for Burkett's claims; however, the cu m ulative evidence p resented here fails to support his arguments. Conclusions The tables discuss e d in this chapter have served as t e sts of b oth the Anti-asceticism hypothesis and Burkett's r e vision of this hypothesis (1977; 1980). The results of these t e st s support the Anti-asceticism hypothesis but give little comfort to Burkett's revision. The data fit the original Hellfi r e hypothesis equally as well as the Anti asc e ticism hypothesis. Some of the more specific conclusions drawn from these analyses are 1) W ith the exception of the effect of religiousness on the general use of alcohol and the use of beer and wine specifically, both religiosity variables a re inversely related with the indicators of anti ascetic behavior. These findings support the Anti-asceticis m hypothesis. 2) However, all of the r e ligiousness effects are weak (i.e., Rk < -.100). The strength of the relative effects of participatory salience on premarital

PAGE 84

-74sexual intercourse and on the use of wine are also weak. More moderate effects (i.e., -.100 < Rk < -.250) of participatory salience are observed for the remaining measures of anti-ascetic behavior. The weak or modest nature of these religiosity effects serves to limit the support provided to the Anti-asceticism hypothesis. 3) The overall predicted probability estimates, P(Y=l), indicate sufficiently large differences (i.e., greater than .20) between the weakly religious and the strongly religious in terms of involvement in premarital sexual intercourse and the use of marijuana, alcohol in general, and wine. Smaller differences between predicted probabilities are observed for the use of beer and liquor. These findings also provide limited support for the Anti-asceticism hypothesis. 4) The above conclusions provide mixed support for the Anti-asceticism hypothesis. They also provide equally limited support to the original Hellfire hypothesis. However, none of these findings provide a true test of the Anti-asceticism hypothesis. Only by comparing the results reported in this chapter with those in Chapt er Five can an appropriate test of the Anti asceticism hypothesis be made. The strengths of the r e lative effects of the religiosity indicators are very stable over all forms of deviant behavior analyzed Therefore, the effects of religiousness and participatory salience are not greater on behaviors that violate ascetic norms as claimed by Middleton and Putney (1962) and Burkett and White (1974). Additional evidence of nonsupport for the Anti-asceticism hypothesis is observed in a comparison of t he risk factors. Larger values are associated with the delinquent behaviors. The result of these comparisons provides no support for the Anti asceticism hypothesis. 5) Finally, Burkett's suggestion that the Anti asceticism hypoth e sis be revised by the addition of indirect religiosity effects media t ed through a religiously based morality of personal asceticism receives no support with these data. The religiosity measures are not related to personal asce ticis m and personal asceticism fails to attain a statistically significant, inverse effect on anti -ascetic behavior. In addition, essentially no changes are observed in the parameter estimates

PAGE 85

-75of the religiosity measures (i.e., bk, Pk, and Rk) and no significant improvements in the predictive capacities of the estimated models (i.e., RL and P(Y=l)) are evidenced.

PAGE 86

CHAPTER SEVEN TESTS OF THE JENSEN AND ERICKSON NORM QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS Each of the analyses examined so far have been restricted to simple social-psychological models which stress the constraining function of religiosity on deviant behavior. Though these models are based on reasonable hypotheses the empirical support provided to them has been somewhat limited. This may be due, in part, to specification error That is, these hypothetical models limit analysis to an overly simplistic process, perhaps they should incorporate more structural or group-level processes. For instance, Jensen and Erickson (1979) argue that one of the major shortcomings of the extan t literat ure is the failure of previous researchers to examine the differential effects of religiosity across religious affiliations. Indeed, a majority of the prior research has failed to consider the possibility of an interaction between religious affiliation and religiosity on deviant behavior. Jensen and Erickson claim that the varying moral messages of different religions constitute important normative climates which affect the deterrent impact of religiosity on anti-ascetic -76

PAGE 87

-77behaviors, particularly substance use. Thus, while some denominations take a strong proscriptive stand against use, others are more prescriptive, and, according to Jensen and Erickson, t h e religiosity effect is stronger among those from pros c riptive normative climates. The analyses reported in this chapter test the primary hypothesis derived from these ideas (referred to as the Norm Qualities hypothesis H 3 ); first with marijuana use as the dependent v ar iable, then with alcohol use. Logistic regression models testing the effects of religiousness, participatory salience, and personal asceticism are presented for each level of both attributed and perceived denominational proscriptiveness (prescriptive and proscriptiv e ). The results of these t e sts for marijuana use are reported in Table 10, and for alcohol use in Table 11 of Appendix E. Marijuana Use: Attributed Denominational Proscr1ptiveness Models 1 and 2 of Table 10 present the findings of analyses testing the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on self-reported marijuana use across levels of attributed denominational proscriptiveness. Comparing the results in Model 2 to those in Model 1 (i.e., comparing the attributed proscriptive denominations model to the attributed prescriptive denominations model) provides the

PAGE 88

-78statistical evidence needed to test the Norm Qualities hypothesis. Comparisons of the statistical data in Table 10 provide little support for the hypothesis. For instance, the independent effects of the personal asceticism and both of the religiosity variables are inversely related to marijuana use for those adolescents belonging to prescriptive denominations (Model 1); however, only the inverse effect of participatory salience is statically discernible from zero for those youth from denominations which traditionally have held proscriptive norms toward sensual indulgences (Model 2). Likewise, the relative effects of these variables are just as strong or stronger in the prescriptive model as they are in the proscriptive model (i.e., in the attributed prescriptive model versus the attributed proscriptive model, bk= -.411 vs. -.098, respectively, for religiousness; -.444 vs. -.476 for participatory salience; and -.425 vs . 210 for personal asceticism). Thus the odds of marijuana use are estimated to be [exp(-. 411)] 3 = .29 times as high for the "quite religious" as for the "not religious at all" from attributed prescriptive denominations (Model 1) compared to a multiplica tive effect on the odds of [exp{-.098)] 3 = .74 for those youths belonging to denominations traditionally attributed as proscriptive (Model 2). For participatory salience, these estimates are more similar (i.e., [exp(-.444)] 3 = .26 in the pres cr iptive model versus [exp{-.476)] 3 = .25 in the proscriptive model). Finally, a very large difference

PAGE 89

-79contrary to that predicted by the Norm Qualities hypothesis is observed in a comparison of the multiplicative effects on the odds for the personal asceticism variable in these models That is, while the odds of marijuana use are, as expected, much lower for the ascetic youth than for the non ascetic youth in the prescriptive model (Model 1), the odds of use for ascetic youth in the proscriptive model (Model 2) are greater than that estimated for the non-ascetic youth (i.e., exp(-.425) = .65 versus exp(.210) = 1.23). The instantaneous rate of change coefficients (Pk) also suggest that greater proportional reductions in the predicted probabilities of use are associated with the religion va r iables in the prescriptive model than in the proscriptive model. These findings are of course, contrary to that predicted by the Norm Qualities hypothesis. The cumulative effect of these variables also provides little support for the hypothesis. While the overall predicted probability of marij uana use for the weakly religious is smaller for those youth from proscriptive denominations--P(Y=l) = .54 versus .73--and is consistent with the Norm Qualities hypothesis, the predicted probabilities of use for the strongly religious fail to support the hypothesis. That is, strongly religious adolescents from proscriptive denominations are more likely to use marijuana than those from prescriptive denominations--P(Y=l) = .21 and .12, respectively. The differences in the predicted

PAGE 90

-80probabilities of use between the weakly and strongly r eligious when evaluated at the means of the control va r iables are greater for those from prescriptive denominations (.61) than for those from denominations attributed to be proscriptive (.33). Likewise, a larger risk factor value is associated with denominational prescriptiveness (i.e., risk factors= 6.1 and 2.6, respectively for Models 1 and 2). In sum, these data on the normative orientations of the various religious affiliations (as traditionally attributed to them) fail to support the Norm Qualities hypothesis. In fact, each of the comparisons made suggests that the impact of religiosity and personal asceticism on marijuana use is greater for those adolescents with prescriptive denominational affiliations, rather than for those from proscriptiv e denominations as the Norm Qualities hypothesis would predict. Marijuana use: Perceived Denominational Proscriptiveness Models 3 and 4 of Table 10 present the statistical data necessary for a second test of the Norm Qualities hypothesis on adolescent marijuana use. The comparisons made here are based on proscriptive/prescriptive denominational groupings measured by the respondents perceptions of the normative orientation of their religious affiliations. Unlike the data on attrib ut ed norm qualities these comparisons based on

PAGE 91

-81perceived norm qualities yield some support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis. That is, the relative effect of personal asceticism is greater among those youth belonging to denominations that are perceived to be proscriptive In Model 3 of Table 10, the perceived denominational prescriptiveness model, all three of the religion variables are inversely related to marijuana use (bk= -.364 for religiousness, -.457 for participatory salience, and -.164 for personal asceticism); however, personal asceticism does not have a statistically significant effect. For those who perceive the moral climate of their religious denomination toward marijuana use as proscriptive (Model 4), personal asceticism is inversely related to use (bk= -1.858), so are the two religiosity variables (bk= -.022 and -.163 for religiousness and participatory salience, respectively), but the effects of the religiosity measures are not statistically distinguishable from zero. Thus the religious variables that affect adolescent marijuana use vary by perceived denominational proscriptiveness. Likewise, the effectiveness of these measures varies by perceived denominational proscriptiveness. That is, when cross-model comparisons are made, stronger relative effects are observed for the two religiosity measures in Model 3 (perceived prescriptiveness) than in Model 4 (perceived proscriptiveness), but the relative effect of personal asceticism is stronger in the proscriptive model (Model 4). These findings suggest that the deterrent effect of

PAGE 92

-82religiosity, per se, on marijuana use is stronger among those youth who do not perceive their religion taking a strong proscriptive stand However, where the normative orientation of one 's religion is perceived to be proscriptive, personal asceticism has the strongest deterrent impact. Thus, both the variables that affect marijuana use and their relative effects vary across levels of perceived denominational proscrip ti veness Therefore, these comparisons provide mixed support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis. This mixed support is also evident in a comparison of the co mb ined or cumulative effect of these measures across models The smallest predicted probability of marijuana use is .13 for the strongly religious in the proscriptiv e model (Model 4) and the greatest probability of use is .69 for the weakly religious in the prescriptive model (Model 3). These probability rankings are consistent with that predicted by the Norm Qualities hypothesis. However, the predicted probability of use for the strongly religious in the prescriptive model is essentially equal to that in the proscriptive model (i.e., P(Y=l)= .14 and .13). Likewise, the risk fac tor values for both models are nearly identical (4.9 and 4.8 for Models 3 and 4 respectively) and the difference in the predicted probability of use between the weakly and strongly religious in the prescriptive model is larger than the difference in the proscriptive model (.55 versus .49). These results are counter to that expected by

PAGE 93

-83the Norm Qualities hypothesis and serve to limit the support provided to it by these data. Alcohol use: Attributed Denominational Proscriptiveness The effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on self-reported alcohol use across levels of attributed denominational proscriptiveness provide yet another test of the Norm Qualities hypothesis and are presented in Models 1 and 2 of Table 11 in Appendix E. Unlike the findings for marijuana use the findings on alcohol use provide rather solid support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis. While participatory salience is the only religion va r iable in either model to be significantly related to alcohol use (bk= -.045 in Model 1 and -.211 in Model 2), the relative effects of all three religion variables are greater in the proscriptive model (Model 2). For instance, bk= -.045 for religiousness in the attributed prescriptive model (Model 1) indicates that the odds of alcohol use are multiplied by only exp(-.045) = .96 for every one-unit increase in religiousness, while in the proscriptive model (Model 2), the m ultiplicative effect on the odds of use is somewhat stronger at exp(-.211) = .81. Thus, the odds of alcohol use are estimated to be .96 3 = .87 times as high for the "quite religious" as for the "not religious at all" in prescriptive denominations. The odds of use estimated for "quite religious" adolescents belonging to denominations

PAGE 94

-84traditionally attributed as proscriptive are .81 3 = .53 times as high as the odds estimated for those adolescents from proscriptive denominations who are "not religious at al 1. 11 Within the prescriptive model (Model 1), a one-unit increase in participatory salience is estimated to have an exp(-.350) = .70 multiplicative effect on the odds of alcohol use, while within the proscriptive model (Model 2), its multiplicative effect is much more powerful (i.e., exp{-.535) = .59). These effects translate into estimated odds of alcohol use that are .70 3 = .35 (in Model 1) and .59 3 = .20 (in Model 2) times as high for those adolescents for whom participation in church activities is "very important" as for those youth who feel such involvement is "not important at all." Thus, the inhibitory effect of participatory salience, like that of religiousness, is stronger in the proscriptive model (Model 2). The effect of personal asceticism on alcohol use is also more powerful in the proscriptive model (i.e., exp(-.560) = .57 in Model 2 versus exp(-.380) = .68 in Model 1) The instantaneous rate of change coefficients indicate similar effects. For adolescents from prescriptive denominations, each one-unit increase in religiousness is associated with a 4.2 percentage point decrease in the predicted probability of alcohol use. For youth from denominations that are more prescriptive in their stands on

PAGE 95

-85alcohol consumption, the proportional decrease in predicted probability for each one-unit increase in religiousness is only 0.5 percentage points. Thus, teens from proscriptive denominations who are "quite religious" are 12.6 percentage points less likely to use alcohol than are those who are "not religious at all," while almost no change in the predicted proportional probability of use can be observed between those adolescents from prescriptive denominations who are "quite religious" and those who are "not religious at all." Likewise, within proscriptive denominations, each one unit in c rease in participatory salienc e results in a 10.7 percentage point decrease in the predicted probability of use. As such, adolescents for whom involvement in church activities is "very important" are 32.1 percentage points less likely to use alcohol than are those for whom such participation is "not important at all." However, among adolescents belonging to prescriptive denominations, a one unit increase in participatory salience is associated with only a 4.2 % decrease in the proportional probability of use which translates into a 12.6 percentage point difference between those youth at maxi m um and minimum levels of participatory salience. Finally, the instantaneous rate of change coefficients for personal asceticism also indicate a stronger effect in the proscriptive model than in the presc r iptive model. That is, youth from proscriptive

