JOURNAL

Gunnoe et al.
OF/ PARENTING
EARLY ADOLESCENCE
AND ADOLESCENT
/ May 1999
RESPONSIBILITY

Parental Religiosity, Parenting Style,

and Adolescent Social Responsibility
Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe
Calvin College
E. Mavis Hetherington
University of Virginia
David Reiss
George Washington University Medical Center

The hypotheses that parental religiosity would predict authoritative parenting and ado-
lescent social responsibility were tested using data from fathers, mothers, and adoles-
cents 10 through 18 years of age from 486 mostly Caucasian middle-class families par-
ticipating in the Nonshared Environment (NSE) Study. Ratings of authoritative and
authoritarian parenting were provided by trained observers using the Family Interaction
Global Coding System. Survey instruments included measures of adolescent adjustment
used previously by Hetherington and colleagues and a new index of religiosity that
assesses the degree to which religious beliefs are manifested in parents’daily lives. Hier-
archical regression analyses indicated that religiosity was associated positively with
authoritative parenting for both parents. Mothers’ religiosity was associated negatively
with authoritarian parenting; religiosity was unrelated to fathers’authoritarian parent-
ing. Structural equation modeling indicated both direct effects and indirect effects (medi-
ated by authoritative parenting) of mothers’and fathers’religiosity on adolescent social
responsibility.

Childrearing practices reflect parents’attempts to raise children to be compe-

tent adults. Definitions of competence are shaped not only by broad cultural
standards but also by immediate family circumstances (e.g., poverty, family
structure) and membership in various subcultures (e.g., ethnic, religious)
(Bee, 1997; Ogbu, 1981; Steinberg, 1996). Differing amounts of empirical

Data used in this report were part of the Nonshared Environment (NSE) Study, supported by the National Insti-
tute of Mental Health (MH-43373) and the William T. Grant Foundation. Analyses and preparation of the arti-
cle were supported by a National Institute of Mental Health Research Training Grant (5 T32 MH18387-06 in
Child Mental Health—Primary Prevention) and a grant from the National Institute for Child Health and
Human Development (U01HD390930).

Journal of Early Adolescence, Vol. 19 No. 2, May 1999 199-225

© 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
199
200 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

attention have been afforded these various influences on family process.

Most developmental textbooks address parenting and child adjustment as a
function of socioeconomic status (SES), family structure, and ethnicity; few
address parenting and child adjustment as a function of religiosity, despite the
fact that 92% of Americans identify themselves as religious (Goldman, 1991)
and 57% of Americans claim that their religious beliefs are important to them
(Princeton Religion Research Center, 1980).
Indeed, very few general statements about the influence of religiosity on
family relations can be made. Although a limited amount of research on
religiosity and parenting has been conducted, those studies have tended to
focus either on specific religious groups (often without employing a control
group), or on parents’values and childrearing objectives rather than on actual
behaviors. The purpose for this study was to determine, very generally,
whether parental religiosity predicted more effective parenting behaviors,
and subsequently better child adjustment, or less effective parenting behav-
iors and poorer child adjustment.
Parental effectiveness has been evaluated in many differing ways, but one
of the most widely used approaches focuses on (a) the extent to which parents
make demands on their children and (b) the manner in which parents elicit
compliance with those demands. The two styles of parenting characterized
by a high level of demandingness have been labeled “authoritative parenting”
and “authoritarian parenting” (Baumrind, 1978; Holmbeck, Paikoff, &
Brooks-Gunn, 1995; Maccoby & Martin, 1983).
Authoritative parents demand age-appropriate mature behavior from their
children, simultaneously fostering children’s autonomy in a warm and sup-
portive environment. Parental support is evident particularly in the negotia-
tion of family rules and routines. Although authoritative parents have the
final say, children are encouraged to participate actively in discussions of
decisions that affect them. This involvement in the decision-making process
appears to provide children the experience needed to engage in thoughtful
and responsible behavior as adolescents and adults. In addition to deterring
children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior, authoritative parenting
has been linked to a wide variety of prosocial adolescent outcomes including
general psychological maturity, reasoning abilities, empathy, altruism,
school achievement, and a healthy orientation toward work (Baumrind,
1978; Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992; Steinberg, Elmen, & Mounts,
1989; Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts, & Dornbusch, 1994). Whereas
some of the competencies fostered by authoritative parenting (e.g., indepen-
dent thinking) might not be viewed as desirable in more communal societies,
authoritative parenting has emerged as the most effective parenting style for
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 201

