Research on the Impact of Religous Family in the Future of Children .pdf

J Kid Psychol Psychiatry. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as:

PMCID: PMC5513768

NIHMSID: NIHMS847753

'Mixed blessings' Parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjustment in global perspective

Marc H. Bornstein,^one Diane L. Putnick,¹ Jennifer Due east. Lansford,² Suha G. Al-Hassan,ⁱⁱⁱ Dario Bacchini,^iv Anna Silvia Bombi,⁵ Lei Chang,⁶ Kirby Deater-Deckard,^seven Laura Di Giunta,⁸ Kenneth A. Dodge,⁹ Patrick South. Malone,⁹ Paul Oburu,¹⁰ Concetta Pastorelli,^xi Ann T. Skinner,⁹ Emma Sorbring,¹² Laurence Steinberg,^thirteen Sombat Tapanya,^xiv Liliana Maria Uribe Tirado,^fifteen Arnaldo Zelli,¹⁶ and Liane Peña Alampay¹⁷

Marc H. Bornstein

¹Child and Family Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Establish of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Public Wellness Service, Bethesda, MD, Us

Diane 50. Putnick

^oneChild and Family Research, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Kid Health and Human being Development, National Institutes of Wellness, Public Health Service, Bethesda, MD, USA

Jennifer E. Lansford

²Duke University, Center for Kid and Family Policy, Durham, NC, USA

Suha One thousand. Al-Hassan

³Hashemite Academy, Jordan, and Emirates College for Avant-garde Education, UAE

Dario Bacchini

⁴2nd University of Naples, Italia

Anna Silvia Bombi

⁵Rome University La Sapienza, Italia

Lei Chang

^viAcademy of Macau, China

Kirby Deater-Deckard

^viiUniversity of Massachusetts at Amherst, USA

Laura Di Giunta

⁸Department of Psychology, Rome University La Sapienza, Italy

Kenneth A. Dodge

^nineDuke Academy, The states

Patrick Due south. Malone

⁹Duke University, The states

Paul Oburu

¹⁰Maseno University, Kenya

Concetta Pastorelli

¹¹Rome University La Sapienza, Italia

Ann T. Skinner

^ixDuke University, The states

Emma Sorbring

¹²University West, Sweden

Laurence Steinberg

^xiiiTemple University, U.s.a., and Rex Abdulaziz University, Saudi arabia

Sombat Tapanya

¹⁴Chiang Mai Academy, Thailand

Liliana Maria Uribe Tirado

^fifteenRome University La Sapienza, Italy and Universidad San Buenaventura, Colombia

Arnaldo Zelli

¹⁶University of Rome Foro Italico, Italy

Liane Peña Alampay

¹⁷Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines

Supplementary Materials

Supp info: Appendix S1: Additional data.

Tabular array S1: Correlations among mother and father scales.

GUID: A4EF557C-5F3A-494F-B7D0-6726D4BD40E1

Abstruse

Background

Well-nigh studies of the effects of parental religiousness on parenting and child evolution focus on a detail religion or cultural group, which limits generalizations that can be made about the effects of parental religiousness on family unit life.

Methods

We assessed associations among parental religiousness, parenting, and childrens adjustment in a 3-year longitudinal investigation of 1198 families from 9 countries. We included 4 religions (Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Islam) plus unaffiliated parents, two positive (efficacy and warmth) and two negative (control and rejection) parenting practices, and two positive (social competence and school performance) and 2 negative (internalizing and externalizing) kid outcomes. Parents and children were informants.

Results

Parents greater religiousness had both positive and negative associations with parenting and kid adjustment. Greater parent religiousness when children were 8 was associated with higher parental efficacy at 9 and, in turn, childrens amend social competence and school operation and fewer child internalizing and externalizing bug at 10. Notwithstanding, greater parent religiousness at 8 was also associated with more parental command at nine, which in plow was associated with more child internalizing and externalizing problems at 10. Parental warmth and rejection had inconsistent relations with parental religiousness and kid outcomes depending on the informant. With a few exceptions, similar patterns of results held for all 4 religions and the unaffiliated, 9 sites, mothers and fathers, girls and boys, and decision-making for demographic covariates.

Conclusions

Parents and children concur that parental religiousness is associated with more decision-making parenting and, in plough, increased kid trouble behaviors. However, children see religiousness as related to parental rejection, whereas parents run across religiousness every bit related to parental efficacy and warmth, which have different associations with child operation. Studying both parent and child views of religiousness and parenting are of import to understand furnishings of parental religiousness on parents and children.

Keywords: Religiousness, parenting, child adjustmen, reporter, religion

… faith and freedom have been causes for the most noble actions and the well-nigh evil actions…

– Attributed to Lord Acton (1834–1902)

Introduction

Faith, religiousness, and family life are tightly braided. This study examines the nature of their weave. Although information technology does non submit to easy definition, a religion is generally thought of as an organized socio-cultural-historical organisation of beliefs that relate people to an order of existence and often to a supreme being. Religion is 'the search [discovery, conservation, and transformation; Pargament, 2007] for significance that occurs within the context of established institutions that are designed to facilitate spirituality' (Pargament, Mahoney, Exline, Jones, & Shafranske, 2013, p. 15). Religion and religious institutions assert norms nearly the 'destinations and pathways' that adherents should follow to fulfill sacred ideals almost all aspects of life that submit divine character and significance (Mahoney, Pargament, & Hernandez, 2013; Pargament & Mahoney, 2005) and and so extend to family relationships. Religion is content, religiousness is a measure out of a persons adherence and interest with a organized religion. Religiousness also overlaps but differs from spirituality (Mahoney, 2013; Pargament et al., 2013): Religiousness refers to the extent an individual has a relation with a particular belief organization (and is measured by, e.chiliad., subjective feelings of importance or objective omnipresence at religious services), whereas spirituality refers to individualized, experiential positive values such as connectedness, meaning, self-actualization, and actuality that define the personal quest for understanding answers to ultimate questions almost life (and is measured by, e.g., perceptions of transcendence). Religiousness and spirituality alike are multidimensional constructs, composed of feelings and thoughts, deportment and relationships (Pargament et al., 2013).

Worldwide, 86% of people merits to identify with a item faith, and 59% of the worlds population self-identifies every bit religious (WIN-Gallup International, 2012). Religious writings, the mutual source of religions, requite rise to norms, beliefs, and values about, every bit well as prescriptions and proscriptions for, living (Browning, Light-green, & Witte, 2006; Parrinder, 1996). Faith, religiousness, and spirituality are demonstrably powerful forces for most of the worlds population and are associated with everyday family functioning, childrearing, and child adjustment (Beit-Hallachmi, 1984; Holden & Vittrup, 2010; Pargament, Exline, & Jones, 2013). In calorie-free of their global pervasiveness in contemporary life, it is perplexing and dismaying that religion, religiousness, and spirituality are largely neglected in developmental science as contexts of development. Moreover, the extant literaure has been dominated by U.S. samples and skewed by Western assumptions (Rex & Boyatzis, 2015; Pargament et al., 2013). For example, traditional religious doctrines idealize U.Due south. American, heart-class, married heterosexuals rearing biological children as 'the proficient family unit' (Edgell, 2005).

For all these reasons, the present study of associations of parental religiousness with parenting and child aligning takes a longitudinal, multi-organized religion, and cantankerous-national approach. This study focuses principally on parental religiousness and faith (contra religious content and spirituality) and the roles of parental religiousness in positive and negative parenting and child adjustment. To gain broad purchase on religiousness and parenting, the written report includes mothers and fathers from 4 religions as well equally not-adherents and from 9 countries. The psychology of religion (and spirituality) has also tended to focus on positive and negative roles that religion plays in the health and well-being of individuals, rather than relationships (Hood, Hill, & Spilka, 2009; Koenig, McCullough, & Larson, 2001; Paloutzian & Park, 2005). This study focuses on parent and child together.

Parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjustment

Parents who are more religious are more than probable to manifest their religious values and beliefs through everyday interactions with others, including their children. An emerging research literature demonstrates that religiousness does not have monolithic effects, however. 'The psychology of religion and spirituality makes very articulate that these phenomena are multivalent; they can be helpful, simply they also tin exist harmful' (Pargament et al., 2013, p. 7). That is, each process tin can express itself in effective and destructive ways. On the one paw, greater religious attendance and overall salience of religion tends to exist tied to the formation of traditional family bonds and the maintenance of traditional or nontraditional family ties, and higher religious attendance and importance of religion stabilize marriage (Mahoney, 2010; Mahoney, Pargament, Swank, & Tarakeshwar, 2001). Frequency of worship attendance by mothers and fathers (separately and together) is associated with positive and adaptive parenting, favorable attitudes toward parenting, expressed warmth, and positive relationships with children (Bartkowski, Xu, & Levin, 2008; DeMaris, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2011; Dollahite, 1998; Duriez, Soenens, Neyrinck, & Vansteenkiste, 2009; Loma, Burdette, Regnerus, & Affections, 2008; Rex & Furrow, 2004; Park & Bonner, 2008; Pearce & Axinn, 1998). A meta-analysis (of largely U.South. and exclusively Western samples) revealed that religiousness relates to crucial positive manifestations in parenting, including authoritativeness, with subsequent benefits for children (Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2008; see also Snider, Clements, & Vazsonyi, 2004). Religious beliefs and practices (in the U.s.a.) have largely positive implications for health and well-being (Koenig, Male monarch, & Carson 2012), and more than broadly religious groups sponsor movements for peace, reconciliation, and social justice (Silberman, Higgins, & Dweck, 2005) and religion is strongly associated with virtues (gratitude, forginess, altruism; Carlisle & Tsang, 2013; Saroglou, 2013). Together, these findings betoken to potential profits of parent religiousness for dissimilar types of favorable outcomes in parenting and kid aligning.

On the other mitt, parental religiousness is not e'er conducive to thriving and can crusade harm to individuals (abuse, violence; Fallot & Blanch, 2013; Jones, 2013) as it tin can cause individuals to do impairment (discrimination, prejudice; Doehring, 2013). Parental religiousness has been hypothesized to engender less flexible caregiving considering fixed factors, such as religious dogma, rather than variable factors, such equally a childs needs or the situation, would help to determine parenting. College religious attendance and more than literal Bible estimation, for example, are associated with college parenting stress and risk of kid abuse (Rodriguez & Henderson, 2010; Weyand, OLaughlin, & Bennett, 2013). As many religions require beliefs and traditions that, from a scientific view, are casuistic or unreasonable, greater religiousness may also undermine rational parenting and so child adjustment (Bottoms, Shaver, Goodman, & Qin, 1995; Templeton & Eccles, 2006). More broadly, some religious factions are known to promote intergroup disharmonize and fifty-fifty terrorism and genocide (Waller, 2013)

In the same mode that religiousness has complex and nuanced relations with parenting, it is associated in complicated and subtle ways with various child outcomes (Koenig et al., 2001; Pargament, 1997). Some studies report positive effects of parental religiousness on children, but others find negative effects (for a review see Holden & Williamson, 2014). For case, parental religiousness is associated with higher levels of desirable outcomes in children (cocky-control, social skills) and lower levels of undesirable outcomes (internalizing and externalizing problems), as rated by parents and teachers (Bartkowski et al., 2008; DeMaris et al., 2011; Dollahite, 1998; Rex & Furrow, 2004; McCullough & Willoughby, 2009; Smith & Denton, 2005). However, adolescence is a time of identity struggles (King, Ramos, & Clardy, 2013), and discrepancy in parent-adolescent religiousness is associated with adolescent behavior bug (Kim-Spoon, Longo, & McCollough, 2012) and poorer parent-child relationship quality (Stokes & Regnerus, 2009).

Existing enquiry therefore demonstrates benefits of parental religiousness likewise equally detriments. Religiousness appears to embody both the 'noble' and the 'evil,' the paradox that Lord Acton observed. History records that religiousness promotes love, transcendence, and connectedness but also inspires intolerance, antagonism, and violence (Oser, Scarlett, & Bucher, 2006). Religiousness is therefore every bit much a force for peace and understanding as for disharmonize and prejudice on the globe stage, and this duality appears to play out on the family stage. Together, the good and bad underscore the potency of parental religiousness for children, parents, and social club. Marks (2004) interviewed Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and Muslim parents of children ages five to 13 years. Parents reported that their religiousness promoted family connectedness and closeness but likewise constituted a source of conflict within the family unit and with the larger community. A comprehensive understanding of parental religiousness, parenting practices, and child adjustment therefore requires appreciation of the positive also as the negative effects of parental religiousness in the family. On this account, we studied parental religiousness and its connections to 2 positive and 2 negative aspects of parenting and to 2 positive and two negative outcomes in children.

In the aforementioned global poll that counted nearly 60% of the earth population as religious, nigh xl% claimed to be unaffiliated. Religious affiliated and unaffiliated parents may hold different caregiving values, classify time and effort in caregiving differently, and involve their children in social networks associated with unlike (religious vs. nonreligious) communities; not unexpectedly, some developmental trajectories are idea to differ for children from religious and nonreligious homes (Evans, 2000; Streib & Klein, 2013; Wilcox, 2002). Compared with children reared in nonreligious households, children in religious homes have been reported to exist better adapted socially and emotionally, take higher self-esteem and social responsibleness, and bear witness lower levels of internalizing and externalizing beliefs bug (Bartkowski et al., 2008; Brody, Stoneman, & Flor, 1996; Gunnoe, Hetherington, & Reiss, 1999; King & Furrow, 2004; Regnerus & Elder, 2003). Even so, recent research has suggested that children from nonreligious households may concord more prosocial and egalitarian views than children from religious households (Decety et al., 2015; Hall, Matz, & Wood, 2010). For these reasons, nosotros included unaffiliated as well as religion-affiliated parents in this investigation.

The present study

This omnibus report analyzes parental religiousness in longitudinal relation to multiple kid- and parent-reported positive and negative parent practices and subsequent positive and negative child adjustment outcomes. The data derive from multiple informants from multiple religions in multiple global regions. The famine of longitudinal research in this field has precluded stronger inferences about the long-term effects of parental religiousness on parenting and child adjustment. Nosotros also considered some key moderators of associations amid parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjustment. Gender is one. Smith and Denton (2005) reported that, compared to adolescent boys, adolescent girls aged 13–17 years were more than likely to attend religious services, see organized religion as shaping their daily lives, have made a personal commitment to God, be involved in religious youth groups, and pray when alone. By and large, higher proportions of females than males report that organized religion is very of import in their lives (Kid Trends, 2013). Therefore, we conducted split comparative analyses for mothers and fathers every bit well equally for girls and boys. Reporter is another potential moderator, as childrens and parents reports may accept different relations to parent religiousness and kid adjustment (Rex & Boyatzis, 2015), and and then we assessed child and parent reports of parenting in separate models. Finally, enquiry has rarely studied whether religiousness has unique associations with parenting and child adjustment after accounting for mutual-cause tertiary variables. We therefore took parental educational activity, age, and social desirability of responding into statistical account.