PAGE 96

-86denominations who define alcohol use proscriptively have a predicted probability of use that is 11.2 percentage points less than that of adolescents also from proscriptive denominations but who hold prescriptive beliefs. The proportional difference in the predicted probability of use between prescriptive and proscriptive teens belonging to prescriptive denominations is much less (4.7 percentage points) However, cross-model comparisons of the partial correlation coefficients for the relative effects of these three variables indicate small differences (i.e., Rk= -.000 versus -.000 for religiousness, -.0 82 versu s -.130 for participatory salience, and -.011 versus -.013 for personal asceticism in Models 1 and 2, respective ly). In sum, however, nearly every comparison the independent effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on alcohol use are only slightly stronger in the proscriptive model (Model 2) than in the prescriptive model (Model 1). As such, they provide some support for the Norm Q u alities hypothesis. Additional support for the hypothesis is evident in comparisons of the cumulative impact these religion va r iables have on adolescent alcohol use. Those adolescents most likely to use alcohol are weakly religious and belong to prescriptive denominations (P(Y=l)= .93); those least likely to use alcohol are strongly religious and are members of proscriptive denominations (P(Y=l)= .38). The predicted probability of use for the weakly religious is nearly

PAGE 97

-87identical in both models (.93 versus .91), yet the probability of use predicted for the strongly religious is far greater for those from prescriptive denominations than from proscriptive denominations (.74 versus .38). As the Anti-asceticism hypothesis undergoes revision and respecification leading to the Norm Qualities hypothesis, the predicted probability of alcohol use for the weakly religious remains stable at about .93. However, the predicted probability of use for the strongly religious, originally estimated at .69, reduces down to .60 under Burkett's revision, and reduces further to .38 when estimated for those adolescents belonging to denominations that traditionally take a strong stand against alcohol use. In sum, solid support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis is provided by these data on adolescent alcohol consumption. The strength of both the independent and the combined effects of the religiosity and personal asceticism variables on self-reported alcohol use increase as attributed denominational proscriptiveness increases. Alcohol use: Perceived Denominational Proscriptiveness This support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis is compromised when measures of perceived denominational prescriptiveness and proscriptiveness are used. The findings reported in Models 3 and 4, in fact, run directly counter to the Norm Qualities hypothesis. That is, the

PAGE 98

-88effects of r e ligiosity and personal asceticism on adolescent alcohol use is stronger under perceived presc r iptive denominational norms (Model 3) than under perceived proscriptive denominational nor m s (Model 4). This finding may be due, in part, to the skewed distribution of the perceived denominational pros cr ipti v eness va r iable which resulted in an n of only 137 subjects for the proscriptive model. P e rhaps the findings would be diff e rent had a larger sample been available for analysis. Conclusions The four sets of comparisons presented in this chapter (see Table 12 of Appendix F) provide grounds for th e following conclusions r e gar d ing the Nor m Qualities hypothesis: 1) Bot h the independent and t h e co m bined effects of the three r e ligion va r iables on self-reported a dolescent marijuana use a re as strong or stronger for those youth belonging to religious affiliations traditionally attribut e d to be pr e scriptive in norm a tive o r ientations. These findings do not to su p port the Norm Qualities hypothesis. 2) When denominational pros c riptiveness is measured by the subject's perception of thei r religion's nor m ative stance regarding marijuana use, then support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis is somewhat mixed. Both the va r iables that affect adolescent marijuan a us e a nd the str e ngth of their e f fects vary across levels of perceived denominational proscriptiv e ness. The deterrent impact of the two indicators of religiosity is st r onger within religious affiliations perceived to be pres c riptive, while p e rsonal asceticism deters us e among those youth belonging to perceiv e d pros cr iptive denomin a tions.

PAGE 99

-893) Strong support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis is provided by the data on adolescent alcohol use when analyzed across levels of attributed denominational proscriptiveness. Nearly every compa r ison of the independent effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on alcohol use is stronger in the proscriptive model than in the prescriptive model. Likewise, comparisons of the cumulative impact of these variables also support the Norm Qualities hypothesis. While the predicted probability of use remains constant across models for the weakly religious, the probability of use for the strongly religious is substantially less for those adolescents belonging to proscriptive denominations than for those from prescriptive religions (i.e., P(Y=l)= .38 versus .74, respective ly). 4) However, extremely little support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis is evident in these data on self-reported adolescent alcohol use when comparisons are made across levels of perceived denominational proscriptiveness Why is the support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis so varied? Why is the hypothesis supported for adolescent marijuana use when analyzed across levels of perceived denominational proscrip tiv eness but not for attributed denominational proscriptiveness? Why is the hypothesis so strongly supported for adolescent alcohol use when analyzed across levels of attributed denominational proscritiveness but not when analyzed across levels of perceived denominational proscriptiveness? Perhaps the following tentative explanations will serve to answer these questions. First with regard to the findings on adolescent marijuana use, the prescriptive/proscriptive denominational attributions are based on the traditional stands these religious affiliations take regarding alcohol use. These

PAGE 100

-90may not be wholly accurate attributions, for there really are no long-standing official doctrines relating specifically to marijuana use. Thus, the lack of support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis observed for marijuana use may be a function of inaccurate attributions of denominational norm qualities. However, it is quite likely that during the time of this survey (1977) many individual churches took an open and vigorous stand against adolescent marijuana use. Those adolescents who attended church when sermons were delivered, and Sunday school discussions were held, denouncing the use of marijuana were better able to accurately perceive the normative orientation of their church while those failing to attend were less accurate in their perceptions. Thus, accuracy in perception may be related to religiosity which, in turn, is inversely related to marijuana use. It may be such a spurious relationship that accounts for the support provided to the Norm Qualities hypothesis when analyzed across levels of perceived denominational proscriptiveness. Then again, perhaps the hypothesis is supported by these data simply because it is valid. There is, on the other hand, a long tradition of official church doct r ine regarding the use of alcohol (Chalfant et al., 1981; Salisbury, 1964). These prescriptive/proscriptive doctrines permit the clean and accurate attrib ution of normative orientation, and, in turn, provides perhaps the best test of the Norm Qualities

PAGE 101

-91hypothesis. As such, the strong support for the hypothesis evidenced in these data is of no surprise. However, the complete lack of support provided to the hypothesis when evaluated across levels of perceived denominational proscriptiveness is more difficult to explain. Given the clarity and consistency of these r e ligious doctrines on alcohol use, it is unlikely that the respondents would inaccurately perceive their church's stance. Therefore, measurement error in the perceived religious norm qualities variab le is unlikely. Perhaps the lack of support is due to the highly skewed distribution of the perceived denominational proscrip tiv eness variable yielding an n of only 137 for the proscriptive model. A larger sample size may have resulted in better support for the hypothesis. These explanations are, of course, tentative and the possibility that these questions may be more suitably answered by alternative explanations remains open.

PAGE 102

CHAPTER EIGHT TESTS OF THE STARK ET AL. MORAL COMMUNITIES HYPOTHESIS The statistical information discussed in this chapter provides tests of the Stark et al. Moral Communities hypothesis (H 4 ) discussed earlier. According to the arguments of Stark and his associates, the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on anti-ascetic behavior are stronger in moral communities (i.e., where aggregate religiosity is high) than in communities with low aggregate religiosity. Thus, the Moral Communities hypothesis represents another case whereby the Anti-asceticism model has been modified by incorporating it into more of a structural-level model for analysis. Aggregate Religiosity and Marijuana use Model 1 in Table 13 of Appendix F presents the results of a logistic regression analysis of the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on self-reported adolescent marijuana use for those respondents who reside in communities characterized by low levels of aggregate religiosity (i.e., where 50% or less of the respondents indicate that they are "quite religious"). Model 2 reports similar statistical data for those youth who, on the other -92

PAGE 103

-93hand, live in a moral community (i.e., a community with high aggregate religiosity; where a majority express that they are "qui te religious"). Comparisons of the effects across model indicate that the effects of religiosity and personal asceticism on marijuana use do not vary by level of aggregate religiosity; therefore, no support for the Moral Communities hypothesis is observed. In both Models 1 and 2 the effects of the three religion variables are quite similar. For instance, the multiplicative effects on the odds of marijuana use for each one-unit increase in religiousness in these two models are exp(-.395) = .67 and exp(-.321) = .73, respectively. These translate into estimated odds of use for the "qui te religious" that are .67 3 = .31 (in Model 1) and .73 3 = .38 (in Model 2) times as high as those for adolescents who are "not religious at all." The relative effects of participatory salience are even more similar (i.e., exp(-.434) = .65 and exp(-.459) = .63 for Models 1 and 2, respectively) The ef feet of personal asceticism is al so quite similar across models--bk = -.244 and -.304. The instantaneous rate of change coefficients for each religion variable are nearly equal across levels of aggregate religiosity (i. e ., Pk= -.097 and -.078 for religiousness -.106 and -.112 for participatory salience, and -.060 and -.074 for personal asceticism in Models 1 and 2, respe c tively). Likewise, the partial correlation coefficients also indicate near identical effects across

PAGE 104

-94models (Rk = -.108 and -.090, -.115 and -.130, and -.000 and -.000, respectively, for religiousness, participatory salience, and personal asceticism). Thus, while there are some differences between the low and high aggregate religiosity models, they are too slight to be considered supportive of the Moral Communities hypothesis. The cumulative or combined effect of these va r iables also fails to support the Moral Communities hypothesis. The predi c ted probability of marijuana use, P(Y=l), for the strongly religious is essentially identical across levels of aggregate religiosity -.13 and .14. Likewise, identical predicted probabilities of use are observed for the weakly religious in both models (i.e., P(Y=l)= .69 and .70). Thus, in no case are the effects of religiosity or personal asceticism substantially stronger for those residing in communities characterized by high aggregate religiosity. The Moral Communities hypothesis is not supported by these data. Aggregate Religiosity and Alcohol use Models 1 and 2 of Table 14 in Appendix F present the results of analyses testing the Moral Communities hypothesis with data on adolescent alcohol use. The only religion variable to attain statistical significance in the high aggregate religiosity model (Model 2) is participatory salience and its relative effect is essentially no greater

PAGE 105

-951n Model 2 than in Model 1 (i.e., bk= -.581 versus -.459, Pk= -.076 versus -.075 and Rk= -.146 versus -.115 for Models 1 and 2, respectively). In addition, the independent effect of personal asceticism is only slightly stronger in Model 2. Moreover, religiousness has a stronger relative effect in Model 1 rather than in Model 2. The combined effect of these three religion va r iables is also greater in Model 1. In fact, strongly religious adolescents who live in communities with high aggregate religiosity have a substantially greater predicted probability of use than those youth from communities characterized by low aggregate religiosity (i.e., P(Y=l)= .63 versus .56, respectively). For the weakly religious, the predicted probability of alcohol use is identical across levels of aggregate religiosity. Thus, the Moral Communities hypothesis is not supported by these data on adolescent alcohol use either. Conclusions The independent and combined effects of religiousness, participatory salience, and personal asceticism on both adolescent marijuana and alcohol use are essentially no stronger for those from moral or high aggregate religiosity communities than for those from communities with low aggregate religiosity (see Table 15 of Appendix F). As

PAGE 106

r--------------96such, there is very little support in these data for the Moral Communities hypothesis.

PAGE 107

CHAPTER NINE TESTS OF THE MORAL COMMUNITIES-NORM QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS Recall that the Stark et al. Moral Communities and the Jensen and Erickson Norm Qualities hypotheses have been combined into an integrated hypothesis which as the level of aggregate religiosity increases, and as the degree of denominational proscriptiveness increases, the size of the effects of religiosity and p ers onal asceticism on anti ascetic behavior increases. The tests of this Integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualiti e s hypothesis (H 5 ) in this chapt er are based on the statistical data presented in Table 16 of Appendix G for marijuana use and Table 18 for alcohol use. Marijuana Use B eca use the findings in Chapter Eight for adolescent marijuana us e indicate that the Norm Qualities hypothesis is best supported by perceived, rath er than att r ibuted, denominational proscriptiveness, the test of the hypothesis presented here also employs perceived denominational proscriptiven e ss as the indicator of religious norm qualities. Aggreg a te religiosity is used as the measure of -97

PAGE 108

-98"moral community.' The combination of these two conditional variables results in a test of the hypothesis involving a comparison of the findings from four models (see Table 16 of Appendix G) : Model 1low aggregate religiosity and perceived denominational prescriptiveness; Model 2--low aggregate religiosity and perceived denominational proscriptiv e ness; Model 3 -high aggregate religiosity and perceived denominational prescriptiveness; and Model 4high aggregate religiosity and perceived denominational proscriptiveness. The logic of this integrated hypothesis would predict the strongest relative effects for Model 4, followed by Models 2 and 3, and the weakest relative effects for Model 1. Likewise, the predicted probability of use for the strongly religious should be lowest in Model 4 and highest in Model 1 As Table 17 in Appendix G indicates, these predi c tions are not supported by these data on adolescent marijuana use. The strongest support for the hypothesis is evidenced in the relative effect of the personal asceticism variable and in the predicted probability of use for the strongly religious in which Model 4 (the high aggregate religiosity and perceiv e d denominational proscriptiveness model) yields the most powerful effects. The predicted probability of use for the strongly religious in Model 4 is the lowest yet reported in these data and is approximately half that of the other probability coefficients reported in Models 1 through 3. The proportional effect (Pk) of personal asceticism in

PAGE 109

-99Model 4 is -.586, while in Model 1 it is only -.045. Likewise, the partial correlation coefficient (Rk) for personal asceticism is -.154 in Model 4 versus -.000 in Model 1. While these statistics offer some support for the Integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities hypothesis, the parameter estimates for the relative effects of the two religiosity variables contradict the hypothesis. That is, the relative effects of religiousness and participatory salience on adolescent marijuana use are stronger in Model 1 than in Model 4. Therefore, the integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities hypothesis receives at best only limited, marginal support from these data on adolescent marijuana use. Alcohol Use Whereas perceived denominational proscriptiveness was used with marijuana use, attributed denominational proscriptiveness is used as the indicator of religious norm qualities in this test of the hypothesis for adolescent alcohol use (see Models 1 through 4 in Table 18 of Appendix G). Table 19 of Appendix G shows that greater support for the hypothesis is evidenced when alcohol use is the dependent variable than when it is tested for marijuana use.

PAGE 110

-100For instance, the relative effects (bk) of both participatory salience and personal asceticism are strongest in Model 4 and weakest in Model 1. For each one-unit increase in participatory salience in Model 4, the multiplicative effects on the odds of alcohol use is exp(-.613) = .54. In Model 1, however, each one-unit increase in participatory salience results in only a exp (-.149) = .86 multiplicative effect. Thus, for those youth for whom participation in church activities is ''very important," the odds of use are .54 3 = .16 (for Model 4) versus .86 3 = .64 (for Model 1) times as high as that for those for whom such participation is "not important at all." Likewise, the partial correlation coefficient for participatory salience in Model 4 is modest significant (Rk=-.118). while for Model 1 it is zero (Rk= -.000). The effect on the odds of alcohol use for personal asceticism is exp(-.686) = .50 in Model 4 compared to only exp (-.315) = .73 in Model 1. Finally, while the overall predi c ted probabilities of use for the weakly religious are essentially the same in all four models (i.e., P(Y=l) ranges from .92 to .95), the predi c ted probabilities of use for the strongly religious vary widely across models. Model 1 has the highest probability of use at .76, while the probability of use predicted for the strongly religious in Model 4 is much lower at .41. Thus, while the degree of support for the Integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities hypothesis

PAGE 111

-101is far from complete, it is sufficient enough to lend it some credibility. Conclusions Support for the Integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities hypothesis is quite limited. Nevertheless, enough evidence is observed with the data on adolescent alcohol use to keep the hypothesis from being dismissed outright.