the socialization of American children (Steinberg, Mounts, Lamborn, &

Dornbusch, 1991).
In contrast to authoritative parents who encourage independent thinking,
authoritarian parents expect their children to obey without questioning or
reflecting on the specifics of a given situation. Authoritarian parenting is
characterized by an emphasis on children’s conformity to parental rules in the
context of low parental support. Authoritarian parents who are successful in
enforcing their demands—usually through harsh, coercive discipline—often
raise anxious or depressed children with deficient social skills (Bee, 1997;
Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg, & Dornbusch, 1991; Steinberg et al., 1994).
Parents inclined toward authoritarian practices but lacking the means with
which to enforce their rules often raise aggressive children whose lack of
self-control results in subsequent peer rejection and delinquency (Patterson,
DeBarsyshe, & Ramsey, 1989).
Because parents hold differing definitions of child competence, it is not
surprising that rates of authoritative, as compared to authoritarian, parenting
differ across various subcultures. Authoritative parenting is more prevalent
in two-parent nondivorced families than in single-parent or stepfamilies
(Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992). Authoritarian parenting is more com-
mon among families experiencing financial difficulty and among ethnic
minorities (Steinberg et al., 1991). However, it should be noted that although
authoritative parenting has emerged as the most effective parenting style for
several ethnic subcultures within the United States, the degree of child prob-
lems associated with authoritarian parenting varies across those subcultures.
For example, Asian American children, raised to appreciate both the indi-
vidualism of American culture and the communalism of the Asian American
subculture appear to be less harmed by authoritarian parenting than are Cau-
casian children (Dornbusch, Ritter, Liederman, Roberts, & Fraleigh, 1987;
Steinberg, Lamborn, Dornbusch, & Darling, 1992). That indicates that the
impact of parenting practices on children’s adjustment might be mediated by
family circumstances and values.
Parenting style is also likely to be associated with religiosity, although the
direction of such an association is not self-evident. Historically, religious
writers tended to instruct parents to demand unquestioning obedience from
their children. According to Ellison and Sherkat (1993a), those demands
were based on the rationale that unquestioning submission to parental author-
ity prepares children to submit unquestioningly to God. Submission to God is
the prerequisite for salvation, and ensuring children’s salvation is the relig-
ious parent’s primary childrearing objective. Despite the fact that social sci-
entists also encouraged parents to be strict disciplinarians in decades past
(e.g., Watson & Watson, 1928), recent depictions of religious parents (e.g.,
202 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

Capps, 1992; Greven, 1990) have drawn heavily on outdated religious par-
enting manuals, fostering the perception that most religious parents are still
being encouraged to practice authoritarian parenting.
Greater endorsement of physical punishment by religious parents as com-
pared to nonreligious parents (Day & Peterson, 1996; Ellison & Sherkat,
1993a; Weihe, 1990) also has contributed to social scientists’ perception of
religious parents as harsh and unreasonable. With numerous reports that link
physical punishment to children’s aggression (e.g., Straus, 1994; Straus,
Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997), many social scientists have come to view
physical discipline, such as spanking, as inherently incompatible with
authoritative parenting. This perception recently has been challenged, not
only by Baumrind (1996), who reported that most authoritative parents did
make judicious use of spanking while their children were preschoolers, but
also by evidence that spanking is associated negatively with subsequent
aggression for many children (Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Bates, & Pettit,
1996; Gunnoe & Mariner, 1997). Research by Deater-Deckard, Dodge, Nix,
Harnish, and Pinderhughes (1998) indicates that negative associations
between spanking and aggression might be strong, particularly among chil-
dren who believe that spanking is an acceptable method of parental
discipline.
In contrast to studies of specific, controversial parenting techniques, such
as spanking, studies of parental values and more general family functioning
challenge the perception of religious parents as authoritarian. Results from a
study of parental values by Ellison and Sherkat (1993b) indicated that con-
servative religious groups do place a stronger emphasis on obedience than do
other groups but that a strong emphasis on obedience does not preclude a
strong emphasis on intellectual autonomy, at least according to parents’ self-
reports. Studies of specific religious or ethnic groups also contradict the
stereotype of the authoritarian religious parent. Those studies have assessed
behaviors in addition to values and have provided evidence that religiosity
might be a better predictor of authoritative than authoritarian parenting. The
best example of this research was conducted by Brody, Stoneman, Flor, and
McCrary (1997) who found that among economically depressed, rural Afri-
can American families, parental religiosity served to organize family interac-
tions by fostering higher quality parent/child relationships and by reducing
inconsistent or coercive discipline. More cooperative parent/child relation-
ships have been reported also among highly religious African American
HeadStart parents (Strayhorn, Weidman, & Larson, 1990), and temple atten-
dance was found to predict family affection among Mormon families (Wilk-
inson & Tanner, 1980). Of course, it must be noted that those studies have
been conducted only with religious or ethnic minority groups for whom
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 203

religion or spirituality is a central value of the ethnic culture (Hill, Soriano,