These considerations together guided 4 main hypotheses. Considering parental religiousness tin shape parenting decisions, nosotros expected that (1) greater parental religiousness would atomic number 82 to greater parental efficacy that would atomic number 82 to greater child social competence and school performance and lesser internalizing and externalizing child problems. Because the major religions we studied recommend appropriate intendance and rearing of children, we expected that (2) greater parental religiousness would lead to greater parental warmth that would lead to greater child social competence and school functioning and less internalizing and externalizing child problems. Because the major religions nosotros studied mostly prescribe obedience and command for children, we expected that (3) greater parental religiousness would also lead to greater parental control that would lead to more internalizing and externalizing bug and lower social competence and schoolhouse performance in children. Although parental command can have both positive and negative effects on children (Van Der Bruggen, Stams, & Bögels, 2008), we hypothesized that higher parental control would be associated with worse outcomes in this written report because behavioral control is perceived negatively by children (Kakihara & Tilton-Weaver, 2009). (four) Nosotros had no particular hypotheses virtually the link betwixt parental religiousness and parental rejection. Although high parental religiousness may lead to less rejection of children for the aforementioned reasons we hypothesized a positive link between parental religiousness and warmth, some children may perceive parents with high levels of religiousness as more rejecting if, for example, the parents concern for his or her religious behavior supersedes business for the child. Finally, based on the very limited testify almost moderators of these relations, we expected that (5) the links found between parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjustment would be largely invariant across religious groups, sites, parent gender, and child gender.

Method

Sample

Altogether, 1198 families (1198 children, 1198 mothers, and 1075 fathers; N=3471) from 9 countries provided data over iii years. Families were fatigued from Jinan, Mainland china (ns=118 mothers and 118 fathers), Medellín, Colombia (ns=102 mothers and 99 fathers), Naples and Rome, Italia (ns=196 mothers and 182 fathers), Zarqa, Jordan (ns=111 mothers and 108 fathers), Kisumu, Kenya (ns=98 mothers and 98 fathers), Manila, the Philippines (ns=101 mothers and 88 fathers), Trollhättan/Vänersborg, Sweden (ns=96 mothers and 81 fathers), Chiang Mai, Thailand (ns=116 mothers and 105 fathers), and Durham, N Carolina, U.s.a. (ns=260 mothers and 196 fathers). Children (50.6% female) averaged eight.25 years (SD=.63) in moving ridge i, ix.31 years (SD=.73) in wave 2, and 10.34 years (SD=.71) in wave 3 of the study. Late babyhood is a critical stage of evolution for academic accomplishment, social competence, and behavioral aligning, and then we studied parental religiousness in connexion with positive and negative developmental outcomes as children moved through middle childhood. Mothers averaged 37.01 years (SD=6.42) and fathers 40.17 years of age (SD=half dozen.67) in wave 1. Mothers had completed 12.49 years (SD=four.12) and fathers 12.67 years of education (SD=4.thirteen) on average. Mothers reported that 81.53% were married, 9.36% were unmarried and cohabitating, and nine.11% were unpartnered. Furthermore, 31% of children lived in households with three or more adults (e.thou., non-nuclear families). Mothers or fathers identified their family as Catholic (37.98%), Protestant (24.37%), Buddhist (ten.85%), Muslim (9.68%), and of no religious affiliation (17.xi%).

Procedures

Parents provided informed consent, and the study was approved by IRBs at collaborating universities in each country. Families were recruited from schools that served socioeconomically diverse populations in each participating customs. At age 8, parents reported on demographic information most the family, religiousness, and religious amalgamation. At age ix, children completed questionnaires about their perceptions of their mothers and fathers parenting beliefs, and parents completed questionnaires almost their parenting behavior, parental efficacy, social desirability bias, and their childs social competence, school performance, and behavior problems. At age x, parents completed questionnaires about their childs social competence, schoolhouse performance, and beliefs problems. Internal consistencies (α) of scales are presented in Table one.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics and internal consistencies of mother and father religiousness, parenting, and child aligning scales

	Mothers			Fathers
	α	Thou	SD	α	1000	SD
Age 8
Parental religiousness (1–5)	.83a	3.84	1.37	.83a	three.84	1.37
Age 9
Child Report
Warmth (1–4)	.fourscore	three.58	.49	.82	3.50	.53
Control (ane–4)	.46	3.00	.58	.50	2.86	.63
Rejection (one–iv)	.81	i.39	.39	.82	1.38	.38
Parent Report
Efficacy (ane–5)	.73	4.00	.65	.76	3.91	.67
Warmth (1–4)	.78	3.67	.41	.79	3.54	.48
Control (1–iv)	.52	two.96	.57	.fifty	ii.87	.56
Rejection (1–4)	.80	ane.34	.32	.81	1.35	.32
Social Competence (1–5)	.89	3.67	.68	.87	3.61	.62
School Performance (one–4)	.82	3.37	.l	.83	iii.35	.51
Internalizing (0–62)	.87	9.04	vii.26	.86	8.ten	half-dozen.43
Externalizing (0–66)	.88	9.83	7.50	.85	9.21	6.38
Age x
Social Competence (one–v)	.89	three.seventy	.69	.ninety	3.65	.67
School Performance (1–4)	.82	3.36	.50	.84	3.38	.51
Internalizing (0–62)	.87	eight.84	7.02	.84	7.83	vi.11
Externalizing (0–66)	.88	nine.30	7.23	.86	viii.80	six.62

Measures

Family unit faith and parental religiousness

1 parent in the family indicated the familys religious amalgamation among the post-obit categories: Cosmic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, and No religious amalgamation. The same parent answered two religiousness questions on a scale from 1, non at all, to 5, very important/much: 'How important would y'all say religion is in your life?' and 'How much would you say your religious beliefs influence your parenting?' Co-ordinate to Mahoney (2013), upwardly of 80% of quantitative studies on faith and family unit rely on i- or ii-item measures of a parents religious amalgamation, frequency of worship omnipresence, cocky-reported salience of religion in daily life, and the similar (Mahoney et al., 2001). These two items were highly correlated, r(1172)=.83, p<.001, and then averaged to form a scale of parental religiousness. Additional information about parental religion and religiousness is available in Appendis S1, available online.

Parenting behavior

The kid and parent versions of the Parental Acceptance-Rejection/Control Questionnaire-Curt Class (PARQ/Control-SF; Rohner, 2005) were used to measure the reported frequency of mothers and fathers parenting behaviors. Children rated items for each parent, and parents self-rated their ain behaviors on a (modified) scale: ane=never or almost never, ii=one time a month, iii=once a week, or 4=every day. Nosotros used the 8-item warmth-amore scale, five-item control scale, and xvi-item rejection calibration (computed as the boilerplate of 6 hostility-aggression, 4 rejection, and 6 neglect-indifference items). The command scale reflected behavioral control (rather than psychological command), and a high score indicated loftier control with piffling allowance for child autonomy (see Appendix S1). Ii instance items are 'My mother lets me do anything I want to practise.' and 'My mother sees to it that I know exactly what I may or may not do.'

Parental efficacy

Mothers and fathers cocky-reported their feelings of parental efficacy (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 2001) on 4 items almost how much they tin can practise to touch on their children at schoolhouse, at home, and outside the domicile. Items like 'How much tin yous practice to get your children to practise things you desire at abode?' and 'How much tin yous exercise to help your children to piece of work hard at their school piece of work?' were rated on a 5-signal scale from 1, Aught, to 5, A great bargain. Mother- and male parent-rated scales were each computed equally the average of 4 items.

Child social competence

Mothers and fathers completed a 7-particular social competence calibration (Pettit, Harrist, Bates, & Dodge, 1991) indicating how socially skilled the child was in several kinds of interpersonal interactions (understanding others feelings, generating proficient solutions to interpersonal bug). Items were rated on a v-indicate scale from 1=very poor to five=very adept. Mother- and father-rated scales were each computed every bit the average of the 7 items.