PAGE 112

CHAPTER TEN SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Hirschi and Stark's Hellfire hypothesis asserts that religiosity is inversely related to deviant behavior. While their analysis did not support this hypothesis, subsequent researchers report findings consistent with the Hellfire argument (Rhodes and Reiss, 1970; Rohrbaugh and Jessor, 1975; Higgens and Albrecht, 1977; Albrecht et al., 1977; Jensen and Erickson, 1979; Tittle and Welch, 1983). However, a more thorough review of the extant literature regarding the effects of religiosity on deviant behavior reveals three theoretical modifications to the original Hellfire hypothesis. The first modification, which I label the Anti-asc e ticism hypothesis, is derived from the works of Middleton and Putney (1962) and Burkett and White (1974). This hypothesis respecifies the Hellfire hypothesis by limiting the range of deviant behaviors affected by religiosity to only those which violate ascetic norms (i.e., sensual indulgences such as premarital sex, gambling, and substance use, which are not consistently disapproved of in the secular setting). Support for this Anti-asceticism hypothesis is so widespread that it may be considered an empirical generalization (Bock et al., 1985). -102

PAGE 113

-103However, even with the overwhelming consistency of research support, both the Anti-asceticism hypothesis and the original Hellfire hypothesis have been criticized by some sociologists because of the absence of a sound theoretical foundation. Responses to these criticisms have typically involved the incorporation of these two micro level models into a more general framework. From these efforts come the next two modifications. The first, which I label the Norm Qualities hypothesis, is based on the work of Jensen and Erickson (1970) who claim that one of the most severe flaws of the two previous models is their failure to consider the possibility of an interaction between religiosity and religious affiliation on deviance. Their research, as well as that of others, has shown that the effect of religiosity on deviance does vary by denomination (Jensen and Erickson, 1979; Schlegel and Sanborn, 1979; Nelson and Rooney, 1982; Hadaway et al., 1982; Cochran and Bock, 1984; Bock et al., 1985; Cochran et al., 1986). The interpretations given to such findings have been described in terms of reference group theory (Bock et al., 1985; Cochran et al., 1986). The second of these modifications is labeled the Moral Communities hypothesis and is de r ived from research conducted by Rodney Stark and his colleagues (Stark et al., 1980; 1982--see also Tittle and Welch, 1983). Deducing from Durkheim (1915), these authors claim that societies and

PAGE 114

-104communities vary in the extent to which religion binds their mem bers into a "moral community" (i.e., communities where religious influences permeate the culture and the social interactions of their members; where religion is an integral part of everyday life). They argue, in turn, that only in moral communities can religiosity function to prevent or deter deviant behavior. Thus, they stipulate an interaction effect between religiosity and moral community (indicated by aggregate r e ligiosity) on deviant behavior. While their research supports these claims, the work of Tittle and Welch (1983) fails to support this respecification The last modification not revealed in the literature but logically deducible from it, provides a third respecification of the original models by integrating the Norm Qualities and Moral Communities hypotheses. According to t his hypothesis, the relationship between religiosity and d evi ant behavio r is conditional upon both the normative orientation of the religio us affiliation and the level of aggregate religiosity. Each of these five hypotheses (i.e., the original Hellfire hypothesis of Hirschi and Stark, the Middleton and Putney Anti-asceticism hypothesis, the Jensen and Erickson Norm Qualities hypothesis, the Stark et al. Moral Communities hypothesis, and the integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities hypothesis) has been tested here with self-report data from a sample of approximately 3,000 male and female adolescents attending grades seven through

PAGE 115

-105twelve in seven school dist ric ts in three mid-western states. The conclusions generated from these t ests are presented below. Summary The Hirschi and Stark Hellfire Hypothesis Religiousness and participatory salience, the two indicators of religiosity, are nearly always inversely re lated wit h the indicators of serious deviant behavior such as vandalism, theft, assault, and the use of hard drugs. However, the strengths of thes e relationships are quite weak with partial correlation coefficients (Rk) failing to exceed .15. The relative effect of participatory salience (i.e., the impo r tance of involvement in church activities) are somewhat more powerful than that of religiousness in predicting involvement in delinquency per se, vandalism, petty and grand theft, and the use of hard drugs, particularly stimulants, depressants, and psychedelics. On the other hand, religiousness is a stronger predictor of involv ement in motor vehicle theft, assault, weapon use, and the use of narcotics. The overall predicted probabilities of involvement in both general and offense specific delinquency and the use of hard drugs is substantially less for the strongly religious (i.e., thos e adolescents who claim to be "quite religious" and for whom participation in church activities is "very

PAGE 116

-106important") than for the weakly religious (i.e., those who report minimum values of religiousness and participatory salience). Thus, though the relative effects of the religiosity indicators are weak, their combined or cumulative effect is quite strong and provides solid support for the Hellfire hypothesis. However, the values of the partial correlation coefficients which estimate the relative effect of the participatory salience variable tend to decrease in strength as offense seriousness increases. Likewise, the risk factors (i.e., how many times more likely the weakly religious are to report involvement in deviant behavior than the strongly religious) also tend to decrease as offense severity increases. Both of these trends suggest that the effects of religiosity wane as offense severity, and therefore, societal consensus, increases. Such findings are consistent with the arg um ents of Middleton and Putney (1962) and Burkett and White (1974), thus lending some support to the Anti-asceticism hypothesis. The Middleton and Putney Anti-asceticism Hypothesis With the exception of the effect of religiousness on the use of alcohol in general and beer and wine specifically, both religiosity variables show notable inverse relationships with the various indicators of anti ascetic behavior. However, the relative effects of the

PAGE 117

-107religiousness va r iable are weak (i.e., Rk < -.100). Likewise, the strength of the relative effects of participatory salience are als o weak, though more moderate effects are observed for the partial correlation between participatory salience and the use of marijuana, beer, liquor, and a lcohol in general (i.e., -.100 < Rk < -.250). The instantaneous rate of change coefficients (Pk) for the religiousness and participatory salience measures indicate that significant proportional reductions in the predicted probability of anti-ascetic behavior are associated with increases in religiosity. The overall predicted probability estimates, P(Y=l), also indicate rather large differences between the weakly religious and the strongly religious in terms of involvement in premarital sexual intercourse and the use of both marijuana and alcohol (with the weakly religious more likely to engage in these behaviors). While these findings provide some support for the Anti asceticism hypothesis, they are a lso equally supportive of the original Hellfire hypothesis. Only by comparing these results with thos e from the tests of the Hellfire hypothesis can a "true" test of the Anti-asceticism hypothesis be made Such comparisons indicate that the strengths of the relative effects of the religiosity indicators are very stable across all forms of deviant behavior analyzed. In addition, larger risk factor values are associated with behavior in violation of secular rather than ascetic norms. Thus, the effects of

PAGE 118

-108religiousness and participatory salience a re not stronger for behaviors that violate ascetic norms as claimed by Middleton and Putney (1962) and Burkett and White (1974). Thes e comparisons, therefore, provide no support for the Anti-asceticism hypothesis. Burkett (1977) has suggest e d that the Anti-asceticism hypothesis be r e vised to include both direct and indire c t religiosity effects. The indirect effects are claimed to be medi a ted through a religiously based morality of personal asc e ticism. Tests of this revised Anti-asceticism model fail to support Burkett's argument. First, the religiosity variables ar e not related to personal asceticism. Second personal asc e ticism, in turn, is not related to anti-ascetic beha v ior. Thus, there is no evidence of an indi r ect religiosity effect mediated through a religiously based morality of personal asceticism. Furthermore, no diff e rences are observed in the p a rameter estimates of the di r ect r e ligiosity effects and no significant improvement in the predi c tive capacities of the estim a ted models is e videnced. The Jensen and Erickson Norm Qualities Hypothesis Both the independent and the combined effects of the three religion variables (i.e., religiousness, participatory salience, and personal asceticism) on self-reported m arijuana use a re as strong or stronger for those youth

PAGE 119

-109belonging to religious affiliations traditionally attributed as prescriptive in their normative stand toward sensual indulgences than for those adolescents belonging to proscriptively attributed denominations. However, when denominational proscriptiveness is measured by the subjects' perception of their religion's normative orientation toward marijuana use, some support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis is observed. Both the variables that affect adolescent marijuana use and the strength of their effects vary across levels of perceived denominational pros cr iptiveness. The inhibitory capacities of the two religiosity measures are stronger within religious affiliations that are perceived to be prescriptive, while personal asceticism inhibits use among those youth belonging to religions that are perceived of as proscriptive. When analyzed across levels of attributed denominational proscriptiveness, strong support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis is provided by these data on adolescent alcohol use. Nearly every comparison of the independent effects of the religiosity and personal asceticism variables on alcohol consumption is stronger, as predicted, in the proscriptive models than in the prescriptive model. Likewise comparisons of the combined or cumulative impact of these variables also supports the hypothesis. While the predicted probability of use for the weakly religious remains stable across levels of attributed denominational proscriptiveness, the probability of use predicted for the

PAGE 120

-110strongly religious is substantially less for those youth belonging to proscriptive denominations. However, virtually no support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis is observed in these data on self-reported alcohol use when comparisons are made across levels of perceived religious norm qualities. Thus, the Norm Qualities hypothesis is supported only under the following conditions: for marijuana use, when religious norm qualities are measured according to respondent's perceptions, but not when measured by traditional attributions; for alcohol use, the opposite is true (i.e., support is provided only when attributed religious norm qualities are employed). Why is the support so varied? The following are presented as possible or tentative explanations. The lack of support observed for marijuana use under the attributed religious norm qualities models may be due to inaccuracies in the attributions. Because there are no longstanding official religious doctrines relating to marijuana use, the attributions of normative orientations were based on the traditional stands these various re ligions take regarding sensual indulgences in general. Thus, these may not be wholly accurate attributions and the lack of support may, in turn, be due to this measurement error However, given the time of this survey (1977), it is quite likely that many individual churches took an open and vigorous stand against marijuana use. Those adoles cents who attended church when sermons were delivered denouncing the

PAGE 121

-111use of marijuana were better able to accurately perceive the normative messages of thei r church than those failing to attend. Thus, accuracy in perception may be a function of religiosity which accounts for the support these data on adolescent marijuana use provide for the Norm Qualities hypothesis when analyzed across levels of perceived denominational pr os criptiveness There is, on the other hand, a long tradition of official church doctrines toward the consumption of alcohol and these doctrines permit the accurate attribution of normative orientations. As such, the strong support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis evidenced in thes e data on self reported alcohol us e is not surprising. However, the lack of support for the hypothesis when evaluated across levels of perceived denominational proscriptiveness is difficult to explain. Giv en the clarity and consistency of these religious doctrines on alcohol use, it is unlikely that the respondents would inaccurately perceive their church's stan ce. Therefore, measurement error in the perceived religious norm qualities variable can probably be ruled out. The lack of support may be due to the highly skewed distribution of this variable (e.g., only 137 responden ts perceived their church to be proscriptive). Perhaps a larger sample size would have resulted in better support for the hypothesis. While these explanations are plausible they are also tentative and the possibility that

PAGE 122

-112more suitable alternative explanations exist remains very open. The Stark et al. Moral Communities Hypothesis Comparisons of the independent and combined effects of the religiosity and personal asceticism variables on selfreported marijuana use for those youth who reside in communities characterized by low levels of aggregate religiosity (i.e., where fifty percent or less indicate that they are "quit e religious") with youth who live within moral communities (i.e., those school districts with high aggregate religiosity; where a majority express that they are "quite religious") exhibit no support for the arguments of Stark and his associates (1980; 1982). Rather than observing stronger religious effects in the high aggregate religiosity model, these data reveal no variation in the strength of these relative effects across levels of aggregate religiosity. Likewise, the predicted probabilities of use for both the weakly and strongly religious remain stable across models. While the findings differ slightly for adolescent alcohol use, support for the Moral Communities hypothesis is, for the most part, also lacking. In sum, both the independent and combined effects of religiousness, participatory salience, and personal asceticism on both adolescent marijuana and alcohol use are essentially no stronger for those youth from communities

PAGE 123

-113characterized by high levels of aggregate religiosity than for those from communities with low levels of aggregate religiosity. As such, these data provide almost no support for the Moral Communities hypothesis. The Integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities Hypothesis With regard to marijuana use, the strongest support for this integr a ted hypothesis is provided by the relative effect of personal asceticism and the probability of use predicted for the strongly religious in which the most powerful parameter estimates are observed for those youth from communities characterized by high aggregate religiosity and who belong to proscriptive denominations. However, contradictory evidence is presented regarding the relative effects of the two religiosity variables, in which stronger effects are reported for the low aggregate religiosity prescriptive model. Therefore, these data on adolescent marijuana use provide only limited support, at best, for this integrated hypothesis. Greater support however, is evidenced when alcohol use is employed as the dependent va r iable. The proportional effects of both participatory salience and personal asceticism are consistent with the hypothesis, though statistical significance is not attained In addition, the predicted probabilities of use for the strongly religious vary widely across the four comparison models with the

PAGE 124

-114lowest likelihoods predicted in accordance with the hypothesis. Thus, while the degree of empirical support for this integrated hypothesis is far from impressive, it is sufficient enough to justify continued testing. The Anti-Asceticism H!pothesis Revisited: A Brie Note The Jensen and Erickson Norm Qualities hypothesis and the Stark et al. Moral Communities hypothesis were each introduced as modifications of the Anti-asceticism hypothesis (see Chapters Seven and Eight). Did the addition of the conditional statements provided by these respecifications improve the Anti-asceticism hypothesis? Table 20 in Appendix H reports the predicted probabilities of marijuana and alcohol use for each theoretical development of the original Anti-asceticism hypothesis (i.e., Burkett's revision and each of the three modifications: the Norm Qualities hypothesis, the Moral Communities hypothesis, and the integrated Moral Communities-Norm Qualities hypothesis). Under the original Anti-asceticism hypothesis, the likelihood of marijuana use predicted for the strongly religious (i.e., those youth who are "quit e religious" and for whom participation in church activities is "very important") is .17. With the inclusion of the personal asceticism measure (Burkett's revision), the predicted probability of marijuana use reduces down to .15 for the