Chen, & LaFromboise, 1994). Whether those findings generalize to the
majority culture, or to other minority cultures for whom religion plays a less
defining role, yet has not been established.
Although associations between religiosity and parenting are important in
and of themselves, the more important question is how parental religiosity
affects child adjustment. One study that specifically examined child adjust-
ment as a function of parental religiosity yielded evidence for a direct (nega-
tive) relation between parental religiosity and adolescents’ externalizing, as
well as several indirect relations. Parental religiosity, mediated by family
cohesion and interparental conflict, predicted greater adolescent self-
regulation, which in turn predicted greater academic competence and fewer
internalizing problems (Brody, Stoneman, & Flor, 1996).
Although the Brody et al. study (1996) was conducted with rural African
Americans, parental religiosity was expected to predict adolescent compe-
tence in other groups as well. That expectation was based on the many studies
that have linked adolescents’own religiosity to prosocial adjustment. Studies
conducted with diverse samples have indicated that religious adolescents
engage in lower rates of delinquent activity, drug use (Benson, Donahue, &
Erikson, 1989; Donahue, 1995; Evans et al., 1996; Free, 1994), and sexual
intercourse (review by Miller & Moore, 1990); are more attached to school
(Montgomery & Francis, 1996); earn better grades (Zern, 1985); are more
prosocial and concerned about others (Donahue, 1995; Perry & McIntire,
1994); and score higher on tests of moral development (Kedem & Cohen,
1987).
This list of prosocial behaviors predicted by adolescent religiosity is strik-
ingly similar to the list of adolescent competencies associated with authorita-
tive parenting (presented previously). This similarity indicates that parental
religiosity, parenting, and adolescent adjustment probably are related, but
there appears to be no simultaneous investigation of these three aspects of
family functioning in the literature. Brody and colleagues have begun to
address this apparent lacuna with separate studies that link parental religios-
ity to parenting (Brody et al., 1996) and parental religiosity to adolescent
functioning (Brody et al., 1997) among African Americans. Those studies
suggested an indirect effect (mediated by parenting) of parental religiosity on
adolescent prosocial development. It is this indirect effect that will be tested
specifically in the present model.
Other pathways of effect also are likely. Probably the most likely mediator
is adolescents’ acceptance of the family ideology or identification with the
religious community. Adolescent religiosity tends to be similar to parental
religiosity (Francis & Gibson, 1993; Gecas & Seff, 1990), and membership
204 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

in a religious community appears to encourage ties to the conventional order

and the subsequent adoption of norms and behaviors congruent with social
responsibility (D’Antonio, Newman, & Wright, 1982; Hirschi, 1969; Payne,
Bergin, Beilema, & Jenkins, 1991). Such norms, explicitly encouraged
within most mainstream religions, include self-control, avoidance of sub-
stance abuse, empathy, and service to others (Durkheim, 1951).
Although data on Nonshared Environment (NSE) adolescents’own religi-
osity were not collected, its potential role in linking parental religiosity to
adolescent competence was recognized, and the present sample was con-
structed to capitalize on the greater religiosity of younger adolescents. More
so than older adolescents, younger adolescents are likely to describe their
religious beliefs as being “very important” to them (Benson et al., 1989;
Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 1986), and many participate in ceremonies
or rites of passage that mark their initiation as formal members of a religious
community (Steinberg, 1996). Religion might also play an unusually impor-
tant role for the parents of young adolescents. For most families, children’s
transition into adolescence is marked by a temporary disequilibrium and
eventual shift to more egalitarian family relationships (Feldman & Gehring,
1988). Families tend to have less difficulty making this transition when par-
ents have strong interests and social support resources at church or in some
other setting beyond the immediate family (Steinberg & Silverberg, 1987).
For these reasons, associations between parental religiosity and adolescent
functioning are likely to be most apparent for families with children in early
adolescence.
Although the primary focus of this study was the way in which religiosity
affects adolescent prosocial adjustment indirectly vis-à-vis parenting,
greater understanding of the role of family religiosity in adolescent develop-
ment will be facilitated by the simultaneous consideration of other effects not
accounted for in this limited model. (Without specific indicators of these
other potential mediators, these effects are represented in the model as direct
effects.) Thus, the present study advanced the Brody et al. studies (1996,
1997) by combining parental religiosity, parenting style, and adolescent pro-
social adjustment into one model and by testing the relative contribution of
indirect (through parenting) as compared to direct effects of parental religios-
ity on adolescent prosocial adjustment. The present study complemented the
Brody et al. studies by employing a mostly Caucasian sample.