Child schoolhouse performance

Mothers and fathers rated their childs school performance in reading, math, social studies, and scientific discipline, four areas that are common to curricula in every country. The questions were adapted from the operation in academic subjects section of the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 1991) that has demonstrated benchmark validity. Parents rated whether children were 1=failing, ii=below average, 3=average, or 4=above boilerplate in each surface area. Mother- and father-rated scales were each computed as the average of the 4 items.

Kid internalizing and externalizing behavior

Mothers and fathers completed problem items on the widely used and validated CBCL. Nosotros used raw scores of the mother- and begetter-rated 33-detail externalizing scales (due east.g., 'My kid gets in many fights.') and 31-detail internalizing scales (e.g., 'My child is as well fearful or anxious.'). Mothers and fathers indicated whether each beliefs was 0=Non truthful, 1=somewhat or sometimes true, or 2=very truthful or frequently true.

Moderators/covariates

In addition to parent and kid gender, nosotros evaluated religious group (five categories) and data collection site (9 categories) equally moderators. We besides evaluated 3 covariates: parental education, historic period, and social desirability bias. People with less education tend to place more than emphasis on didactics children religious faith than people with more education (Doherty, Funk, Kiley, & Weisel, 2014), and higher parental educational activity is associated with improve parenting and child adjustment (Smith, Perou, & Lesesne, 2002). A unmarried respondent from the household (88.3% mothers) reported both mothers and fathers years of didactics. Because parent historic period is known to relate to their parenting and kid adjustment (Bornstein & Putnick, 2007; Bornstein, Putnick, Suwalsky, & Gini, 2006), parental age in years was used every bit a covariate. As a command variable when evaluating parent-study measures, mothers and fathers completed the thirteen-particular Social Desirability Scale-Short Form (SDS-SF; Reynolds, 1982) to assess social desirability bias. Statements such as 'Im always willing to admit when I make a error.' were rated equally Truthful or Faux. α of the SDS-SF is .76, and the correlation with the total-length SDS .93 (Reynolds, 1982). The SDS-SF has demonstrated concurrent cross-cultural validity (Bornstein et al., 2015).

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Tabular array one displays descriptive statistics separately for mothers and fathers. Parents reported moderately high levels of parental religiousness, on average, simply parental religiousness spanned the full possible range of the scale. Both children and parents rated parental warmth high, rejection low, and control moderate. Parental efficacy was rated as moderately high. Kid adjustment varied widely. Correlations among mother and among male parent scales also as correlations between matching mother and father scales announced in Table S1.

Parental religiousness, kid-reported parenting, and change in child adjustment

We fit a developmental path analysis model with relations from age-viii parental religiousness to age-ix kid-reported parenting (efficacy, warmth, control, and rejection) and from age-nine parenting to age-10 child adjustment (social competence, school functioning, internalizing, and externalizing), controlling for stability in kid adjustment from ages ix to 10. All measures were allowed to covary inside waves. The a priori model (Figure 1) fit the data, Satorra-Bentler (S-B) χ²(16)=139.32, p<.001, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.058, 90%CI=.050–.067, SRMR=.03. Greater parental religiousness at age viii was associated with higher parent-reported parental efficacy at age 9, which was in plough associated with increases in child social competence and school functioning from historic period 9 to age x. Greater parental religiousness at age 8 was also associated with higher kid-reported parental command and rejection at age nine, which were, in turn, related to increases in child internalizing and externalizing from age 9 to age 10. All effect sizes were minor.

Final model of relations of parental religiousness with child report of perceived parenting and parent written report of kid adjustment beyond 9 countries, controlling for stability in child adjustment and within-wave relations between parenting and child adjustment (not shown).

Note. CR=Child report. PR=parent report. Standardized coefficients are presented. For ease of interpretation, within-moving ridge covariances are non depicted on the Effigy. Covariances among age 9 variables ranged from |r|=.03 to .53, pdue south=.18 to <.001, and among age 10 variables from |r|=.08 to .53, ps = .002 to <.001.

* p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001.

The indirect furnishings (computed as the product of path coefficients; Muthén, 2011) of parental religiousness to child social competence and school operation through parental efficacy were positive and significant but pocket-size, β=.01, 95% CI=.005–.02, p=.005, and β=.01, 95% CI=.005–.02, p=.007, respectively. The full standardized indirect effects of parental religiousness on child internalizing and externalizing (through rejection and command) were β=.02, 95% CI=.01–.03, p=.002, and .02, 95% CI=.01–.03, p<.001, respectively.

Parental religiousness, parent-reported parenting, and child adjustment

We fit the same a priori developmental model for the parent-reported parenting scales. This model fit the data, S-B χ²(xvi)=125.63, p<.001, CFI=.98, RMSEA=.056, 90%CI=.047–.065, SRMR=.03. Greater parental religiousness at age eight was associated with higher parent-reported parental efficacy and warmth at age nine, and parental warmth (but not efficacy) was, in plough, related to increased kid social competence and school performance from ages 9 to ten. College parent-reported parental efficacy (but not warmth) was also associated with decreased child internalizing bug from ages 9 to 10. Greater parental religiousness at historic period 8 was associated with higher parent-reported parental control at age 9, which was, in turn, related to increased kid internalizing and externalizing from ages nine to 10. All effect sizes were minor.

The indirect effects of parent religiousness on child social competence and schoolhouse operation through parental warmth were significant but pocket-size, β=.01, 95% CI= .001–.013, p=.037, and β=.01, 95% CI= .002–.013, p=.020. The standardized indirect effects of parent religiousness on child internalizing and externalizing (through parental control) were both, β=.03, 95% CI=.02–.04, p<.001.

Covariate controlled models of parental religiousness with parenting and child adjustment

To determine whether the relations in Figures 1 and ​ 2 are accounted for by age eight parental education, age, and social desirability bias, we residualized all observed variables in the model for pregnant associations with parental education and historic period, we residualized parent-study variables for significant associations with social desirability, and we re-calculated the last models. Both covariate controlled models had adequate fit to the information. All pregnant structural paths depicted in Figures 1 and ​ 2 remained significant in the covariate-controlled models.

Terminal model of relations of parental religiousness with parent written report of perceived parenting and parent report of child aligning across 9 countries, decision-making for stability in child adjustment and within-wave relations betwixt parenting and child adjustment (not shown).

Annotation. CR=Child written report. PR=parent study. Standardized coefficients are presented. For ease of estimation, within-wave covariances are not depicted on the Figure. Covariances amid age 9 variables ranged from |r|=.02 to .54, ps=.29 to <.001, and among age ten variables from |r|=.08 to .53, ps = .002 to <.001.

* p<.05. ** p<.01. *** p<.001.

Multiple-group models of parental religiousness with parenting and child adjustment by religious group, site, parent gender, and child gender

Information technology could exist that a single religion, site, or group accounts for the findings in the models higher up. Past testing multiple-groups models, we show whether the effects are broadly generalizable or circumscribed to a subset of groups. Multiple-group models were tested across the 5 religious groups, ix sites, mothers and fathers, and kid genders to make up one's mind whether the models fit for each group. With the exception of a few structural paths in each model (1–five% of paths), the final models in Figures 1 and ​ 2 fit for families beyond 5 religious groups: Catholic (n=870), Protestant (northward=535), Buddhist (n=249), Muslim (north=229), and no religious affiliation (n=390). With the exception of a few paths in each model, the concluding models in Figures 1 and ​ ii fit for parents beyond the nine sites: China (n=236), Colombia (north=201), Italy (n=355), Jordan (northward=219), Kenya (north=195), Philippines (n=181), Sweden (n=167), Thailand (n=209), and the Us (due north=433). Looking beyond multiple-grouping models, one path emerged every bit consistently different – the path betwixt parental religiousness and parental efficacy seemed to be carried by Italian Catholics as information technology was positive and significant simply for Catholics in religious group models and only for Italians in site models. The final models in Figures 1 and ​ ii fit as well for mothers (n=1198) and fathers (north=1075) and for girls (n=1147) and boys (due north=1126). (Model details, fit statistics, and pocket-size exceptions appear in Appendix S1.)