PAGE 125

-115strongly religious (now defined as those adolescents who are "quite religious," for whom participation in church activities is "very important," and who d e fine marijuana use proscriptively). The respecifications of this latter model reduce the predi c ted probability of use even further: down to .13 for strongly religious youth who belong to religious affiliations perceived as pros c riptive and .14 for those strongly religious adolescents who r e side in communities charact er ized by high aggregate religiosity. In concert, these two m odifications ultimately lead to a predicted probability of use for the strongly religious of only .07, a proportional r eduction of 40% from the original model. Clearly, each theoretical develop m ent has improved upon the original hypothesis first argued by Middleton and Putney (1962). On the other hand, whil e these modifications have s e rved to improve the original hypothesis, it is also clear that the improvements are slight and that r e ligiosity itself, independent of these modifications, is the primary factor impeding use. This is evidenced by the fact that the differences in the ov e rall predi c ted probabilities of use between the strongly and weakly religious are quite stable across models, with only minor in c reases due to the slight impact of t h ese theoretical modifications. The majority of th e se diff e rences is a fun c tion of the independent influence of r e ligiosity. For example, the difference in the predi c ted probability of ma r ijuana use b e tween weakly and

PAGE 126

-116strongly religious adolescents in the o r iginal Anti asceticism model (column 1 of Table 20) is .52; this diff e rence increases to only .56 with information on the degr e e of denominational proscriptiveness (column 3). only .04 is due to diff e rences in denominational proscriptivenss; the r e maining .52 is a function of diff e rences in r e ligiosity. These findings, with regard to marijuana use, Thus, suggest that the original Anti-asc e ticism hypothesis of Middleton and Putney appears to garner the greatest support with only limited and mixed support provide for the subsequent theoretical developments. The findings with regard to adolescent alcohol use, however, provide much greater support for these modifications and the reductions in the predi c ted probability of use fo r the strongly re ligious ar e not e worthy. Originally predicted at .69, the likelihood of alcohol consu m ption among the strongly religious reduces to .60 under Burkett's revision, while the probability of use predicted for the weakly religious remains constant at .93. When analyzed across levels of attribut e d denominational proscriptiveness these data result in a predicted p r ob ab i 1 i t y o f u s e o f 3 8 a d e c r ea s e o f 3 1 ( 6 93 8 ) The Moral Communities modification reduce the likelihood of use for the strongly religious to .56, while information on both the degree of denominational prosc r iptiveness and level of aggregate religiosity lowers the likelihood of use to .41

PAGE 127

-117(an overall reduction of 28 points). Again, under each modification the predicted probability of use for the weakly religious holds constant at .93. Thus, each of these modifications improves the Anti-asceticism hypothesis by a significant amount. In conclusion, the predicted probability of marijuana use is much greater for adolescents who are weakly religious than for those youth who are strongly religious, and the differences between these probabilities increase only slightly when additional information on personal asceticism, denominational proscriptiveness, and/or aggregate religiosity is provided. These findings are consistent with those reported throughout this study and suggest that the original Anti-asceticism hypothesis of Middleton and Putney may be sufficient and without need for the theoretical modifications expressed by others. The probability of alcohol use predi c ted for the weakly r eligious youth in these data is also much greater than that predicted for the strongly r e ligious. However, the differences between these probabilities, unlike those for marijuana use, do in c rease substantially with the addition of this information, particularly data on denominational proscriptiveness. These findings, with regard to adolescent alcohol consumption, are also consistent with those discussed throughout this study. In addition, these findings suggest that the Anti-ascetiscm hypothesis is too narrow to fully account for the manne r in which religion

PAGE 128

I l l -118serves to constrain teenage alcohol use. In the section below, I will attempt to provide a theoretical framework, informed by reference group theory, to account for these various findings. Discussion Most previous work in this area has simply attempted to establish empirical relationships between religion and various forms of deviant behavior, choosing neither to deduce their hypotheses from any theoretical base nor attempting to ground their findings into any abstract notions (Tittle and Welch, 1983; Bock et al. 1985; Ellis, 1985; and Cochran et al., 1986 represent exceptions). While there is nothing wrong with such efforts, their atheoretical quality makes them of limited usefulness. I, on the other hand, have taken the various conceptual and theoretical strands running through the literature on the relationship between religion and deviant behavior and have presented them as successive modifications of the original Hellfire hyp ot hesis. This has, I believe, produced a heightened conceptual unity and clarity that was very much needed in the literature. It has become obvious that the basic hypothesis asserting an inverse relationship between religiosity and deviant behavior holds up quite well, and that these modifications specify this effect a little more clearly The development of these linked models as presented in this dissertation is farther than anyone has

PAGE 129

-119gone in providing coherence to this body of research. However, having taken it this far, the stage is set for trying to integrate these models into a broader theoretical perspective. While some possible theoretical traditions have been adumbrated by Tittle and Welch (1983), I shall concentrate on reference group theory as a broader theoretical tradition capable of subsuming all of the many disparate findings and concepts into a single organized body of knowledge. Reference group theory takes as its key premise the assertion that individuals' behaviors, attitudes, values, and beliefs are decisively shaped by the groups in which they participate. This perspective, which lies at the core of sociology, is implied in the works of classical theorists like Marx, Durkheim, and Weber as well as by each of the social scientists whose research efforts have been cited throughout this paper. Each asserts that the moral messages expressed through religion shape society by influencing the behavior of individuals. Bock et al. (1983) have stated systematically the conditions under which people will use a group, particularly a religious group as a frame of reference. While dismissing the claims of Ofshe (1972), who argued that no criteria exist for determining whether a group is a point of reference, Bock and his colleagues returned to the works of Robert K. Merton to rediscover the elements needed to construct a formal statement of reference group theory (see

PAGE 130

-120Merton and Rossi, 1950 and Merton, 1958). First, Merton and Rossi said that before people can use a group's norms as a point of reference for their own attitudes or behaviors, they must perceive "some similarity in status attributes" between themselves and the m embers of the group (1950: 296297). In addition, Merton emphasized that individuals must be oriented to the values of the group (Merton and Rossi, 1950: 301-302; Merton, 1958: 386-394). Further, Merton and Rossi noted that sustained intera c tion is a necessary factor for group influence (1950: 285-286). Finally, Merton indicated the importance of significant others who would be influenced by the group; these significant others must be both highly visible and capable of articulating group norms and values (1958: 391-393). Bock et al. (1983) organized these seminal ideas into the following formal statement: The degree to which a group or collectivity serves as a normative reference group for an individual is a positive and additive function of (1) the degree of similarity b e tween the status attributes of that individual and the group members, (2) the degree to which the individual's values and beliefs correspond to those of the other group members (3) the degree of clarity in the group's values and beliefs, (4) the degree to which the individual engages in sustained interacti on with other members of the group, and (5) the degree to which the individual defines other group members as significant Psychologists have shown that there is substantial empirical support for each of the conditional statements in this hypothesis (Allen and Wilder, 1976; Singer, 1981). More important, however is the fit of religion and

PAGE 131

-121religiosity with this set of statements. First, it has been empirically established that people belonging to the same church are quite homogeneous in that they shar e similar status attributes (Beeghley et al., 1981). Thus, the first element o f this for m al stat e ment of ref e rence group theory is satisfied and suggests that r eligious groups may serve as ref e rence groups. Second, people belonging to th e same r e ligion share similar values a nd beliefs, particularly those associated with official church doct r ine (Bock et al., 1983). In addition, these r e ligious values and beliefs are usually clearly articulated and tend to be relatively s table and enduring over time (Salisbury, 1964; Chalfant et al., 1981). Thus, both the second and third c riteria of religion as a r e ference group ar e also met. The forth element is also satisfied because people who regularly attend religious services ar e by definition, in sustained interaction with one another. Finally, the fifth factor is indicated by the fact that strongly religious people n e arly always define their Priests, Ministers, and Rabbis as significant others, as moral leaders (Alston and McIntosh, 1979). In sum, both religion p e r se and denominations in particular can serve as reference groups for thei r members. Furthermore, it is very likely that the normative ref e rence fun c tions of religious groups are gr e ater for those who ar e st r ongly religious. Th a t is, the more religious individuals are, the greater the probability of them e m ploying religion as a frame of reference. Thus, r e ligiosity can be applied as an indicator

PAGE 132

~ --------~ -122of the likelihood that a religious group will be employed as a point of normative reference. It is useful here to b e reminded that the term '"reference group' is something of a misnomer" (Merton, 1958: 338). The concept ref e rence group includes, in rather undifferentiated fashion, any collection of people "who have a sense of solidarity by virtue of sharing common values and who have acquired an attendant sense of moral obligation to fulfill role-expectations" (Merton, 1958: 353). Thus, the various religious groups and collectivities employed in this study can each serve as a form of religious reference group. First, religion, per se, can be a reference group. Here group membership is und e fined, though largely a function of whether or not, and to what degree, one is religious. Because nearly all religions are concern with moral issues and strive to promot e the practice of good, moral behavior, and because deviant behavior is broadly equated as immoral behavior, the inverse relationship between religiosity and deviance can serve as general e vidence of the degree to which religion is utilized as a global, normative reference g r oup which encourages conformity in its me m bers. That is, the more religious one is, the greate r the degree to which religion will be employed as a frame of reference; the more religion is employed as a normative reference point, the greater the conformity to religious moral norms and values. Therefore,

PAGE 133

-123religiosity is positively related to conformity and negatively related to deviance. However, more so than religion in general, one's denomination and church of attendance may also serve as a religious reference group. Because these groups are more proximate to the individual, they are able to more clearly articulate their values and beliefs regarding moral issues sucy as the use of alcohol or marijuana. Because there is va r iability across these groups in their normative stands on these moral issues, notions of what constitutes conformity also varies. When denominational or church norms strictly proscribe behavior such as alcohol use, conformity is evidenced by abstinence. On the other hand, where denominational or church norms toward alcohol use are more tolerant of use, then conformity is evidenced by abstinence as well as by consumption in moderation. Conformity to these various religious norms should be greatest when these religious groups are most utilized as frames of reference. Thus, the inverse relationship between religiosity (i.e., the employment of a religious group as a frame of reference) and alcohol use will vary dire c tly with the degree of proscriptiveness of these religious groups. The notion of moral community represents a third means through which religion can serve as a frame of reference. The differential association perspective of Sutherland and Cressy (1978), undoubtedly derived from reference group theory (Merton, 1958), argues that deviance is directly related to an excess exposure to social definitions

PAGE 134

-124favorable to deviance. Since almost all religions are devoted to the practice and promotion of moral behavior, it follows that those individuals with higher levels of religiosity are exposed to more messages unfavorable toward deviance. Therefore, the greater one's religiosity, the less likely one is to engage 1n deviant behavior. "If religiosity exposes a person to an excess of definitions favorable to conformity, .. this effect should be greatest where religiously informed definitions are widely dispersed" (Tittle and Welch, 1983: 660). It is in 11 moral communities 11 (i.e., thos e communities in which a majority profess that they are 11 qu i te re 1 ig ious 11 ) that such religiously informed definitions are most widely dispersed. Thus, moral communities may serve as an additional source of religious reference by exposing residents to an excess of conformity messages consistent with those present in the religious realm. These applications of reference group theory to religious groups and colle ctivities are presented in a post hoc fashion and are only tent ative ly submitted. Without question other theoretical perspectives may also account for these findings. For instance, in addition to the reference group/differential association perspe c tive presented above, Tittle and Welch suggest several other theoretical perspectives which can also serve as the basis for expecting religiosity to inhibit deviance (1983: 656-658).

PAGE 135

-125An agenda for future research would suggest first and foremost that the atheoretical nature of research on the inhibitory impact of relgiosity on deviant behavior must be addressed. While a number of theoretical perspectives can account for some of the findings, only reference group theory appears capable of explaining both the varying influence of religiosity over many forms of deviant behavior as well as the interactions between religiosity and both religious norm qualities and aggregate religiosity. Nevertheless, the reference group perspective is still theoretically undeveloped. Particularly important to the development of a reference group explanation of the "religious factor" is the notion of multiple groups of reference. In a pluralistic society, it is most unlikely that religious groups serve as the only source of normative guidance or as the most powerful. Moreover, it is quite likely that individuals may be members of groups whose norms and values conflict with those of their religious reference groups. Thus, the theoretical development of a reference group explanation of the religious factor must account for both the selection of religious groups as a source of normative di re ction over other groups which are in value or normative conflict with these religious groups and the salience of religious reference groups r e lative to other frames of reference with similar normative orientations. Once this theoretical development has been accomplished, formal statements and hypoth ese s should be

PAGE 136

-126derived and tested with data appropriate to the task. These data should address the limitations of the present research as well as that in previous studies. It is imperative that a wide range of deviant behaviors is analyzed, that multiple indicators tapping the full dimensionality of religiosity are available, that sufficient statistical controls are included, that various forms of religious reference groups be examined, that theoretically appropriate interactions are examined, and that careful measures are taken to examine both the mechanism or process of selecting religious groups as points of reference and the impact of these religious reference groups relative to other groups of reference. Our knowledge remains immature until each of these issues is fu 11 y addressed.

PAGE 137

APPENDIX A TABLE OF PRIOR RESEARCH ON THE RELIGIOSITY DEVIANCE RELATIONSHIP

PAGE 138

N co I Table 1 Prior Research on the Religiosity-Deviance Relationship S ou r ce ( d:, I ,, ) 11 1 r ,i c l,J \ : ; l a rk ( 1 1 J) i J>O r l l' O) li e l. l [i re ( n o t s u ppo rt e d) A nt i a s c et i c i s m (s up po rt e d) Antlas c e tici sm ( s upp o rt e d) ll e llfir e ( s upp o rt e d ) Antia s c e t i cjsm ( s u p p o rt e d) l le llf i r e ( s u pp o rt e d ) Anti-u s ce li c i sm (su pp o rl c rd s Lr11an r y f , r r I c I n 1 ti e I J 11 q 11 e 11 c y s e l f -r cpo rt e d d e lin q u e n cy f r e~ u ency o f a l co h o l a nd m a riju a n n u g e se l f -r e po r te tl l1 e v i ancc SL l f-r c p o r lc d U ee r ;ind ma rijua na u se 1 1 l L < 11 d .i 1 1 r l' ,i.;; h e l I f ,: < l l. l 1' n ,I : 1 II f' d e, 1, 1111 i 11 ; 11 i u 11, & p 11r ~11L: il nl l c 11 d : 111 c c n tt e ntl a nc e & ll e n omi n at i o n a lt cnd n nc e d e n om i1 1n li on & p a r oc hi a l sc h oo l R lt e nd. n t lcndnn ce pr r1y c r s .:i. l i c n cc b e li e fs .~ c x pc rl L' n ccs .i t L e 11 cl 1 n c e pr :i y e r, /', b e li e f s a L L l II d ; 1 II C C b e li ef s & 1, a r c 11 t al att e ndAn ce y I 8 y "" y es y es ye s y es ye s I C;i 11 1 111a I I" 1 t J p I e C l:i 8s l f i c;, t 1 0 11 An II l y s I s C o mm a Pea r so n' s R h o Pe a r so n' s R h o l' cri r so n' s N h o Mu lti pl c R G:1 111111 .:i.