Objectives and Hypotheses

The first objective for this study was to seek associations between parental
religiosity and authoritative and authoritarian parenting styles as described in
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 205

the developmental literature (Baumrind, 1978; Holmbeck et al., 1995; Mac-

coby and Martin, 1983). Whereas other investigators have established asso-
ciations between religiosity and the individual elements that compose parent-
ing style (e.g., affection, inconsistency), the present study employed
observers’ ratings using scales that explicitly assessed authoritative and
authoritarian parenting. Other improvements over previous research
included the selection of a somewhat more heterogeneous sample (mostly
Caucasian, but from several major Western faiths), the use of multiple
(nonoverlapping) reporters for all analyses to ensure that none of the obtained
associations were attributable to method variance, and the use of a more com-
prehensive measure of religiosity.
Hypothesis 1 was that parental religiosity would be associated positively
with authoritative parenting. In response to previous labelings of religious
parents as authoritarian (Greven, 1990; Weihe, 1990), associations between
religiosity and authoritarian parenting also were sought, but specific predic-
tions regarding strength and direction of the association were not made.
The second objective for this study was to model the effects of parental
religiosity on adolescent social responsibility. From the indicators of positive
mental health available in the NSE database, social responsibility was
selected because there were reports available from mothers, fathers, and ado-
lescents, and these reports offered a fairly comprehensive picture of adoles-
cent prosocial functioning. Hypothesis 2 was that parental religiosity would
predict adolescent social responsibility directly and indirectly through
authoritative parenting.

METHOD

Participants

Data for this research were taken from the NSE Study (Reiss et al., 1995).
NSE participants included nondivorced families and stepfamilies from 47
states, recruited from national marketing panels and random-digit dialing.
NSE families contained two parents and at least two adolescents of the same
gender, 10 through 18 years of age. To assure that stepfamilies were not in the
early transition period of remarriage—during which family members’ rela-
tionships and adolescent adjustment might be unstable and insufficient time
might have elapsed for stepparents to influence children’s development
(Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992)—only families wherein the current
residential parents had been married a minimum of 5 years were invited to
participate in NSE. The average marriage length for stepfamilies in this study
206 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

was 9 years. (It should be noted that the NSE database also includes a
subsample of families with twins. Those families were excluded from the
present analyses, because previous analyses with the full NSE sample have
yielded differing patterns of family relationships and adolescent adjustment
in the families of twins.)
Because previous research in this area generally has focused on religiosity
rather than on the more nebulous notion of spirituality, only parents who
identified with a major Western faith or as atheist/agnostic/none were
included in these analyses. From the 516 potentially eligible (nontwin) fami-
lies, 16 mothers and 15 fathers failed to answer the religion item, and 11
mothers and 9 fathers wrote in something that could not be classified confi-
dently as a major Western faith or as atheist/agnostic/none. Audiovisual
problems compromised videotape quality and prohibited the assignment of
parenting scores to another 17 mothers and 15 fathers, and demographic or
adolescent outcome data were missing for another 33 mothers and 20 fathers.
To avoid listwise deletion of cases across the two sets of analyses, both sets of
analyses were conducted on the 439 mothers and 457 fathers for whom there
were no missing data.
Of these parents, 64% were Protestant; 20% Catholic; 8% atheist/agnos-
tic/none; 6% Latter Day Saints (Mormon); and 1% Jewish. Each group
included close to equal numbers of mothers and fathers—except for the athe-
ist/agnostic/none group—in which fathers outnumbered mothers 3 to 1.
Mean ages of mothers and fathers were 37.3 and 40.2 years, respectively.
Mean years of education were 13.4 and 13.8, respectively, (mode = 12); and
mean family income was $25,000 to $34,999. Ninety-five percent of mothers
and 94% of fathers were Caucasian; the remaining were from various ethnic
backgrounds.
Only 1 adolescent from each family was included in the investigation. In
most cases this was the younger of the NSE target sibling pair (but not neces-
sarily the youngest child in the household). The only exception to this rule
was for blended stepfamilies, in which one sibling had come into the current
marriage with the mother and the other had come in with the father. From
blended stepfamilies, the sibling who had come into the family with the
father was selected. This was done to create as even a distribution as possible
of adolescents living with two biological parents, a biological mother and a
stepfather, and a stepmother and a biological father. Although biological
relatedness was not a focus of the present research—(the disproportionately
large percentage of adolescents in stepfamilies is an unfortunate artifact,
attributable to the employment of a sample solicited for other purposes)—the
intent was to include a sufficient number of adolescents in each family
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 207

situation to control for the effects of parent/adolescent relatedness, should

this emerge as an important covariate of the primary constructs.
To retain the largest number of participants possible, analyses of fathers
and mothers were conducted separately. Of the 439 adolescents available for
the mother analyses, 176 (90 boys, 86 girls) were living with both biological
parents, 152 (70 boys, 82 girls) were living with their biological mother and a
stepfather, and 111 (64 boys, 47 girls) were living with a stepmother and bio-
logical father. Of the 457 adolescents available for the father analyses, 176
(92 boys, 84 girls) were living with both biological parents, 165 (79 boys, 86
girls) were living with their biological mother and a stepfather, and 116 (69
boys, 47 girls) were living with a stepmother and biological father. Because it
was usually the younger of the two NSE adolescents selected for this particu-
lar study, the vast majority of the participants were in preadolescence or early
adolescence, 48% were 10 through 12 years of age, 39% were 13 through 15
years of age, and 14% were 16 through 18 years of age (average age = 12.9
years, SD = 2.2).