Discussion

We focused on parental religiousness and its associations with parenting and child adjustment. Equally researchers in the psychology of religion seldom employ developmental approaches, we utilized a longitudinal pattern to model temporal pathways from parent religiousness to parenting and child adjustment. Past including four religions and unaffiliated parents in this ominubus 9-site three-wave longitudinal multi-reporter research design with ii positive and 2 negative domains each of parenting and of kid aligning, we reached for a broader agreement of the constructive and destructive roles of religiousness in parenting equally well as childrens adjustment. Parents religiousness proved to have associations with positive (efficacy and warmth) and negative (control and rejection) parenting practices and through them associations with positive (social competence and schoolhouse performance) and negative (internalizing and externalizing) kid aligning. With these several pathways identified, order, religious institutions and leaders, and parents tin can exist vigilant to the differential furnishings of parental religiousness and labor to promote positive (eastward.grand., by emphasizing efficacy and warmth), and inhibit negative (e.chiliad., past minimizing maladaptive control and rejection), associations of parental religiousness with parenting and with kid adjustment.

Our findings of positive and negative associations of parents religiousness with parenting and kid adjustment are consistent with past piecemeal studies showing the 'multivalent' nature of parental religiousness. In accord with our first hypothesis, greater parental religiousness at age 8 was associated with higher parental efficacy at age 9 and in turn increases in childrens social competence and school functioning at historic period 10. In partial accord with our 2d hypothesis, greater parental religiousness at age 8 was associated with higher parent-reported parental warmth at age ix, and parent-reported warmth was associated with increased kid social competence and school performance (but not fewer internalizing and externalizing problems) at age 10. Parents written report that their religiousness and cocky-rated warmth are associated, but their children do not. What may explicate these positive patterns of association? Parental religiousness is associated with more than constructive parenting, communication, closeness, warmth, support, and monitoring and less disciplinarian parenting (Snider, Clements, & Vazsonyi, 2004; Wilcox, 1998). More religious parents may also savor stronger and broader parenting supports, and attending worship services regularly might provide stability and customs for children. Parental religiousness may emphasize the family, promote moral values, or teach cocky-regulation (Hood, Spilka, Hunsberger, & Gorsuch, 1996; Mahoney et al., 2008; McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). For example, 'sanctification,' viewing God in relationships with other family unit members, is nondenominational, and sanctification in parenting may be a mode religion is embedded in everyday interactions between parents and children (Mahoney et al., 1999). Sanctification is associated with effective subject field practices and diminished conflict with children (Mahoney et al., 1999; Volling, Mahoney, & Rauer, 2009).

Even so, in accordance with our tertiary hypothesis, parents greater religiousness at age 8 was besides associated with more than kid- and parent-reported parental command at age 9, which in turn was associated with increased child internalizing and externalizing issues at age 10. Although we had no specific a priori hypotheses almost parental rejection, parental religiousness was associated with kid- (only non parent-) reported parental rejection, which in turn was associated with increases in kid internalizing and externalizing issues at historic period 10. What may explain these negative patterns of association? Religious adherents with stronger affiliations are more likely to prioritize obedience and being well mannered and somewhat less likely to value tolerance, and stronger parental religiousness is related to lower convergence between mothers beliefs about an ideal mother and the contour of the prototypically sensitive female parent (Emmen, Malda, Mesman, Ekmekci, & van IJzendoorn, 2012). Parental religiousness can be a source of conflict in the home, and it tin can undermine child development by increasing childrens stress and feet. If parental religiousness is a source of family unit struggle (Exline, 2013), it may erode self-esteem and generate depression (Dein, 2013). It is possible that more than fervent parental religiousness comes across as controlling to older children and emerging adolescents who are forming individualized identities and belief systems. Parental behavioral control is sometimes linked to more positive kid outcomes (e.g., Hairdresser, Olson, & Shagle, 1994), but in this study the command scale represented strong behavioral control with niggling opportunity for autonomy, which older children likely find restrictive. When adolescents report being less religious than their parents, they manifest more behavior problems (Kim-Spoon et al., 2012). We hasten to add here that higher scores on the internalizing and externalizing scales we used should not (necessarily) be interpreted to mean that higher parental religiousness translates into clinically significant levels of emotional or behavioral problems in children. The mean scores on the two CBCL subscales fall below cut points of clinical significance.

With respect to our concluding hypothesis, we explored whether religious group (qua content), site, parent gender, and child gender moderate relations of parental religiousness on parenting and child adjustment. Similar patterns of results held for all 4 religions and the unaffiliated, all 9 sites, mothers and fathers, girls and boys, and controlling for multiple covariates. These broadly generalizable findings strongly suggest that parental religiousness (and not whatsoever religious amalgamation in particular) is driving the results. That said, a few religion-specific and site-specific effects arose (see Appendix S1). Notably, the link betwixt parental religiousness and parental efficacy was meaning only for Italians (relative to other sites) and Catholics (relative to other religions). Hence, amid Italian Catholics, having a strong religious influence may make parents feel more efficacious because organized religion provides guiding principles about caregiving.

Limitations indicate to future directions

Overall, greater parental religiousness appears to promote parental efficacy and warmth (as perceived by the parent) that and so facilitate two highly valued child outcomes. At the aforementioned time, greater parental religiousness appears to broaden parental control and rejection (as perceived by the kid) that increases parents reports of childrens problem behaviors. Religiousness is a bivocal factor in parenting and child adjustment. Equally religiousness is multidimensional (Pargament et al., 2013), future inquiry might be designed to uncover which constituents of parental religiousness are associated with which aspects of parenting and child adjustment (Bornstein, 2105b). What does parental religiousness convey, what are the 'active ingredients' in religiousness vis-à-vis parenting and child adjustment, are they the same, etc.? Mahoneys (2013) conceptual framework of 'relational spirituality' spells out three possible tiers of mechanisms (relationship with God, family relationship, human relationship with religious community). Other limitations signal to boosted research questions. Too frequently studies of religion and religiousness overlook personal meanings (Mahoney, 2010; Mahoney et al., 1999; Volling et al., 2009). In ongoing research with these samples, we are further exploring the touch on of the childs ain emerging religiousness as well as how parental religiousness interacts with child religiousness. It is debatable whether the slightly higher internalizing symptoms reported by parents hither constitute altogether 'negative' outcomes. It could be that more religious parents instill negative feelings (e.m., anxiety, guilt) or rebelliousness toward dominance figures. Futurity inquiry should investigate straight and mediated pathways of influence between parental involvement in religious communities and specific spiritual mechanisms that may assistance or impairment family unit relationships. For example, spirituality could assist parents residue warmth versus command, firmness versus flexibility, in family interactions.

Many studies of religiousness (similar ours) rely on self-reports. Time to come work could employ supplementary measures, such every bit straight observations of parents and children engaging in shared religious practices or when debating religious issues. Furthermore, the internal consistency of the command scales was modest in this report. Although at that place was acceptable evidence of convergent validity, every bit indicated by relations of parental command with parental religiousness and child functioning, scales with more items and/or stronger reliability might further stabilize future findings. Information technology has been observed that 'religion and culture … combine together to make the person that you really are' (McEvoy et al., 2005, p. 146). Civilization and religion are intertwined (Lowenthal, 2013; Sander, 1996), as religions and religious practices reflect myriad geographical, historical, national, and ethnic influences and are thus deeply cultural in nature, then separating the corresponding influences of organized religion and civilisation is challenging (Fitzgerald, 2000; Masuzawa, 2005; Mattis, Ahluwalia, Cowie, & Kirkland-Harris, 2006; Prentiss, 2003). Given that religions accept been a central part of cultures for millennia, religious ideologies are blended with culture. We did not and could non separate them here. Longitudinal data arroyo causal analysis because they have a clear temporal order—a necessary, although not sufficient, precondition for identifying causality. Longitudinal information are much more powerful in testing developmental theories than, say, cross-sectional information, just are not definitive. Here, we also relied on a blunt (2-item) measure of religiousness; more attention to measurement volition advance this field (Hill & Edwards, 2013).