PAGE 139

Table 1 contin u e d: Source ( ,J" t c,) lli 1 :g i11 ,; & AIIJrcchL ( I 17 I) l.i11tl t 11 1~ Currie ( 1 ')77) Jensen & Erickson ( 1 9 79) S chlege l & Sa nb o rn (1979) Turner & W illis ( 1979) ll u r I< e Lt ( l 9tJO) Stn r k Doyle & Kent ( 19 80 ) Snmp le l,) U) tenth 11r11de s tudent s ( (;co r 8 I u) 75U tLcn:1ccrs (Ca l gary) 3,268 high school students (A r iz o na) 342 high sc hool students (Ontnri o) 379 co l Le ge students (Nc,w Jersey) 323 ninth g rade s tudents (Pacific NW) 11 93 St\SAs llypoth e s i :; T es t e d (support) llellflrc (support e d) Antl-a sce t.lcism ( s ll i > p Ort C
PAGE 140

Table 1 continued: S ource (date) :lclntosh, Fi t ch, I-ii 1 so 11 & ii y i, c r g ( 1 9~ I ) Krohn , \ ke r s l~ a d o s c v i c h & L anza Kad uce ( I
PAGE 141

Table 1 continued: ~ource (d a te) Ti tL l e & 1./c l c h ( l 'J d J) Coch r a n & Bock (1~ 8 4) lladaway Elifson, & Peter s e n ( 1 9:3 4) Bock Coch r a n & Ueeg hl ey (1985) Perkins (1 9 8 5) Coch ran, Ueeghley, Hock ( 1986) Sample 1, 993 re s idents of Iowa, O r egon & N ew Jersey 4,530 adults ( NORC genera l social s urveys) 600 white high sc h oo l st ud e nt s (Georgia) 4,530 adults (NORC general soc i a l s urveys) 1,515 coll ege students ( Ne w York) 7,5 8 1 adults (NO RC general social surveys) llyp othesj s Tested I ( s uppor~) llell(ire (supported) ~ 1 o r nl Commltnjties (not s upported) Anti-ascetjcism ( SU p ported) No rm Qualities (supported) Hellfire (supported) Anti-asceticism (supported) Antiascet i c i s m (supported) No rm Q u al iti es (supported) Ant i ascetic ism (supp o rt e d) Norm Q ualities (supported) Anti-asceticism (supported) Norm Qualities (supported) !Jepend e nt Variabl e ( s ) self -r epo rt ed deviancy se lf-r epo rted alcohol u se self-reported a lcoh ol a nd marijuana use se lf-r epo rted alcohol u se se lf-r epo rt ed substance u se self-reported alcohol use I Independent Variable(s) attendance attendance, denomination, sa li ence, & p a rticip at i o n attendance, denomination, prayer, beliefs, sa lience, o rthodo xy & parental at t e ndance nttendance, d e nom i n a tion, salience, & pa rti cipa tion snUence & denomin ation a tt e nd ance d e nomination, sa lience, beliefs, & participation Controls yes/no yes yes y es yes ye s yes I r !e t hod of Analysis Spea rm n n' s Rho i -lultiple Regression R2 Gamm a Discriminant Function Analysis Multiple Regression R2 Multiple Reg re ssio n L og istic Regression r-' w r-' I

PAGE 142

APPENDIX B TABLE OF THE VARIABLES, THEIR CODINGS, AND DISTRIBUTIONS

PAGE 143

Table 2 : The variables, Th eir Codings and Dist ributions ------=~--------=--= = === =---=== = == =-= = === = ====== Indicators of Delinquent Behavior: Vandalism O=never 1453 (50.7 %) l=once or more 1414 (49.3%) Motor Vehical Theft O=never 2580 (90.0 %) l=once or more 286 (10.0%) Assult O=never 2341 (81.6%) l=once or more 529 (18.4%) weapon use O=never 2478 (86.6%) l=o nce or more 382 (13.4%) Petty Theft O=never 1653 (57.9 %) l=once or more 1202 (42.1%) Grand Theft O=never 2665 (93.8%) l=once or more 1 77 ( 6.2%) Delinquency O=never 2112 (75.2%) l=once or more 698 (24.8%) -133

PAGE 144

-134Table 2 continued: -------------= === --======= = = = =================-= Stimulants Depr es sants Psychedelics Narcotics Hard Drugs 0=nonuser l=user 0=nonuser l=user 0=nonuser l=user 0=nonuser l=user 0=nonuser l=user Indicators of Anti-ascetic Behavior: Marijuana 0=nonuser l=user Beer 0=nonuser l=user Wine 0=nonuser l=user 2575 (84.6%) 470 (15.4%) 2737 (89.7%) 315 (10.3%) 2851 (93.4%) 202 ( 6.6%) 2924 (95.6%) 134 ( 4.4%) 2674 (88.1%) 360 (11.9%) 1757 (57.5%) 1298 (42.5%) 566 (18.5%) 2490 (81.5%) 655 ( 21. 5%) 2385 (78.5%)

PAGE 145

-135Table 2 continued: ---------------------========-----================ == ======= Liquor Alcohol Premarital Sex O=nonuser l=user O=nonuser l=user O=never l=once or more Religious variables: Religiousness l=not religious at all 2=a little religious 3=more than a little religious 4=quite religious Participatory Salience (Importance of Church Activities) l=not important at all 2=unirnportant 3=important 4=very important Personal Asceticism (toward alcohol) O=prescriptive l=proscriptive (toward marijuana) O=prescriptive l=proscriptive 936 (30.8%) 2104 (69.2%) 562 (18.6%) 2457 (81.4%) 1872 (65.9%) 970 (34.1%) 333 (10.9%) 1138 (37.3%) 919 (30.1%) 661 (21.7%) 667 (23.3%) 1008 (35.1%) 940 (32.8%) 253 ( 8.8%) 2776 (92.4%) 228 ( 7.6%) 2661 (88.8%) 337 (11.2%)

PAGE 146

-136Table 2 continued: -------------------=------------==-----------==== = Conditional variables: Attributed Denominational Proscriptiveness 0=prescriptive l=proscriptive Perceived Denominational Proscriptiveness ( toward alcohol) 0=prescriptive l=proscriptive (toward marijuana) 0=prescriptive l=proscriptive Aggrgate Religiosity 0=lower aggregate religiosity l=higher aggregate religiosity control variables: Age 2058 (74.0%) 722 (26.0%) 2470 (93.5%) 172 ( 6.5%) 2477 (93.9%) 162 ( 6.1%) 1643 (53.6%) 1422 (46.4%) (in years) 10-19 mean=lS.29 std. dev. = 1. 7 2 n=3054 Race Gender 0=black l=white 0=female l=male 145 ( 4.7%) 2920 (95.3%) 1713 (56.0%) 1346 (44.0%)

PAGE 147

-137Table 2 continued: SES (father's occupation) l=professional, technical, or kindred 2=rnanagers, officials, and proprietors 3=clerical, sales, and kindred workers 4=craftsmen, foremen and skilled workers 5=operatives and semi skilled workers 6=service workers 7=unskilled laborers and household workers 8=farm managers and owners 9=farm laborers 606 (23.9%) 503 (19.9%) 351 (13.9%) 628 (24.8%) 170 6.7%) 20 0.8%) 180 7. 1 % ) 70 2.8%) 5 0. 2%)

PAGE 148

APPENDIX C RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE HIRSCHI AND STARK HELL F IRE HYPOTHESIS

PAGE 149

------------Table 3: Logistic Regression Parameter Estimates for Tests of the Hirschi and Stark Hellfire Hypothesis. RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N P (Y=l) ( intercept) (model) MODEL l Delinquency Index -.223* -.409* .034 1.192* 1. 181* .009 -1.969 2557.79 2291. 90 265.89 .315* .245 2296 .006 .071 .032 .411 .104 .028 w/ 6 d. f. -.041* -.076* .006 .221* 218 .002 strongly religious .09 weakly religious .40 p < .05 -139-.062* -.103* .000 049 .216* .000

PAGE 150

Table 3 continued: RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of y N P (Y=l) (intercept) (model) .027 -.463* -.056* .564* 1. 254* -.033 .849 -1403242.28 2935.78 306.50 .301* .495 2339 strongly religious .31 weakly religious .63 p < .05 MODEL 2 vandalism .057 .061 .027 .257 .090 .024 w/ 6 d.f. .007 -.116* -.014* .141* .313* -.008 .000 -.132* -.026* .029* .243* -.000

PAGE 151

-141Table 3 continued: ---------------------------------------======-============= RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES INTERCEPT -.248* -.212* .111* 2.073* .712* -.056 -5.083 MODEL 3 Motor Vehical Theft 09 2 .099 .045 1.012 .144 .040 -.022* -.019* 010 .182* .063* -.005 -.059* -.042* .052* 038 .123* -.003 ----------------------------------------------------------2 Log L (intercept) 1493.82 -2 Log L (model) 1413.86 Model x2 79.96 w/ 6 d. f. RL .213* mean of Y 098 N 2335 ----------------------------------------------------------P(Y=l) strongly religious .04 weakly religious .15 p < 05

PAGE 152

-142Table 3 co n tinued: --------------------------------==-=== === ---= RELIGIOSITY: Religiousn e ss Particip a tory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gende r SES INT E RC E PT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x 2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) (int e rcept} (model) -.338* -.087 -.052 .049 1. 919* .038 -.943 2189.88 1871.82 318.07 .374* .178 2339 strongly r e ligious .08 weakly r e ligious .23 p < 05 MODEL 4 Assult .076 .080 .035 .325 .129 .031 w / 6 d.f. -.049* -.013 -.008 .007 .280* .006 -.090* -.000 -.009 .000 .316* 000

PAGE 153

-143Table 3 continued: ----=-------------------------=----=-==========-=== RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of y N P (Y=l) (int er cept) (model) -.208* -.187* -.028 -.048 .906* .082* -1.231 1774.42 1686.53 87.89 .207* .127 2331 strongly religious .07 weakly religious .19 p < .05 MODEL 5 Weapon use .082 .088 .039 .354 .129 .033 w / 6 d .f. -.023* -.021* -.003 -.005 .101* .009* -.050* -.038* -.000 -.000 .163* .048*

PAGE 154

-144Table 3 co nt inued: -------------------------------================== --==== RELIGIOSITY: Rel i giousn e ss Partici pa tory Salience CONTROLS: Ag e Race G e nd er SES INT E RC E PT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL m ean of Y N P(Y=l) ( int er cept) ( m odel) -.193* -.372* .062* 176 .417* .019 -.382 3154.35 2995.79 158.56 .216* .413 2327 st r ongly religious .22 w e akly r e ligious .60 p < 05 MODEL 6 P e tty Theft .056 .059 .027 250 .088 .023 w / 6 d.f. -.047* -.090* .015* .043 .101* .005 -.056* -.109* .033* 000 .081* .000

PAGE 155

-145Table 3 con ti nued: -----------------------------------------=---==--======= RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) ( intercept) (model) -.253* -.400* .163* .829 1.137* 097 -5.596 1057.40 958.20 MODEL 7 Grand Theft .117 .129 .058 .730 .191 .046 -.014* -.022* .009* .046 .064* .005* 99.20 w/ 6 d.f. .287* .060 2319 strongly religious .02 weakly r e ligious .10 p < .05 -.050* -.084* .074* .000 .178* .048*

PAGE 156

-146Table 3 continued: ----------------------------------------==-==-========= RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race G e nder SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N (intercept) (model) MODEL 8 Hard Drug use Index -.379* -.617* .297* .245 -.349* .026 -4.696 1704.02 1505.08 198.94 .331* 118 2348 .089 .098 .046 .445 .139 .036 w / 6 d. f. -.039* -.064* .031* .025 -.036* .003 -.098* -.148* .153* .000 -.050* .000 ---------------------------------------------------P(Y=l) strongly religious .02 w e akly r e ligious .2 8 p < .05

PAGE 157

-147Table 3 continued: ----= = ------------------------====-----==========-= =MODEL 9 Use of Stimulants RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Rac e G e nd e r SES INT E RC E PT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of y N P(Y=l) ( int e rcept) (mod e l) -.336* -.578* .291* .104 -.422* .030 -4.297 2015.22 1791.62 223.60.89 .324* .153 2358 strongly r e ligious .03 weakly r e ligious .33 p < 05 .079 .086 .041 .375 .125 .032 w / 6 d. f. -.044* -.075* .038* .014 -.055* .004 -.090* -.146* .157* .000 -.068* .000

PAGE 158

-148Table 3 continued: -----------------------------------=-----=============== MODEL 10 use of Depressants RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) (intercept) ( model) -.287* -.524* .187* -.456 -.162 .035 -2.876 1595.90 1479.89 116.01 .255* 106 2364 strongly religious .03 weakly r e ligious .23 p < 05 .090 .099 .045 .357 .140 .036 w / 6 d.f. -.027* -.050* .018* -.043 -.015 .003 -.071* -.127* .098* 000 -.000 .000

PAGE 159

-149Table 3 co nt inued: ---------------------------------=-==----===========--=== MODEL 11 Use of Psychedelics RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory S a lience CONTROLS: Age Race Gende r SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) ( intercept) (model) -.302* -.631* .309* 1.508 -.190 -.014 -6.899 1160.42 1040.47 119.94 .305* 067 2366 st r ongly religious .01 weakly r e ligious 15 p < 05 .111 .127 .059 1.017 .173 .046 w / 6 d.f. -.019* -.040* .019* .095 -.012 -.001 -.068* -.140* .148* .013 -.000 -.000

PAGE 160

-150Table 3 continued: MODEL 12 Use of Narcotics RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES I NT E RCEP r r -.488* -.441* .233* 7.610 .298 -.139* -12.010 .138 .153 .069 15.683 .206 .061 -2 Log L (int e rcept) 853.63 768.90 -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) (model) 84.73 w / 6 d.f. .292* .045 2370 strongly religious .01 weakly religious .09 p < 05 -.021* -.019* 010 .327 013 -.006* -.111* -.086* .104* .000 010 -.062*