Procedure

Families were assessed in their homes using multiple measures completed

by multiple informants. Each family member completed from 6 to 12 hours
of paper-and-pencil questionnaires during two home visits and on their own
during the week between the visits. One section of the questionnaire asked
parents and adolescents to rate the degree of conflict over 39 issues that often
cause conflict between parents and adolescents (e.g., curfew, playing stereo
too loudly, behavior toward siblings). Write-ins also were encouraged. That
information was used by the interviewer to select two topics for which both
the parent and the adolescent had indicated a high degree of conflict.
Those topics served to focus discussion during two 10-minute videotaped
problem-solving sessions: one with the adolescent and the mother, and the
other with the adolescent and the father. During the problem-solving ses-
sions, the pair was asked to discuss and to try to agree on solutions to the top-
ics the interviewer had selected from their conflict questionnaires. Although
some families no doubt attempted to put on their “best face” for the camera,
participants displayed a vast range of behaviors during these 10-minute video
sessions, from physical affection to physical discipline. Families received
$100 for participating.
Videotapes were coded by trained graduate and undergraduate students at
the University of Virginia using the Family Interaction Global Coding Sys-
tem (Hetherington, Stanley Hagan, & Eisenberg, 1992). One-quarter of the
208 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

tapes were coded by two coders to provide data for tests of interobserver
reliability.

Measures

To ensure that none of the obtained associations in the analyses were

attributable to interrater method variance, measures of religiosity, parenting,
and adolescent outcome were selected from four differing reporters: Parental
religiosity was a self-report measure, ratings of parenting styles were pro-
vided by independent observers, and the adolescent outcome measures
included in the structural equation models (SEM) were derived from adoles-
cents’ self-reports and reports from parents’ spouses. (In other words, moth-
ers’ religiosity was used to predict fathers’ reports of adolescent functioning,
and vice versa.)

Parental religiosity. For parents identified with a religion, scores on the

Religiosity scale represent the average response to 11 religiosity items. These
items assessed the degree to which religious beliefs manifested themselves in
parents’ daily lives but not the beliefs themselves. Of these items, 10 were
assessed with a scale ranging from 1 (never true) through 5 (always true).
The items were the following: My religion makes me feel better about
myself, my religion comforts me during difficult times, I enjoy my religion,
my religious beliefs influence the way I interact with my spouse, my religious
beliefs influence the way I interact with my children (e.g., express affection,
discipline, etc.), my religious beliefs influence any difficult decisions I make, I
try to provide my children with religion in the home (e.g., prayers at meals,
family devotions, etc.), my social activities involve my church and its mem-
bers, I talk about my religious beliefs in my interactions with my family, and I
talk about my religious beliefs in my social interactions with my friends. The
11th item indexed the frequency of the parent’s church attendance on a scale
ranging from 1 (never) through 5 (2 or 3 times a week).
To permit the inclusion of nonreligious parents in the analyses (for whom
most of the religiosity items did not apply), the 20 mothers and 59 fathers
who had selected “atheist/agnostic/none” as their religious category were
assigned automatically a “1” on this scale. This decision was based on the
fact that manifestations of religiosity in family life were of greater interest
than parents’ stated religious affiliation (or lack thereof). Although the
assignment of “zero” to nonreligious parents (to distinguish them from the 7
mothers and 13 fathers who had identified themselves with a religion but
responded 1 [never] to all religiosity items) was considered, it was thought
that this would confound the manifestations of religiosity with religious
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 209

affiliation. However, a second variable was computed to indicate whether a

parent was or was not in the “atheist/agnostic/none” category. This dummy
variable was dropped when preliminary analyses indicated that it failed to
explain any additional variance in parenting or children’s adjustment.
Excluding the atheist/agnostic/none group, mothers’ average religiosity
score was 3.28 (SD = .93), and Cronbach’s alpha was .95. Fathers’ average
religiosity score was 2.93 (SD = 1.00), and Cronbach’s alpha was .96. Inclu-
sion of the parents automatically assigned a score of 1 on the scale and
reduced mothers’ mean score to 3.16 (SD = 1.04) and fathers’ mean score to
2.68 (SD = 1.14). (As noted previously, no reports of adolescents’ religious
affiliation or religiosity were collected in the NSE study.)