Many parents written report that they view parenting as a sacred calling (Mahoney et al., 2013), and sanctification may contextualize parental religiousness and so moderate it. Sactification is broadly conceptualized every bit 'perceiving an aspect of life every bit having divine significance and meaning' (Mahoney et al., 2013; Pargament & Mahoney, 2005). Greater sanctification of parenting is related to greater use of positive strategies past mothers and fathers (e.1000., praise, consecration) to elicit young childrens moral conduct (Volling et al., 2009). Viewing family relationships as sanctified might assist to maintain the quality of family life, but greater sanctification of parenting may interpret differently depending on how people construe spiritually responsible parental goals and methods. Thus, greater sanctification of parenting is associated with more than positive interactions and with spanking children in mothers who translate the Bible literally, but greater sanctification is associated more positive interactions and with less spanking in mothers who hold more than liberal views of the Bible (Murray-Swank, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2006).

The nuanced and seeming internal contradictions of patterns of results of this written report are frankly challenging but are not new. On an affirmative view, parental religiousness has articulate relations to positive parenting and positive child adjustment, just as more frequent religious attendance and application importance to spirituality correlates with macerated risk of child maltreatment (Carothers, Borkowski, Lefever, & Whitman, 2005). On a dispiriting view, parental religiousness has equally clear relations to negative parenting and poorer kid aligning: Spiritual mechanisms tin justify harsh parenting. Like an Escher drawing, the two hands together contest any unproblematic reading of the roles of parental religiousness in the family. Can the same thing be good and bad both? Yes. Religion like other BIG things in life (the atom, the cistron, the internet) can be forces for both good and bad, and the fact that they are should not deter us from reaching for a deeper agreement of them; rather we should embrace the tension they present, plumb its depths, and act to maximize the skilful and minimize the bad.

Conclusions

Up to now, the rapidly developing discipline of parenting research has focused on a selected array of determinants of parenting, prominently personality, child furnishings, and context, to the nigh exclusion of significant others, such every bit religion. More than contempo treatments take included religion, religiousness, and spirituality (Bornstein, 2016), but these forces remain understudied determinants of parenting. A developmental scientific discipline that neglects the religious and spiritual dimensions of homo existence is an underdeveloped science. Examining the roles of these socially pregnant constructs linked to parenting will be critical for agreement how parental religiousness alone and additively shapes parenting and has consequences for child well-being.

Religiousness is a foremost aspect of the everyday lives of billions of parents and youth around the earth. Beside purportedly helping to cope with problems of human being life that are significant, persistent, and intolerable, and questions that are unknowable and unanswerable, religion, religiousness, and spirituality dictate core values regarding family unit life, and so aspects of all three constitute determinative influences in parenting and child adjustment (Bengston, 2013; Gaunt, 2008; Mahoney, 2005; Mahoney et al., 2008; Wilcox, 2002). Unproblematic conclusions about how religion, religiousness, and spirituality shape parenting, and whether they are good or bad for children and adolescents, are inapt. In contrast, information technology is sensible to ask: Which dimensions of each are related to which parent practices and which child outcomes when and in which populations (Bornstein, 2015)? Research into their roles in parenting and kid aligning is just entering its formative stages, and despite their pervasiveness, religious institutions are still largely 'unexamined crucibles' in parenting and childrens lives (Roehlkepartain & Patel, 2006). Developmental science needs to go along to larn how they are expressed in the family and how they contribute in skilful means and bad to parenting and child development.

​

Central points

• Parental religiousness has effects on the way parents perceive and rear children and, in plough, how children develop and experience the world.

• This study explored links between parental religiousness, parenting, and kid adjustment in a large sample from four religious groups and the unaffiliated in 9 sites worldwide.

• Parental religiousness had both positive and negative associations with parenting and child adjustment, and these effects were largely consistent beyond mothers and fathers, girls and boys, kid- and parent-reported parenting, 4 religions and the unaffiliated, nine sites, and controlling for multiple covariates.

• With these several pathways identified, religious institutions and leaders and parents may labor to promote positive, and inhibit negative, associations of religiousness with parenting and child adjustment.

Supplementary Cloth

Supp info

Appendix S1: Additional information.

Table S1: Correlations among mother and father scales.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [grant RO1-HD054805] and the Fogarty International Center [grant RO3-TW008141] and was supported by the Intramural Inquiry Program of the NIH, NICHD. This manuscript was prepared, in part, during a Marbach Residence Plan funded by the Jacobs Foundation.

Footnotes

Supporting Information

Boosted Supporting Information may be constitute in the online version of this article.

Conflicts of interest argument: The authorsd have declared that they have no competing or potential conflicts of interest.