PAGE 161

Table 4: Partial R Statistics for the Effects of Religi o usnes s and P articipatory S alience on D e linquent Behavior Ranked by t he Sev er i t y o f the Offense. P e tty Gr a nd Motor vandalism Theft Theft Vehical Theft Assult ( 1. 1) ( 2 9) ( 3 6) ( 4. 4) ( 7. 3 ) R e ligiousness .00 0 -. 056 050 -. 0 5 9 -. 09 0 Partic i pa t ory Salience -. 13 2 1 0 9 -. 084 -.0 42 .0 0 0 Ta b le 5 : Ov e rall P redicted Probabilities and Risk Factors of Delinquency Involvement by the Severity of the D elinq u ent Behavior Weapon use ( 9 3 ) -. 050 -. 038 Rank ed I ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Petty Grand Motor vand a lism Theft Theft Vehical Theft (1. 1 ) ( 2 9 ) ( 3. 6 ) ( 4 4) P ( Y=l) strongly religious 31 22 02 .04 weak l y religious 6 3 .6 0 10 1 5 Risk Factora 2 0 2.7 5.0 3 7 a Risk Factor = [ P(Y = l ) weakly r e ligiou s ] / [P (Y =l) str o ngly religious] Assult ( 7. 3) 08 23 2 9 Weapon use ( 9 3 ) 07 1 9 2 .7 lJl I

PAGE 162

APPENDIX D RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE MIDDLETON AND PUTNEY ANTI ASCETICISM HYPOTHESIS (WITH BURKETT'S REVISION)

PAGE 163

Table 6: Logistic Regression Parameter Estimates for Tests of the Middleton and Putney Anti-Asceticism Hyp. RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N P (Y=l) ( intercept) (model) -.329* -.169* .225* 6 55 .597* 078 -2.833 2947.98 2731. 09 216.88 .264* .332 2319 strongly religious .18 weakly religious .50 p < .05 -153MODEL 1 Premarital Sex .060 .062 .029 .246 .093 .025 w / 6 d. f. -.073* -.038* .050* -.145* .133* 017* -.098* -.042* .139* -.042* .115* .052*

PAGE 164

154Table 6 con t inued: -------------------------------------------------=== RE L IGIOSITY: Religiousness Particip a tory S a lience CONTROLS: Ag e Race G e nder SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x 2 RL mean of y N (int e rcept) (model) -.331* -.458* .310* -.160 .221* -.016 -3.085 3232.44 285 5 .11 377.33 336* .425 2370 M ODEL 2 Marijuana use .058 .061 .029 .251 .091 .024 w / 6 d.f. -.081* -.112* .076* -.039 .054* -.004 -.097* -.130* .188* -.000 .034* -.000 ---------------------------------------P(Y=l) st r o n gly r e ligious .17 w e akly r e ligious .69 p < 05

PAGE 165

-155Table 6 continued: ----------------------------------------=-=========-----== RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) (intercept) (model) -.031 -.541* .405* .760* .187 -.030 -3.851 2221.82 1945.83 275.98 .345* 818 2343 strongly religious 69 weakly religious .93 p < 05 MODEL 2 Alcohol Use .075 .079 .036 .272 .118 .030 w / 6 d.f. -.005 -.081* .060* .113* .028 -.004 -.000 -.142* .240* .051* .015 -.000

PAGE 166

Table 6 continued: RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N P (Y=l) ( intercept) (model) -.132 -.517* .308* 558 .369* .010 -2.213 -1562257.10 2030.31 226.79 .308* 817 2371 strongly religious .66 weakly religious .93 p < .05 MODEL 4 Use of Beer .073 .076 .034 .272 .117 .030 w / 6 d. f. -.020 -.078* .046* .084* .055* .001 -.024 -.139* .188* .031* .059* .000

PAGE 167

-157Table 6 continued: -------------------------------= -=-= = === = = = =--== RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES IN r E RCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) (int e rcept) (model) .070 -.278* .237* .352 -.112 -.073* -1.810 2402.90 2292.43 110.47 .202* .794 2360 strongly religious .74 weakly r e ligious .84 p < 05 MODEL 5 use of Wine .068 .071 .032 .265 .106 .027 w / 6 d. f. .011 -.047* .039* .058 -.018 -.012* .000 -.077* .150* .000 -.000 -.047*

PAGE 168

-158Table 6 continued: --------------------------------=~---==--===--========== RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES INTERCEPT -2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) ( int erc ept} ( model) b k -.190* -.403* .451* .712* -.006 -.005 -5.183 2888.59 2496.87 391. 72 .363* .698 2358 strongly religious .51 weakly religious .86 p < 05 MODEL 6 use of Liquor .063 .066 .031 .255 .100 .026 w / 6 d. f. -.040* -.085* .095* .151 -.001 -.001 -.049* .110* .268* .045* -.000 -.000

PAGE 169

Tabl e 7: Partial R Statistics for the Effects of Religiousn e ss and Particip a tory Sali e nce on Delinquent a n d Anti-Asc e tic B e h av ior. D e linqu e nt H a r d Drug Prem ar it a l Mariju a na Behavior Use S e x use R e ligiousn e ss -.062 -.098 -.098 -.097 P a rticipatory Salience -.103 148 -.042 -.130 Tabl e 8: Ov e rall Predi c te d Probabiliti e s a nd Risk F a ctors of D e linqu en t and A nti-Ascetic Beh a vior Alcohol use -.000 -.142 I f-' Ul --------------------------------------------------------------------------------I D e linqu e nt H a r d Dru g Pre m a r it a l Mariju a na Alcohol Beh a vior us e Sex use us e p (Y=l) st r ongly religious .09 .02 .18 .17 .69 weakly r eligious .40 .28 .50 .69 .93 Risk Factora 4.4 14.0 2.8 4.0 1. 3 a. Risk Factor = [P(Y=l) weakly r e ligious] / [P(Y=l) st r ongly r e ligious].

PAGE 170

-160Table 9: Logistic Regression Parameter Estimates for Tests of Burkett's Revision of the Middleton and Putney Anti-Asceticism Hypothesis. ----------------------==--===--======= RELIGIOSITY: Rel i gi ousn ess Parti cipatory Salience Personal Asce ticis m CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES Adult NQ P ee r NQ INTERCEPT -2 Log L ( intercept) 2 Log L (m odel ) Model x2 RL mean of Y N P (Y=l) -.334* -.461* -.277 .315* -.200 .230* -.019 .552 -.475* -3.048 3194.20 2798.60 395.60 .344* .425 2342 strongly r elig ious .15 weakly religious .72 p < 05 MODEL 1 Marijuana use .059 -.081* .061 -.112* .154 -.068 .029 .077* .255 -.049 .093 .056* .025 -.005 .299 .135 .173 -.116* w / 9 d.f. -.098* -.130* -.020 .189* -.000 .036* -.000 .021 -.042*

PAGE 171

-1 61 Tab l e 9 c o nt inu e d: --------------------------------------------=----=---==R EL IGIOSITY: Re l i giousne s s P a rti c i pa to r y S a li e nce P er sonal A scet i cis m CO NT ROLS: Ag e R ace G end e r SES Ad ult N Q P ee r N Q INT E RC E P T -2 Log L ( i n t er ce p t) -2 Log L (model) Mo de l x 2 RL me an of y N -.049 -.543* -.404 .395* .693* .211 -.027 -.067 4 67 -3.533 2192.70 1911.15 281. 55 34 7 8 20 2323 M O DE L 2 A l c ohol use .076 -.007 .080 -.080* .207 -.060 .036 .058* 280 103* .120 .031 .030 -.004 .300 -.010 .214 -.069* w / 9 d .f. -.000 -.143* -.029 .233* .043* .022 -.000 -.000 036 -----------------------------------------------------P(Y=l) st ro ngly r e ligious .60 w e akly r e ligious .93 p < .05

PAGE 172

APPENDIX E RESULTS OF TESTS O F THE JENSEN AND ERICKSON NORM QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS

PAGE 173

Table 10: Logistic Regression Parameter Estim a tes for Tests of the Jensen and Erickson Norm Qualities Hypothesis on Adolescent Marijuana Use. ===~---=====================--====-======================== RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience P ers onal Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Rac e G e nder SES Adult NQ Pe e r NQ INTERCEPT -2 Log L (int er cept) -2 Log L (model) Model x2 RL mean of y N P (Y=l) MODEL 1 Attributed Prescriptiveness -.411* .069 -.101* -.444* .076 -.109* -.425* .185 -.104* .311* .035 .076* -.208 .366 -.051 .169 .111 .041 -.017 .030 -.004 8 20 .361 .201* -.658* .214 -.1 61* -2.745 2233.41 1940.44 292.97 w / 9 d.f. .351* 427 1625 strongly religious .12 weakly r e ligious .73 p < 05 -163-.122* -.120* -.038* .186* -.000 .012 -.000 0 38 -.058*

PAGE 174

-164Table 10 continued: ----------------=-------==--== ==== ==--== ======= === = ==== = RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience P erso nal Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Race Gender S E S Adult NQ Peer NQ INTERCEPT MODEL 2 Attributed Proscripti ve ness -.098 .137 -.023 -.476* .136 -.109* .210 .319 .048 .311* .062 .072* -.214 .428 -.055 .356 .199 .082 -.004 .051 -.001 .203 .634 .047 -.098 .338 -.023 -3.850 -.000 -.123* .000 .184 -.000 .042 -.000 .ooo -.000 ----------------------------------------------------------2 Log L -2 Log L M od el x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) ( intercept) (model) 675.50 611. 31 64.19 w / 9 d.f. .261* .360 517 st rongly religious .21 weakly r eligi ous .54 p < 05

PAGE 175

-165Table 10 continued: ----------------======--=== = =----===-======-========= RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience Personal Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES Adult NQ Peer NQ INTERCEPT MODEL 3 Perceived Prescriptiveness -.364* .067 -.087* -.457* .067 -.109* -.164 .173 -.039 .316* .032 .076* -.363 .273 -.087 .238* .102 057 .002 .027 .000 .559 .351 .134 -.340 .186 -.081 -2.944 -.103* -.130* -.000 .191* -.000 .036* .000 .014 -.023 ----------------------------------------------------------2 Log L (intercept) 2628.72 -2 Log L (model) 2317.98 Model x2 310.74 w/ 9 d.f. RL .334* mean of y .39 6 N 1958 ----------------------------------------------------------P (Y=l) strongly religious .14 weakly religious .69 p < .05

PAGE 176

-166Table 10 continued: -----------------------=-------=------==--======--======== RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience Personal Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES Adult NQ Peer NQ INTERCEPT MODEL 4 Perceived Proscriptiveness -.022 .294 -.005 -.163 .290 -.041 -1.858* .635 -.464* .311* .134 .078* 1. 253 1.272 313 .118 .407 .029 -.262* 113 -.065* .429 1. 140 .107 -1.147 .940 -.287 -4.615 -.000 -.000 -.191* .137 .000 .000 138 .000 -.000 ---------------------------------------------------------2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of N (intercept) (model) y 178.76 147.02 31.74 w/ 9 d.f. 277 .488 129 ----------------------------------------------------P{Y=l) strongly religious .13 weakly religious .62 p < .05

PAGE 177

-167Table 11: Logistic Regression Parameter Estimates for Tests of the Jensen and Erickson Norm Qualities Hypothesis on Adolescent Alcohol Use. RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience Personal Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES Adult NQ Peer NQ INTERCEPT -2 Log L (intercept) -2 Log L (model) Model x2 RL mean of y N MODEL 1 Attributed Prescriptiveness -.045 .096 -.005 -.350* .106 -.042* -.390 .266 -.047 .446* .048 .054* .520 .455 .063 .058 .154 .007 -.016 .040 -.002 -.150 .367 -.018 -.361 .295 -.044 -4.341 1314.00 1164.81 149.19 w/ 9 d. f. .316* .859 1612 -.000 -.082* -.011 .255* .000 .000 -.000 -.000 -.000 --------------------------------------------------------P(Y=l) strongly religious .74 weakly religious .93 p < .05

PAGE 178

-1 6 8Table 11 c o nti nu e d: -----------------------=-----------------====-=--======== = R EL I G IO S ITY: Re li g i o us ness P ar t icipa to ry Sa li en c e P er sonal As c eticism CO NTR OLS: Age Race G ender S ES Ad ul t NQ P ee r N Q I N T ERCEPT M O DE L 2 A t trib ut ed P ro sc r i p ti ve nes s -.211 .151 -.042 -.535* .153 -.107* -.5 6 0 3 86 -.112 327 .068 .065* .543 4 3 8 .109 .444 2 2 8 .089 -.025 .054 -.005 -.170 6 05 -.034 -.3 8 1 .375 -.076 -2.44 8 -.000 -.130* -.013 .1 8 8* 000 .055 -.000 -.000 -.000 ----------------------------------------------------------2 L o g L 2 L o g L Mo de l x 2 RL me a n o f N (i n t er c e pt) ( model ) y 604.60 527.35 77. 2 5 w/ 9 d .f. .313* .723 51 2 ---------------------------------------------------------P(Y=l ) s trong l y r e li g iou s .3 8 wea kl y r el i gi ous .9 1 p < .05

PAGE 179

-169Table 11 co n tinued: ---------------------------------------------R EL IGIOSITY: Religiousn e ss Parti c i pa t o ry Salience P e rsonal Asceticis m CONTROLS: A g e R a ce Gend e r S E S Adult N Q Pe e r NQ INTERC E PT MODEL 3 P erc ei v ed Pr e scripti v eness -.087 .084 -.013 -.596* .086 -.091* -.425 .236 -.065 .408* .039 .062* .652* .302 100* .276* .130 .042* .011 .033 .002 -.116 .367 -.018 -.394 .239 -.060 -3.570 -.000 -.156* -.026 .241* 038 .036* .000 -.000 -.020 ---------------------------------------------2 Log L ( int er cept) 1877.31 -2 Log L (model) 1622.05 Mod e l x2 255.26 w / 9 d.f. RL .356* m ean of Y .811 N 1936 -----------------------------------------P(Y=l) strongly religious .57 weakly r e ligious .94 p < 05

PAGE 180

-170Table 11 continued: -----------------------------------~-----===== ======= RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience Personal Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES Adult NQ Peer NQ INTERCEPT MODEL 4 Perceived Proscriptiveness .351 .399 .046 -.674 .405 -.088 -.267 .780 -.035 .373* .165 .048* 1.551 1. 409 .202 314 .549 -.041 -.372* .127 -.048* .250 .978 .032 -.456 .859 -.059 -3.276 .000 -.081 -.000 .163* .000 -.000 -.235* .000 -.000 ----------------------------------------------2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of N P(Y=l) (intercept) (model) y 117.37 94.31 23.06 w / 9 d.f. .208* 847 137 strongly religious .77 weakly religious .92 p < .05

PAGE 181

-171Table 12: Summary of Cross-Model Comparisons for the Norm Qualities Models. Attributed Denominational Proscriptiveness: religiousness participatory salience personal asceticism strongly religious Perceived Denominational Proscriptiveness: religiousness participatory salience personal asceticism strongly religious Marijuana use P (Y =l) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS s s NS s indicates support for the Norm Qualities hypothesis, NS indicates non-support.