Parenting scales. Two of the scales in the Family Interaction Coding Sys-
tem (Hetherington et al., 1992) are the Authoritative and Authoritarian par-
enting scales. As described in the codebook, the Authoritative scale

measures the degree to which the parent behaves toward the child in an in-
volved, affectionate, and responsive manner while setting reasonable controls
on the child’s behavior. Measured is the degree to which the parent sets well-
defined rules and regulations, is responsive and supportive, communicates
well, resists coercive behavior on the part of the child, is consistent in disci-
pline, sets reasonably high expectations for mature behavior on the part of the
child, and exercises firm control.

Additional clarifications to the coder indicate,

The main characteristic that distinguishes [the authoritative] parenting style

from the others is a high level of monitoring and control exercised in a positive,
supportive manner. This parent encourages the child to participate in the
decision-making process and is willing to yield to the child’s reasonable
demands.

In contrast, the Authoritarian scale

measures the degree to which the parent behaves toward the child in a way that
emphasizes firm limits and controls with little verbal give and take, few reasons
and explanations of rules given, and a punitive orientation with high value
placed on obedience. It also measures the degree to which the parent is low on
encouraging the child’s independence and individuality.

Additional clarification indicates,

The main characteristic that distinguishes [the authoritarian] parenting style

from the others is a high level of monitoring and control exercised in a negative,
210 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

manipulative manner. This parent is not supportive of the child and will not
yield to the child’s reasonable demands. There may also be an emphasis on
punishments. The authoritarian parent is very restrictive of the type of behavior
in which the child is allowed to engage; the child is given little opportunity to
explore and make mistakes.

Both scales measure the degree to which the given description is charac-
teristic of the parents’ behavior toward the child; ratings range from 1 (not at
all characteristic) through 5 (very characteristic). Interobserver tests of reli-
ability on the Authoritative scale indicated 74% exact agreement, a Kappa of
.69, and an intraclass correlation of .77; tests of reliability on the Authoritar-
ian scale indicated 75% exact agreement, a Kappa of .67, and an intraclass
correlation of .74. Within parent, mothers’ Authoritative and Authoritarian
scores were correlated r(438) = –.32, p ≤ .001; fathers’scores were correlated
r(456) = –.27, p ≤ .001. Cross-parent comparisons are presented in Table 1.

Adolescent social responsibility. Parents and adolescents completed non-

parallel measures of adolescent social responsibility in NSE. Parental reports
represent scores on the Social Responsibility subscale of the Child Compe-
tence Inventory (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992, adapted from
Baumrind, 1979a, 1979b, in a Harter, 1982, format). This 13-item subscale
assesses prosocial attributes such as honesty, perseverance at hard tasks,
empathy, trustworthiness, self-control, and obedience to parents, teachers,
and police. Attributes are presented in paired comparisons (e.g., “Some kids
admit to their own faults or mistakes, but other kids blame their faults and
mistakes on circumstances or on other people”). Parents are asked to decide
which description best fits their child and whether the description is really
true or sort of true for their child, yielding 4-point scales for each item. Scores
were summed for this report, and higher scores represent greater social
responsibility. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .88.
Adolescent self-report of social responsibility was assessed using the
Socialization subscale of the California Personality Inventory (Domino,
1984). This 53-item subscale assesses things such as concern for right and
wrong, taking responsibility for his or her own troubles, truancy, excessive
use of alcohol, and so on. Responses are true/false and higher scores indicate
higher prosocial socialization. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was .61, some-
what below generally accepted alpha levels. Although alphas are lower gen-
erally for scales based on dichotomous items, it is worth noting that the use of
this construct probably underestimated the actual associations between
social responsibility and the other primary constructs. (Correlations between
parents’and adolescents’reports of social responsibility appear later in Table 3.)
 TABLE 1: Psychometric Properties of the Primary Variables

Mother Analyses Father Analyses

(n = 439) (n = 457)
Difference Between Correlation Between
Variable Possible Range X SD X SD Parents(df = 1, 894) Parents (df = 413)

Religiosity 1-5 3.16 1.04 2.68 1.14 mothers > fathers, .68***
(self-report) F = 46.32***
Authoritative parenting 1-5 2.27 0.91 2.13 0.93 mothers > fathers, .27***
(observer report) F = 4.80*
Authoritarian parenting 1-5 1.72 0.76 1.70 0.81 n.s. .18***
(observer report)
Adolescent responsibility 13-52 37.7 6.7 37.8 6.8 n.s. .51***
a
(spousal report)
Adolescent responsibility 0-53 21.5 4.7 21.3 4.8 n.s. NA
(adolescent report)
a. Variables used in the analyses of mothers appear in the “Mother Analyses” column; variables used in the analyses of fathers appear in the “Fa-
ther Analyses” column. In other words, the spousal report of adolescent responsibility appearing under the column heading “Mother Analyses” is
the father’s report, and vice versa.
*p ≤ .05. ***p ≤ .001.
211
212 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

ANALYSES AND RESULTS

Hypothesis 1: Parental religiosity would be associated positively with authorita-

tive parenting.