References

• Achenbach TM. Integrative guide for the 1991 CBCL fourteen–eighteen, YSR, and TRF Profiles. Burlington, VT: Academy of Vermont, Section of Psychiatry; 1991. [Google Scholar]
• Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara GV, Pastorelli C. Self-efficacy beliefs as shapers of childrens aspirations and career trajectories. Kid Development. 2001;72:187–206. doi: x.1111/1467-8624.00273. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Barber BK, Olsen JE, Shagle SC. Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internalized and externalized behaviors. Child Development. 1994;65:1120–1136. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1994.tb00807.ten. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bartkowski JP, Xu X, Levin ML. Religion and child development: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Social Science Research. 2008;37:18–36. doi: ten.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.02.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Beit-Hallachmi B. Psychology and religion. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Psychology and its allied disciplines Vol 1 The humanities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1984. pp. 241–282. [Google Scholar]
• Bengston 5. Families and faith: How religion is passed downwardly across generations. New York, NY: Oxford University Printing; 2013. [Google Scholar]
• Bornstein MH. Unpublished manuscript. NICHD; 2015. The Specificity principle in parenting and child evolution. [Google Scholar]
• Bornstein MH. Determinants of parenting. In: Cicchetti D, editor. Developmental Psychopathology : Genes and Environment. 3rd. Vol. 4. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2016. pp. 180–270. [Google Scholar]
• Bornstein MH, Putnick DL. Chronological age, cognitions, and practices in European American mothers: A multivariate written report of parenting. Developmental Psychology. 2007;43:850–864. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.iv.850. [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, Suwalsky JTD, Gini Thou. Maternal chronological age, prenatal and perinatal history, social back up, and parenting of infants. Kid Development. 2006;77:875–892. doi: ten.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00908.x. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Bottoms BL, Shaver PR, Goodman GS, Qin J. In the proper noun of God: A contour of religion-related child abuse. Journal of Social Issues. 1995;51:85–111. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01325.ten. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Brody GH, Stoneman Z, Flor D. Parental religiosity, family unit processes, and youth competence in rural, two-parent African American families. Developmental Psychology. 1996;32:696–706. doi: x.1037/0012-1649.32.4.696. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Browning DS, Greenish MC, Witte J, editors. Sex, union, and family in world religions. New York: Columbia Academy; 2006. [Google Scholar]
• Carlisle RD, Tsang J-A. The virtues: Gratitude and forgiveness. In: Pargament KI, Exline JJ, Jones JW, editors. APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 423–437. [Google Scholar]
• Carothers SS, Borkowski JG, Lefever JB, Whitman TL. Religiosity and the socioemotional adjustment of boyish mothers and their children. Journal of Family Psychology. 2005;19:263–275. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.two.263. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Child Trends. Religiosity among youth. 2013 May; Retrieved from http://world wide web.childtrends.org/?indicators=religiosity-among-youth.
• Decety J, Cowell JM, Lee Yard, Mahasneh R, Malcolm-Smith S, Selcuk B, Zhou Ten. The negative association betwixt religiousness and childrens altruism across the world. Current Biology. 2015;25:2951–2955. doi: x.1016/j.cub.2015.09.056. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Dein S. Faith, spirituality, low, and anxiety: Theory, enquiry, and practise. In: Pargament KI, Mahoney A, Shafranske EP, editors. APA handbook of psychology, faith, and spirituality (Vol 2): An applied psychology of religion and spirituality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Clan; 2013. pp. 241–255. [Google Scholar]
• DeMaris A, Mahoney A, Pargament KI. Doing the scut work of infant care: Does religiousness encourage father involvement? Periodical of Wedlock and Family. 2011;73:354–368. doi: ten.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00811.x. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Doehring C. An practical integrative approach to exploring how faith and spirituality contribute or counteract prejudice and discrimination. In: Pargament KI, Mahoney A, Shafranske EP, editors. APA handbook of psychology, faith, and spirituality (Vol 2): An applied psychology of religion and spirituality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 389–403. [Google Scholar]
• Doherty C, Funk C, Kiley J, Weisel R. Instruction the children: Sharp ideological differences, some common ground. 2014 Retrieved from http://www.people-printing.org/2014/09/eighteen/education-the-children-sharp-ideological-differences-some-mutual-ground/
• Dollahite DC. Fathering, faith, and spirituality. Journal of Mens Studies. 1998;7:3–15. doi: ten.3149/jms.0701.3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Duriez B, Soenens B, Neyrinck B, Vansteenkiste M. Is religiosity related to improve parenting? Disentangling religiosity from religious cognitive manner. Journal of Family Bug. 2009;30:1287–1307. doi: ten.1177/0192513X09334168. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Edgell P. Religion and family in a changing society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Printing; 2005. [Google Scholar]
• Emmen RA, Malda M, Mesman J, Ekmekci H, van IJzendoorn MH. Sensitive parenting as a cross-cultural ideal: Sensitivity beliefs of Dutch, Moroccan, and Turkish mothers in the netherlands. Zipper & Man Evolution. 2012;14:601–619. doi: ten.1080/14616734.2012.727258. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Evans EM. Beyond scopes: Why creationism is here to stay. In: Rosengren KS, Johnson CN, Harris PL, editors. Imagining the incommunicable: Magical, scientific, and religious thinking in children. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 305–333. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Exline JJ, Pargament KI, Exline JJ, Jones JW, editors. APA handbook of psychology, faith, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and enquiry. Washington, DC: American Psychological Clan; 2013. Religious and spiritual struggles; pp. 459–475. [Google Scholar]
• Fallot RD, Blanch AK. Religious and spiritual dimensions of traumatic violence. In: Pargament KI, Mahoney A, Shafranske EP, editors. APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol two): An applied psychology of faith and spirituality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 371–387. [Google Scholar]
• Fitzgerald T. The ideology of religious studies. New York: Oxford University Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
• Gaunt R. Maternal gatekeeping: Antecedents and consequences. Periodical of Family unit Issues. 2008;29:373–395. doi: 10.1177/0192513X07307851. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Gunnoe ML, Hetherington EM, Reiss D. Parental religiosity, parenting style, and boyish social responsibility. Journal of Early Adolescence. 1999;19:199–225. doi: ten.1177/0272431699019002004. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hall DL, Matz DC, Forest W. Why dont nosotros practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2010;14:126–139. doi: ten.1177/1088868309352179. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hill PC, Edwards E. Measurement in the psychology of religiousness and spirituality: Existing measures and new frontiers. In: Pargament KI, Exline JJ, Jones JW, editors. APA handbook of psychology, faith, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 51–77. [Google Scholar]
• Hill TD, Burdette AM, Regnerus 1000, Angel RJ. Religious involvement and attitudes toward parenting among low-income urban women. Periodical of Family Issues. 2008;29:882–900. doi: 10.1177/0192513X07311949. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Holden GW, Vittrup B. Religion. In: Bornstein MH, editor. The handbook of cultural developmental science Role ane Domains of evolution beyond cultures. New York: Psychology Press; 2010. pp. 279–295. [Google Scholar]
• Holden GW, Williamson PA. Organized religion and child well-beingness. In: Ben-Arieh A, Casas F, Frones I, Korbin JE, editors. Handbook of child well-being: Theories, methods, and policies in global context. New York: Springer; 2014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Hood RW, Jr, Hill PC, Spilka B. The psychology of faith: An empirical approach. 4th. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
• Hood RW, Spilka B, Hunsberger B, Gorsuch R. The psychology of religion. 2nd. New York: Guilford Press; 1996. [Google Scholar]
• Jones JW. The psychology of gimmicky religious violence: A multidimensional approach. In: Pargament KI, Mahoney A, Shafranske EP, editors. APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol two): An practical psychology of religion and spirituality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 355–370. [Google Scholar]
• Kakihara F, Tilton-Weaver Fifty. Adolescents interpretations of parental control: Differentiated by domain and types of command. Child Evolution. 2009;fourscore:1722–1738. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01364.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Kim-Spoon J, Longo GS, McCullough ME. Adolescents who are less religious than their parents are at risk for externalizing and internalizing symptoms: The mediating part of parent-boyish human relationship quality. Periodical of Family Psychology. 2012;26:636–641. doi: x.1037/a0029176. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• King PE, Boyatzis CJ. Religious and spiritual development. In: Lamb ME, editor. Socioemotional processes: Volume iii of the Handbook of child psychology and developmental science. 7th. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2015. pp. 975–1021. Editor-in-chief: R. Chiliad. Lerner. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• King PE, Furrow JL. Religion as a resource for positive youth development: Religion, social uppercase, and moral outcomes. Developmental Psychology. 2004;40:703–713. doi: x.1037/0012-1649.xl.5.703. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• King PE, Ramos JS, Clardy CE. Searching for the sacred: Religion, spirituality, and adolescent evolution. In: Pargament KI, Exline JJ, Jones JW, editors. APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Clan; 2013. pp. 513–528. [Google Scholar]
• Koenig HG, King D, Carson VB. Handbook of religion and health. 2nd. Oxford, England: Oxford Academy Press; 2012. [Google Scholar]
• Koenig HG, McCullough ME, Larson DB. Handbook of faith and health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Loewenthal KM. Religion, spirituality, and civilization: Clarifying the management of effects. In: Pargament KI, Exline JJ, Jones JW, editors. APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol i): Context, theory, and research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 239–255. [Google Scholar]