PAGE 182

Table 12 continued: Attributed Denominational Proscriptiv e ness: re ligiousness participatory salience personal asceticism strongly religious P e rcei ved Denomin at ional Proscriptiveness: re ligiousness participatory salience personal asceticism strongly re ligious -172Alcohol Use P (Y=l) s NS s s s NS s NS NS NS NS NS NS NS S indicates support for the Nor m Qualities hypothesis, NS indic a tes non-support.

PAGE 183

APPENDIX F RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE STARK ET AL. MORAL COMMUNITIES HYPOTHESIS

PAGE 184

Table 13: Logistic Regression Parameter Esti m ates for Tests of the Stark et al Moral Communities Hypothesis on Adolescent Marijuana use. MODEL 1 Low Aggregate' Religiosity RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience Personal Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES Adult NQ Peer NQ INTERCEPT -2 Log L ( intercept) -2 Log L (model) Model x2 RL mean of y N P (Y=l) -.395* -.434* -.244 327 -.168 .189 -.010 .410 -.295 -3.299 1619.64 1424.42 195.22 .331* 426 1187 strongly religious .13 weakly religious .69 p < .05 -174.087 -.097* .090 -.106* .216 -.060 .044 .080* .309 -.041 .. 130 .046 .033 -.002 .372 .100 .239 -.072 w / 9 d.f. -.108* -.115* -.000 .183* -.000 .009 -.000 .ooo -.072

PAGE 185

--------175Table 13 continued: ------------------------=----------=---=-====~= = MODEL 2 High Aggregate Religiosity RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience Personal Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES Adult NQ Peer NQ INTERCEPT -2 Log L ( intercept) -2 Log L (model) Model x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) -.321* -.459* -.304 .322* -.388 .299* -.015 .864 -.687* -2.934 1574.55 1366.59 207.96 .347 .424 1155 str ongly r elig ious .14 weakly religious .70 p < .05 .084 -.078* .086 -.112* .222 -.074 .040 .079* .467 -.095 .134 .073* .039 -.004 .535 .211 .253 168 w / 9 d.f. -.090* -.130* -.000 .198 -.000 .044* -.000 .020 -.058*

PAGE 186

-176Table 14: Logistic Regression Parameter Estimates for Tests of the Stark et al. Moral Communities Hypothesis on Adolescent Alcohol use. MODEL 1 Low Aggregate Reigiosity RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience Personal Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES Adult NQ Peer NQ INTERCEPT -2 Log L (intercept) -2 Log L (model) Model x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) -.208* -.459* -.299 .454* .593 .210 -.006 -.313 -.434 -4.427 1191.47 1021. 97 169.50 357 .795 1173 strongly religious .56 weakly r e ligious .93 p < .05 .104 -.034* .109 -.075* .279 -.049 .051 .074* 330 .097 .162 .034 .039 -.001 .377 -.051 .278 -.071 w/ 9 d. f. -.041* -.115* -.000 .256* .032 .000 -.000 -.000 -.019

PAGE 187

-177Table 14 co nt inu e d: -------------------=========---===--==================== M OD E L 2 High A g gr e gat e Reigiosity RE L IGIOSITY: Religiousness .008 .116 .001 .000 Partici pa to r y Salience -.581* .121 ..,. 076 -.146* P e rsonal Asceticis m -.550 .313 -.072 -.033 CON T ROLS: Age .398* .055 .052* .227* R ac e .577 .556 .076 .000 G e nde r .227 .181 .030 .000 SES .014 .051 .002 .000 A dult NQ .387 .528 .051 .000 P ee r N Q -.347 .349 -.045 -.000 INT ER C E P T -3.391 ----------------------------------------------------2 Log L (int er cept) 991. 11 -2 Log L (model) 863.36 Mod e l x 2 127.75 w / 9 a. f. RL .333* m ean of y .845 N 1150 -----------------------------------------------------P(Y=l) str o ngl y religious .63 w e akly r e ligious .94 p < 05

PAGE 188

-178Table 15: Summary of Cross-Model Comparisons for the Moral Communities Models. Pk Rk P (Y=l) Marijuana use religiousness NS NS participatory salience NS NS personal asceticism NS NS strongly religious NS Alcohol use religiousness NS NS participatory salience NS NS personal asceticism NS NS strongly religious NS s indicates support for the Moral Comm uni ties hypothesis, NS indicates non-support.

PAGE 189

APPENDIX G RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE INTEGRATED MORAL COMMUNITIES-NORM QUALITIES HYPOTHESIS

PAGE 190

Table 16: Logistic Regression Parameter Estimates for Tests of the Integrated Moral Communities Norm Qualities Hypothesis on Adolescent Marijuana use. MODEL 1 Low Aggregate Religiosity and Perceived Prescriptiveness RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience Personal Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES Adult NQ Peer NQ INTERCEPT -2 Log L (intercept) -2 Log L (model) Model x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) b k -.418* -.451* -.187 .348* -.259 .195 .031 .434 -.017 -3.637 1272.14 1122.49 149.66 .322* .389 952 strongly religious .12 weakly religious .70 p < 05 -1 80 .099 -.099* -.112* .100 -.107* -.120* .247 -.045 -.000 .049 .083* .195 .335 -.062 -.000 .147 .046 .000 .037 .007 .000 .450 .103 .000 .263 -.004 -.000 w / 9 d.f.

PAGE 191

-181Table 16 continued: MODEL 2 Low Aggregate Religiosity and Perceived Proscriptiveness RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness 271 .474 .067 .ooo Participatory Salience -.139 .458 -.035 -.000 Personal Asceticism -1.899* .886 -.437* -.166* CONTROLS: Age .100 .211 .025 .000 Race 2.217 1.450 .552 .060 Gender -.503 .610 -.125 -.000 SES -.466* .167 -.116* -.249* Adult NQ .102 1. 225 .025 .000 Pe e r NQ -8.518 19.417 -2.121 -.000 INT E RCEPT -2.028 ----------------------------------2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of N (intercept) (model) y .231* .471 68 94.03 71. 00 23.04 w / 9 d.f. ----------------------------------P (Y=l) strongly religious .14 weakly r e ligious .43 p < 05

PAGE 192

-182Table 16 continued: MODEL 3 High Aggregate Religiosity and Perceived Prescriptiveness RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness -.370* .094 -.089* -.100* Participatory Salience -.435* .092 -.105* -.122* Personal Asceticism -.144 .243 -.035 -.000 CONTROLS: Age .312* .043 .075* .192* Race -.736 .494 -.177 -.013 Gender .308* .144 .074* .043* SES -.014 .041 -.003 -.000 Adult NQ .809 .591 .19 5 .000 Peer NQ -.648* .266 -.156* -.054* INTERCEPT -2.410 -----------------~-------------------------------------2 Log L ( intercept) 1356.18 -2 Log L (model) 1184.84 Model x2 1 71. 34 w / 9 d.f. RL .336* mean of Y .403 N 1006 ---------------------------------------------------------P(Y=l) strongly religious .15 weakly religious .70 p < 05

PAGE 193

-183Table 16 co nt inued: MODEL 4 H igh Aggr e gat e Religiosity and Percei ve d Proscriptiveness RE L IGIOSITY: Religiousness -.154 .403 -.038 -.000 Particip a tory S alience -.221 .419 -.055 -.000 P ers on a l Asceticism -2.344* 1. 170 -.586* -.154* CONTROLS: Age .459* .194 .115* .206* R a c e Gende r .194 .625 .048 .000 SES -.087 178 -.022 -.000 Adult NQ Pe e r N Q -.393 1. 136 -.098 -.000 INT E RC E PT -5.683 ------------------------------------------2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of N P(Y=l) (int e rcept) (model) y .188* .508 61 84.55 67.55 17.00 w / 9 d.f. st ro ngly religious .07 weakly r e ligious .70 p < 05

PAGE 194

-184 Table 17: Rankings of the Relative Strength of the Effects of Religiosity and Personal Asceticism on A.do lescent Marijuana use. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Religiousness: Pk 4 1 3 2 Rk 4 1 3 2 Participatory Salience: Pk 4 3 1 2 Rk 3 1 4 2 Personal Asceticism : Pk 2 3 1 4 Rk 1 4 1 3 P(Y=l) Strongly Religious : 3 2 1 4 St rength of effect rankings are ordered such that a value of 4 indicates the strongest observed effect and a val u e of 1 the weakest observed effect

PAGE 195

-185Table 18: Logistic Regression Parameter Estimates for Tests of the Integrated Moral Communities Norm Qualities Hypothesis on Adolescent Alcohol Use. MODEL 1 Low Aggregate Religiosity and Attributed Prescriptiveness RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness Participatory Salience Personal Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES Adult NQ Peer NQ INTERCEPT -2 Log L (intercept) -2 Log L (model) Model x2 RL mean of y N P(Y=l) -.209 -.149 -.315 .569* .218 .098 .042 -.349 -.659 -6.306 600.42 514.94 .144 .162 .379 .074 .611 .229 .055 .469 .392 85.48 w / 9 d.f. .335* .845 69 5 strongly religious .76 weakly religious .93 p < 05 -.027 -.012 -.020 -.000 -.041 -.000 .075* .306* .029 .000 .013 .000 .006 .000 -.046 -.000 -.086 -.037

PAGE 196

-186Table 18 continued: ---= --------=---====-===--========~== ----===---======== MODEL 2 Low Aggregate Religiosity and Attributed Proscriptiveness RELIGIOSITY: Religiousn es s Participatory Salience P erson al Asceticism CONTROLS: Age Race Gender SES Adult NQ P eer NQ INTERC EPT b, K -.297 -.601* -.577 .319* .070 .298 -.056 -.571 .136 -1.464 18 2 -.059 -.040 19 2 -.120* -.139* .474 -.115 -.000 .084 .064* .174* .482 .014 .ooo .276 .060 .000 .065 -.011 -.000 .712 -.114 -.000 .475 .027 .000 --------------------------------------------------------2 Log L -2 Log L Model x2 RL mean of Y N P(Y=l) (intercept) (model) 406.69 350.49 56.20 w / 9 d.f. .306* .722 34 3 st ro ngly religious .32 weakly religious .93 p < 05

PAGE 197

-187Table 18 continued: --------------==--=--====================================== MODEL 3 High Aggregate Religiosity and Attibuted Prescriptiveness RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness -.032 .137 -.004 -.000 Participatory Salience -.490* .145 -.056* -.115* Personal Asceticism -.482 .381 -.055 -.000 CONTROLS: Age .384* .064 .044* .217* Race .617 .703 .070 .ooo Gender .054 .212 .006 .ooo SES -.037 .060 -.004 -.000 Adult NQ .329 .655 .038 .000 Peer NQ .215 .494 .025 .000 INTERCEPT -3.039 ----------------------------------------------------------2 Log L -2 Log L M odel x2 RL mean of N P(Y=l) (intercept} (model) y 711.63 633 .79 77.84 w / 9 d.f. .290* .869 917 strongly religious .69 weakly religious .95 p < 05

PAGE 198

-188Table 18 continued: -------------====~---================-================== MODEL 4 High Aggregate Religiosity and Attributed Pro s c riptiveness RELIGIOSITY: Religiousness -.093 .2 88 -.018 -.000 P articipatory Salience -.613* .2 81 -.121* -.118* P ersonal Asceticism -.686 .729 -.136 -.000 CONTROLS: Age .458* .135 .091 .220* Race 2.861* 1. 426 .566* .101 Gender .697 .43 8 .138 .052 SES .109 118 .022 .000 Adult NQ .508 1. 237 .10 1 .000 Peer NQ -1.208 68 7 -.239 -.074 INTERCEP 'r -6.893 ----------------------------------------------------------2 Log L -2 Log L Model x 2 RL mean of N P(Y =l) ( intercept) (model) y 197.87 163.94 33.93 w / 9 d .f. .284* .729 169 strongly religious .41 weakly religious 92 p < .05

PAGE 199

-189Table 19: Rankings of the Relative Strength of the Effects of Religiosity and Persona 1 Asceticism on Adolescent Alcohol Use. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Religiousness: Pk 3 4 1 2 Rk 3 4 1 2 Participatory Salience: Pk 1 3 2 4 Rk 1 4 2 3 Personal Asceticism: Pk 1 3 2 4 Rk 1 1 l 1 P(Y=l) Strongly Religious: 1 4 2 3 Str ength of effect rankings are ordered such that a value of 4 indicates the strongest observed effect and a value of 1 the weakest observed effect.