Associations between parental religiosity and parenting style were sought

using ordinary least squares hierarchical regression. Four equations were
computed with mothers’ authoritative parenting, mothers’ authoritarian par-
enting, fathers’ authoritative parenting, and fathers’ authoritarian parenting
serving as the dependent variables. Predictor variables were entered in two
steps. First, the seven demographic variables that have been linked to parent-
ing style in previous research were entered. These were the following: family
income; parental education; a dichotomous race variable identifying parents
as Caucasian or other (Steinberg et al., 1991); adolescent age; adolescent
gender (Bulcroft, Carmody, & Bulcroft, 1996); and two family structure vari-
ables, family type1 (nondivorced or stepfamily) and relatedness of the parent
(biological or stepparent) to the adolescent (Hetherington & Clingempeel,
1992). Parental religiosity was entered in Step 2.
As hypothesized, maternal and paternal religiosity were associated posi-
tively with authoritative parenting (see Table 2). Mothers’ authoritative par-
enting was predicted by several of the Step 1 demographic controls, and entry
of religiosity into the equation in Step 2 resulted in an R2 change of .018, F(1,
430) = 8.74, p ≤ .001. For fathers, only education emerged as a significant
predictor of authoritative parenting in Step 1; entry of religiosity in Step 2
resulted in an R2 change of .019, F(1, 448) = 9.56, p ≤ .01.
Maternal religiosity also predicted lower levels of authoritarian parenting.
Caucasians and mothers from intact families were less authoritarian than
were others, and religiosity contributed an R2 change of .016, F(1, 430) =
7.43, p ≤ .01, in Step 2. No predictors of fathers’ authoritarian parenting were
identified.

Hypothesis 2: Parental religiosity would predict adolescent social responsibility

directly and indirectly through authoritative parenting.

Associations between parental religiosity and adolescent social responsi-

bility were examined with Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS), a SEM
program recently adopted by SPSS as an alternative to LISREL. Similar to
LISREL, input to AMOS includes data and a hypothesized model; output in-
cludes individual parameter estimates and their associated t values, as well as
various fit indices including the chi-square, which is used commonly to com-
pare models for the purpose of selecting the most likely model from a set of
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 213

TABLE 2: Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analyses for Variables

Predicting Authoritative and Authoritarian Parenting

Predictors B SE B β F

Mothers’ authoritative parenting

2
Step 1, R = .083, F(7) = 5.54***
Mothers’ education .06 .02 .14 7.98**
Family income .07 .04 .11 4.86*
Mother is White .19 .19 .05 0.96
Family type –.31 .12 –.13 7.21**
Relatedness .30 .11 .14 7.15**
Adolescent age –.06 .02 –.13 6.54*
Adolescent gender .11 .09 .06 1.54
2
Step 2, R change = .018**
Mothers’ religiosity .13 .04 .14 8.74**
Mothers’ authoritarian parenting
2
Step 1, R = .056, F(7) = 3.68**
Mothers’ education –.02 .02 –.06 1.52
Family income –.04 .03 –.07 2.06
Mother is White –.33 .16 –.10 4.21*
Family type .22 .10 .11 5.44*
Relatedness –.14 .09 –.08 2.27
Adolescent age –.04 .02 –.10 3.82
Adolescent gender –.05 .07 –.03 0.42
2
Step 2, R change = .016**
Mothers’ religiosity –.10 .04 –.13 7.43**
Fathers’ authoritative parenting
2
Step 1, R = .074, F(7) = 5.16***
Fathers’ education .08 .03 .23 20.51***
Family income .05 .03 .07 2.02
Father is White –.14 .17 –.04 0.62
Family type .07 .12 .03 0.31
Relatedness –.04 .09 –.02 0.20
Adolescent age .02 .02 .01 0.01
Adolescent gender –.10 .08 –.05 1.34
2
Step 2, R change = .019**
Fathers’ religiosity .11 .04 .14 9.56**
Fathers’ authoritarian parenting
2
Step 1, R = .016, F(7) = 1.03
Fathers’ education –.02 .02 –.08 2.04
Family income .02 .03 .04 0.46
Father is White .12 .16 .04 0.58
Family type .04 .11 .02 0.16
Relatedness –.08 .09 –.05 0.87
Adolescent age –.03 .02 –.07 2.11
Adolescent gender –.08 .08 –.05 0.99
2
Step 2, R change = 0
Fathers’ religiosity –.05 .03 –.07 1.90
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
214 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