• Mahoney A. Organized religion and conflict in marital and parent-kid relationships. Periodical of Social Issues. 2005;61:689–706. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00427.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mahoney A. Organized religion in families, 1999–2009: A relational spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and Family unit. 2010;72:805–827. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00732.10. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mahoney A. The spirituality of united states of america: Relational spirituality in the context of family relationships. In: Pargament KI, Exline JJ, Jones JW, editors. APA handbook of psychology, organized religion, and spirituality (Vol one): Context, theory, and research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Clan; 2013. pp. 365–389. [Google Scholar]
• Mahoney A, Pargament KI, Hernandez KM. Heaven on earth: Benign effects of sanctification for individual and interpersonal well-beingness. In: Boniwell I, David SA, Ayers Air-conditioning, editors. Oxford handbook of happiness. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2013. [Google Scholar]
• Mahoney A, Pargament K, Jewell T, Swank AB, Scott Due east, Emery Eastward, Rye M. Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital operation. Journal of Family Psychology. 1999;13:321–338. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.321. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mahoney A, Pargament KI, Swank A, Tarakeshwar N. Religion in the habitation in the 1980s and 90s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis of religion, marriage, and parenting. Periodical of Family Psychology. 2001;15:559–596. doi: ten.1037/0893-3200.fifteen.4.559. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mahoney A, Pargament K, Tarakeshwar N, Swank A. Religion in the home in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual assay of links between religion, spousal relationship, and parenting. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, South(1) 2008:63–101. doi: 10.1037/1941-1022.S.1.63. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Marks LD. Sacred practices in highly religious families: Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and Muslim perspectives. Family Process. 2004;43:217–231. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.04302007.10. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Masuzawa T. The invention of world religions: Or, how European universalism was preserved in the linguistic communication of pluralism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Mattis JS, Ahluwalia MK, Cowie Southward-AE, Kirkland-Harris AM. Ethnicity, culture, and spiritual development. In: Roehlkepartain EC, King PE, Wagener L, Benson PL, editors. The handbook of spiritual evolution in childhood and boyhood. K Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006. pp. 283–296. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• McCullough ME, Willoughby BL. Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Message. 2009;135:69–93. doi: 10.1037/a0014213. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• McEvoy M, Lee C, ONeill A, Groisman A, Roberts-Butelman One thousand, Dinghra K, Porder K. Are in that location universal parenting concepts among culturally diverse families in an inner-city pediatric clinic? Journal of Pediatric Health Intendance. 2005;xix:142–150. doi: x.1016/j.pedhc.2004.x.007. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Murray-Swank A, Mahoney A, Pargament KI. Sanctification of parenting: Links to corporal penalisation and parental warmth amongst biblically bourgeois and liberal mothers. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion. 2006;sixteen:271–287. doi: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr1604_3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Muthén B. Applications of causally defined straight and indirect effects in mediation assay using SEM in Mplus. 2011 Bachelor from https://world wide web.statmodel.com/download/causalmediation.pdf.
• Oser FK, Scarlett WG, Bucher A. Religious and spiritual development throughout the lifespan. In: Lerner RM, editor. Theoretical models of human development Volume 1 of Handbook of child psychology. 6th. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2006. pp. 942–998. Editors-in-Chief: W. Damon & R. M. Lerner. [Google Scholar]
• Paloutzian RF, Park CL. Handbook of the psychology of organized religion and spirituality. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
• Pargament KI. The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, enquiry, and practise. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1997. [Google Scholar]
• Pargament KI. Spiritually integrated psychotherapy: Understanding and addressing the sacred. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
• Pargament KI, Exline JJ, Jones JW, editors. APA handbook of psychology, faith, and spirituality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. [Google Scholar]
• Pargament KI, Mahoney A. Sacred matters: Sanctification equally a vital topic for the psychology of religion. The International Journal of the Psychology of Organized religion. 2005;15:179–198. doi: ten.1207/s15327582ijpr1503_1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Pargament KI, Mahoney A, Exline JJ, Jones JW, Shafranske EP, Pargament KI, Exline JJ, Jones JW, editors. APA handbook of psychology, faith, and spirituality (Vol i): Context, theory, and research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 3–nineteen. [Google Scholar]
• Park HS, Bonner P. Family religious involvement, parenting practices and academic performance in adolescents. School Psychology International. 2008;29:348–362. doi: 10.1177/0143034308093677. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Parrinder Thousand. Sexual morality in the worlds religions. Oxford, England: Oneworld; 1996. [Google Scholar]
• Pearce LD, Axinn WG. The affect of family religious life on the quality of mother-child relations. American Sociological Review. 1998;63:810–828. doi: 10.2307/2657503. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Pettit GS, Harrist AW, Bates JE, Contrivance KA. Family unit interaction, social cognition, and childrens subsequent relations with peers at kindergarten. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 1991;viii:383–402. doi: 10.1177/0265407591083005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Prentiss CR. Religion and the cosmos of race and ethnicity. New York: NYU Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
• Regnerus Dr., Elder GH. Staying on runway in schoolhouse: Religious influences in high-and low-hazard settings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Faith. 2003;42:633–649. doi: 10.1046/j.1468-5906.2003.00208.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Reynolds WM. Evolution of reliable and valid brusque forms of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Calibration. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1982;38:119–125. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:one<119::Assistance-JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;ii-I. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rodriguez CM, Henderson RC. Who spares the rod? Religious orientation, social conformity, and child abuse potential. Child Corruption & Neglect. 2010;34:84–94. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.07.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Roehlkepartain EC, Patel E. Congregations: Unexamined crucibles for spiritual evolution. In: Roehlkepartain EC, King PE, Wagener L, Benson PL, editors. The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and boyhood. Grand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006. pp. 324–336. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Rohner RP. Parental Acceptance-Rejection/Control Questionnaire (PARQ/Command): Test manual. In: Rohner RP, Khaleque A, editors. Handbook for the written report of parental acceptance and rejection. 4th. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut; 2005. pp. 137–186. [Google Scholar]
• Sander A. Images of the child and babyhood in religion. In: Hwang CP, Lamb ME, Sigel IE, editors. Images of childhood. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 1996. pp. 14–26. [Google Scholar]
• Saroglou V. Religion, spirituality, and altruism. In: Pargament KI, Exline JJ, Jones JW, editors. APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 439–457. [Google Scholar]
• Silberman I, Higgins E, Dweck C. Religion and earth alter: Violence, terrorism versus peace. Periodical of Social Issues. 2005;61:761–784. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00431.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Smith C, Denton ML. Soul searching: The religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2005. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Smith C, Perou R, Lesesne C. Parent pedagogy. In: Bornstein MH, editor. Handbook of parenting Vol iv Practical parenting. 2d. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2002. pp. 389–410. [Google Scholar]
• Snider JB, Clements A, Vazsonyi AT. Late adolescent perceptions of parent religiosity and parenting processes. Family unit Process. 2004;43:489–502. doi: x.1111/j.1545-5300.2004.00036.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Streib H, Klein C. Atheists, agnostics, and apostates. In: Pargament KI, Exline JJ, Jones JW, editors. APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol i): Context, theory, and enquiry. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 713–728. [Google Scholar]
• Stokes CE, Regnerus Doc. When faith divides family: Religious discord and adolescent reports of parent-child relations. Social Scientific discipline Research. 2009;38:155–167. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.05.002. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Templeton JL, Eccles JS. The relation between spiritual development and identity processes. In: Roehlkepartain EC, King PE, Wagener L, Benson PL, editors. Handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2006. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Van Der Bruggen CO, Stams GJJ, Bögels SM. Research Review: The relation between child and parent feet and parental command: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2008;49:1257–1269. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01898.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Volling BL, Mahoney A, Rauer AJ. Sanctification of parenting, moral socialization, and young childrens censor development. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2009;ane:53–68. doi: ten.1037/a0014958. [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Waller JE. Organized religion and evil in the context of genocide. In: Pargament KI, Exline JJ, Jones JW, editors. APA handbook of psychology, organized religion, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2013. pp. 477–493. [Google Scholar]
• Weyand C, OLaughlin L, Bennett P. Dimensions of religiousness that influence parenting. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality. 2013;5:182–191. doi: ten.1037/a0030627. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wilcox WB. Conservative Protestant childrearing: Authoritarian or authoritative? American Sociological Review. 1998;63:796–809. doi: x.2307/2657502. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• Wilcox WB. Religion, convention, and paternal involvement. Journal of Marriage and Family unit. 2002;64:780–792. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00780.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
• WIN-Gallup International. Global index of religiosity and atheism [Printing release] 2012 Retrieved from http://www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf.

galeclund1971.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513768/

Share this post