PAGE 200

APPENDIX H TABLE OF PREDICTED PROBABILITIES OF ALCOHOL AND MARIJUANA USE ACROSS THEORETICAL MODELS

PAGE 201

Table 2 0 : Predicted P robabilities of Alc o hol and Marij u ana use for Str o ngly and Weakly R eligious Adolescents across Theore t ical Models M arijuana U se s trongly religio u s: weak l y religious : difference : improvement over Model 1 : A l co h ol u s e s trongly religious : weakly religio u s : difference: improvement over Model 1 : M od e 1 1 1 7 69 .5 2 69 93 24 M o del 2 15 72 .5 7 0 5 60 93 .33 09 Model 3 .13 69 .5 6 .0 4 38 93 55 3 1 Mo del 1 = o riginal Anti asceticism mode 1 : M o del 2 = Burke t t s revision Model 3 = Norm Q u alities model M o del 4 = Moral Commun i ties model Model 5 = in t egrated model -191 Mode 1 4 14 .6 9 .5 5 03 .5 6 93 .3 7 13 Mo d el 5 0 7 70 6 3 11 .4 1 93 .52 2 8

PAGE 202

REFERENCES Agresti, Alan 1984 Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data. New York: Wiley. Akers, Ronald L., Marvin D. Krohn, Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, and Marcia J. Radosevich 1979 "Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory." American sociological Review 44: 635-655. Akers, Ronald L., James Massey, William Clarke, and Ronald M. Lauer 1983 "Are self-reports of adolescent deviance valid? Biochemical measures, randomized response, and the bogus pipeline in smoking behavior." social Forces 62: 234-251. Albrecht, Stan L., Bruce A. Chadwick, and David S. Alcorn 1977 "Religiosity and deviance: Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Allen, 1976 16: 263-274. V. L., and D. A. Wilder "Social comparison, self-evaluation, and conformity to the group." Pp. 187-208 in J. M. Suls and R. L. Miller (eds.), Social Comparison Processes. New York: Wiley. Alston, J. P., and w. A. McIntosh 1979 "An assessment of the determinants of religious participation." The sociological Quarterly 20: 49-62. Anderson, Patrick R., and William E. Wakefield 1983 "Religious ties and self-reported deviance: New methodological views of an age-old question." Presented at the annual meetings of the American Society of Criminology, Denver, CO. Argyle, M. 1959 Religious Behavior. New York: Free Press. -192

PAGE 203

-193Bainton, Ronald H. 1945 "The churches and alcohol." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 6: 287-298. Banks, 1975 Barnes, 1951 c., E. Maloney, and H. Wittrock "Public attitudes toward crime and the penal system." British Journal of Criminology 15: 228-24 0. H. E., and N. K. Teeters New Horizons in Criminology. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, Beeghley, Leonard, Ellen van Velsor, and E. Wilbur Bock 1981 "The correlates of religiosity among black and white Americans." The Sociological Quarterly 22: 403-412. Benson, P. H. 1960 Religion in Contemporary Culture. New York: Harper and Row. Blatt, G. 1967 "An additional view." Pp. 302 in The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Report by the U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. Washington DC: Block, 1974 U.S. Government Printing Office. J. R., N. Goodman, F. Ambellan, and J. Revenson "A self-administered high school study of drugs." Hempstead, NY: Institute for Research and Evaluation. Bock, E. w., L. Beeghley, and A. J. Mixon 1983 "Religion, socioeconomic status and sexual morality: An application of reference group theory." The Sociological Quarterly 24: 545559. Bock. E. Wilbur, John K. Cochran, and Leonard Beeghley 1985 "Moral messages: The relative influence of denomination on the religiosity-alcohol behavior relationship." Unpublished manuscript. Bonger, W. A. 1916 Criminality and Economic Conditions. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Burkett, Steven R. 1977 "Religion, parental influence, and adolescent alcohol and marijuana use." Journal of Drug Issues 7: 263-273.

PAGE 204

-194Burkett, Steven R. 1980 "Religios ity beliefs, adolecsent drinking." Alcohol 41: 662-671. normative standards, and Journal of Studies on Burkett, Steven R., and Mervin White 1974 "Hellfire and delinquency: another look." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13: 455-462. Chalfant, H. Paul, Robert E. Beckley, and C. Eddie Palmer 1981 Religion in Contemporary Society. Sherman Oaks, CA: A lfred. Cochran, John K., and E. Wilbur Bock 1984 "The relative influence of denomination and religiosity on alcohol behavior ." Present ed at the annual meetings of the Southern Sociological Society, Knoxville, TN. Cochran, John K., E. Wilbur Bock, and Leonard Beeghley 1986 "Denominational contexts: An examination of the influence of moral messages on the religiosity alcohol behavior relationship." Presented at the annual meetings of the Southern Sociological society, New Orleans, LA. Coogan, John Edward 1945 "Religion and the criminologist." American Catholic Sociological Review 6: 154-159. 1954 "Religion as a preventive of delinquency." Federal Probation 18: 29-35. Cooley, E J. 1927 Probation and Delinquency. New York: Thomas Nelson. Cortes, Juan B. 1965 "Juvenile delinquency: A biosocial approach." Pp. 114-155 in A. (ed.), Family, Church, and Community. New York: P.J. Kenedy. Diaz, Carmen V. 1952 "A study of the ability of eleventh grade girls to apply the principles of moral law to actual and hypothetical life situations." Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University. Dominic, Sister M. 19 54 "Religion and the juvenile delinquent." American Catholic Sociological Review 15: 256-264.

PAGE 205

-195Durkheim, Emile 1915 The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: Free Press. Elifson, Kirk w., David M. Petersen, and C. Kirk Hadaway 1983 "Religiosity and delinquency: A contextual analysis." Criminology 21: 505-527. Ellis, 1910 Ellis, 1985 H. The Criminal. New York: Walter Scott. Lee "Religiosity and criminality: Evidence and explanations of complex relations." Sociological Perspectives 28: 501-520. Falk, Gerhard J. 1961 "Religion, personal integration and criminology." Journal of Educational Sociology 35: 159-161. Fitzpatrick, Joseph P. 1967 "The ro le of religion in programs for the prevention and correction of crime and delinquency." Pp. 317-330 in Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Gannon, Thomas M. 1967 "Religious control and delinquent behavior." Sociology and Social Research 51: 418-431. Glock, Charles, and Rodney Stark 1965 Religion and Society in Tension. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor Glueck 1950 Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gorsuch, R. L., ands. G. McFarland 1972 "Single vs. multiple -ite m scales for measuring religiou s values." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 11: 53-63. Groves, 1974 W. Eugene "Patterns of college student use and lifestyles." Pp. 241-275 in Eric Josephson and Eleanor E. Carrol (eds.), Drug use: Epidemiology and Sociological Approaches. New York: Wiley. Hadaway, C. Kirk, Kirk W. Elifson, and David M. Petersen 1984 "R eligio us involvement and drug use among urban adolescents." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 23: 109-128.

PAGE 206

-196Hanushek, Eric A., and John E. Jackson 1977 Statistical Methods for Social Scientists. Hardt, 1977 New York: Academic Press. Robert H., and Sandra Peterson-Hardt "On determining the quality of the delinquency self-report method ." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 14: 247-261. Healy, William, and Augusta F. Bronner 1936 New Light on Delinquency and Its Treatment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Pr ess Higgens, Paul C., and Gary L. Albrecht 1977 "Hellfire and delinquency revisited." Social Forces 55: 952-958. Hindelang, Michael J., Travis Hirschi, and Joseph G. Weis 1981 Measu r ing Delinquency. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Hirschi, Travis, and Rodney Stark 1969 "Hellfire and delinquency." Social Problems 17: 202-213. Hoover, 1968 Hronke, 1955 J. Edgar "The faith of free men." Pp. 6-12 in R. D. Knudten (ed.), Criminological Controversies. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. M. "An experiment in penetrating of t h e juvenile delinquent." 50: 98-100. the spiritual milieu Religious Education Ja mes W. 1902 vari e ti es of Religious Experience. New York: Jensen, 1981 Longmans. Gary F. Sociology of Delinquency: Current Issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jensen, Gary F., and Maynard L. Erickson 1979 "The religious factor and delinquency: another look at the hellfire hypothesis." Pp. 157-177 in Robert Wuthnow (ed.), The Religious Dimension: New Directions in Quantitative Research. New York: Academic Press.

PAGE 207

-197Knudten, Richard D., and Marys. Knudten 1971 "Juvenile delinquency, crime, and religion." Review of Religious Research 12: 130-152. Krohn, Marvin D., Ronald L. Akers, Marcia J. Radosevich, and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce 1982 "Norm Qualities and adolescent drinking and drug behavior: The effects of norm quality and reference group on using and abusing alcohol and marijuana." Journal of Drug Issues 12: 343-359. Krohn, 1980 Marvin D., and James L. Massey "Social control and delinquent examination of the elements of The Sociological Quarterly 21: behavior : An the social bond." 529-543. Kvaraceus, William C. 1944 "Delinquent behavior and church attendance." Lee, R. 1957 Linden, 1977 Sociology and social Research 28: 284-289. "The chur ch and the problem of delinquency." Religious Education 52: 125-129. Rick, and Raymond Currie "Religiosity and drug use: A test of social control theory." Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corre c tions 19: 346-355. Lombroso, C. 1918 Crime: Its Causes and Remedies. Boston: Little Brown. Lunden, W. A. 1964 Statistics on Delinquents and Delinquency. Sp r ingfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Martin J. M., and J. P. Fitzpat ri ck 1964 Delinquent Behavior. New York: Random House. McIntosh, William Alex, Starla D. Fitch, J. Branton Wilson, and Kenneth L. Nyberg 1981 "The effect of mainstream religious social control on adolescent drug use in rural areas ." Review of Religious Research 23: 54-75. McLuckie, Benjamin F ., Margaret Zahn, and Robert A. Wilson 1975 "Religious correlates of teenage drug use." Journal of Drug Issues 5: 129-139.

PAGE 208

-198Merton, Robert K. 1958 "Continuities in the theory of reference groups and social structure." Pp. 335-440 in Robert K. Merton (ed.), Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press. Merton, Robert K., and Alice S. Rossi 1950 "Contirbutions to the theory of reference group behavior 11 Pp. 279-335 in Robert K. Merton (ed.), Social Theory and social Structure. New York: Free Press. Middleton, warren c., and Paul J. Fay 1941 "Attitudes of delinquent and non-delinquent girls toward Sunday observance, the Bible, and war." Journal of Educational Psychology 23: 555-558. Middleton, Russell, and Snell Putney 1962 "Religion, normative standards, and behavior." sociometry 25: 141-152. Miller, Marshall E. 1965 "The place of religion in the lives of juvenile offenders." Federal Probation 29: 50-54. Misra, V. D. 1983 "Some personality characteristics of juvenile delinquents." Social Defence 18: 32-36. Nelson, 1982 Hart M., and James F. Rooney "Fire and brimstone, lager and pot: Religious involvement and substance use." Sociological Analysis 43: 247-256. Neumeyer, M. H. 1961 Juvenile Delinquency in Modern society. O'Dea, 1966 Princeton, NJ: van Nostrand. T. F. The Sociology of Religion. NJ: Prentice-Hall. Of she, R. Englewood Cliffs, 1972 "Reference conflict and behavior." Pp. 88-116 in J. Berger, M. Zelditch, and B. Anderson ( eds ) soc i o 1 o g i ca 1 Theo r i es i n Pr o g res s Vo 1 2 Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Perkins, H. Wesley 1985 "Religious traditions, parents, and peers as determinants of alcohol and drug use among college students." Review of Religious Research 27: 15-31.

PAGE 209

-199President's Commission of Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice 1967 Task Force Report: Corrections. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Radosevich, Marcia J., Lonn Lanza-Kaduce, Ronald L. Akers, and Marvin D. Krohn 1979 "The sociology of adolescent drug and drinking behavior: A review of the state of the field. Part I. 11 Deviant Behavior 1: 15-35. Reckless, Walter C. 1967 The Crime Problem, 4th edition. New York: Meredith. Reckless, Walter c., and N. Smith 1932 Juvenile Delinquency. New York: McGraw-Hill. Rhodes, 1970 Albert Lewis, and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. "The 'religious factor' and delinquent behavior." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 7: 83-98. Rohrbaugh, John, and Richard Jessor 1975 "Religiosity in youth: A personal control against deviant behavior." Journal of Personality 43: 135-155. Salisbury, W. Seward 1964 Religion in American Culture: A Sociological Interpretation. Homewood, IL: Dorsey. SAS 1983 SUGI Supplemental Library user's Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. Schafer, Stephen, and Richard D. Knudten 1970 Juvenile Delinquency: An Introduction. New York: Random House. Schlapp, M., and E. H. Smith 1928 The New Criminology. New York: Boni and Live r ight. Schlegel, Ronald P., and Margaret D. Sanborn 1979 "Religious affiliation and adolescent drinking." Journal of studies on Alcohol 40: 693-703. Schur, E. M. 1969 Our Criminal Society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

PAGE 210

-200Singer, Eleanor 1981 "Reference groups and social evaluations." Single, 1975 Stark, 1980 Stark, 1982 Pp. 66-93 in M. Rosenberg and R. H. Turner (eds.), Social Psychology: Social Perspectives. New York: Basic Books. Eric, Denise Kandel, and Bruce B. Johnson "The r e liability and validity of drug use responses in a large scale longitudinal study." Journal of Drug Issues 5: 426-443. Rodney, Daniel P. Doyle, and Lori Kent "Rediscovering moral communities: Church membership and crime." Pp. 43-52 in Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson (eds.), Understanding Crime: Current Theory and Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rodney, Lori Kent, and Daniel P. Doyle "Religion and delinquency: The ecology of a 'lost' relationship." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 19: 4-24. Steiner, F. 1924 Religion and Roguery. New York: The Truth Seekers. Sutherland, E. H., and D. Cressey 1974 Principles of Criminology, 9th edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Teeters, N. K., and J. O. Reinemann 1950 The Challenge of Delinquency. New York: Tittle, 1983 McGraw-Hill. Charles R., and Michael R. Welch "Religiosity and deviance: Toward theory of constraining effects." 61: 653-682. a contingency Social Forces Travers, John F., and Russel G. Davis 1961 "A study of religious motivation and delinquency." Turner, 1979 Journal of Educational Sociology 34: 205-220. Carol J., and Robert J. Willis "The reliationship between self-reported religiosity and drug use by college students." Journal of Drug Education 9: 67-78. von Hentig, H. 1948 The Criminal and His victim. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

PAGE 211

-201Wattenberg, W. 1950 "Church attendance and juvenile misconduct." Sociology and Social Research 34: 195-202. Webb, R., and M. Webb 1957 "How the church can help in the prevention and treatment of juvenile delinquency." Federal Probation 21: 22-24. Whitehead, P. C., and R. G. Smart 1972 "Validity and reliability of self-reported drug use." Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections 14: 1-8. Wolfgang, Marvin E., and Robert F. Figlio 1984 "The severity of crime." Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Zimmerman, Joel, and Paul K. Broder 1980 "A comparison of different delinquency measures derived from self-report data." Journal of Criminal Justice 8: 147-162.

PAGE 212

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH John K Cochran is currently an assistant professor of sociology at The Wichita State University. He majored in sociology at the University of Florida wher e he r e ceived his B.A. in 1980. He continued on at the University of Florida and earned an M.A. in sociology in 1982 and r e ceived his Ph.D., also in sociology, in May of 1987. -202

PAGE 213

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Ronald L. Professor Akers, Chair of Sociology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. E. wiI~ Bock Professor of Sociology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. C 0 La-:2 Charles E. Frazier Professor of Sociology

PAGE 214

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degre ctor of P ophy. Charles w. Thomas Professor of Sociology I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Alan Agrestfi Professor of Statistics This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Department of Sociology in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. May, 1987 Dean, G duate School

PAGE 215

1111111111~1~i1li1il1'll11 l1[ 11i 111 li1m111111111 3 1262 08666 357 1