Figure 1: Hypothesized model.

possible models. A test model is considered to have yielded a better fit than
the comparison model if each gained degree of freedom results in a gain of
less than 5 in the chi-square (Lavee, 1988).
The hypothesized model is presented in Figure 1, with the primary con-
structs (parental religiosity, authoritative parenting, and adolescent social
responsibility) and the hypothesized associations between these constructs
identified in bold. Paths not in bold were included in the model as control
variables to reduce potential error in the primary associations and improve
the goodness of fit of the model to the data. They are not foci of this research
and the obtained associations will not be presented as results of this research.
As indicated previously, analyses were run separately for mothers and for
fathers. This permitted the employment of differing raters for each of the con-
structs in the model, to eliminate any association in the constructs attributable
to interrater variance.
Initial attempts to include all of the control variables identified in the pre-
vious regression analyses, as well as the covariances between them, resulted
in models for mothers that were too complicated to present in a figure and dis-
tracted from the focus of the study. (However, it should be noted that estima-
tion of those more complicated models yielded the same set of associations
between parental religiosity, authoritative parenting, and adolescent social
responsibility as the more parsimonious models presented here.)
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 215

To reduce the number of control variables necessary to represent the asso-

ciation between parental religiosity and authoritative parenting, the regression
analyses predicting authoritative parenting were rerun with stepwise entry
rather than simultaneous entry employed in Step 1. Those analyses yielded
three significant control variables for mothers—education, income, and fam-
ily type—and replicated the simultaneous entry results for fathers, identify-
ing education as the only significant predictor from the seven potential con-
trol variables. Correlational analyses also were computed to determine
whether these variables covaried with each other and with religiosity. Those
analyses indicated that education was associated positively with income and
religiosity for both parents, and paternal education and maternal religiosity
were associated negatively with being in a stepfamily. The obtained associa-
tions then were accounted for in the hypothetical model. Associations
hypothesized for only one parent (i.e., mothers or fathers) are marked with
“m” or “f” in Figure 1.
The hypothesized model also included three demographic controls for
adolescent social responsibility. Significant correlations between paternal
education and both mother and adolescent reports of adolescent social
responsibility prompted the inclusion of a path from paternal education to the
latent responsibility construct. The other two paths account for differences in
adolescent functioning that have been obtained repeatedly in NSE analyses
and in a previous study of stepfamilies (Hetherington & Clingempeel, 1992);
girls are more prosocial than boys, and parents perceive children in step-
families as having more difficulties than children in intact families (although
stepchildren often do not confirm those reports). Correlations between the
constructs examined in the SEM models are presented in Table 3.
The initial estimation for mothers yielded significant t values, p ≤ .05, for
all hypothesized paths (see Figure 2) and a χ2(16) of 33.29. This value served
as the comparison for subsequent analyses for mothers. Next, both the direct
and indirect paths from mothers’ religiosity to adolescent social responsibil-
ity were explicitly tested by constraining alternative paths to be zero. To test
the indirect path, the direct path from religiosity to social responsibility was
constrained to zero (forcing all effects of parental religiosity on adolescent
social responsibility through authoritative parenting). This model yielded a
χ2(17) of 41.38. To test the direct path from religiosity to social responsibil-
ity, the path from religiosity to authoritative parenting was constrained to
zero. This model yielded a χ2 (17) of 38.31. According to the Lavee (1988)
criterion presented previously, the hypothesized model in which parental
religiosity predicts adolescent social responsibility directly and indirectly
through authoritative parenting was the best fitting model of the three.
216

TABLE 3: Correlations Between Model Variables for Mothers (above the diagonal) and Fathers (below the diagonal)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Parental religiosity — .16** .10* .07 –.06 –.05 .16** –.13

2. Authoritative parenting .16** — .14** .16** .04 .16** .18*** –.12*
3. Social responsibility
(adolescent report) .14** .15** — .25*** .26*** .11* –.03 –.02
4. Social responsibility
(spousal report) .12* .05 .29*** — .15** .05 –.05 –.17***
5. Adolescent gender .00 –.05 .29*** .17*** — .01 –.04 –.02
6. Family income –.07 .17*** .08 .01 –.01 — .33*** –.02
7. Parent education .13** .26*** .16*** .10* .01 .42*** — –.05
8. Family type –.08 .00 –.02 –.24*** –.01 –.02 –.10* —
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 217

Figure 2: AMOS Standardized coefficients and fit indices for mothers (fathers in
parentheses).

The initial estimation of the model hypothesized for fathers yielded a non-
significant correlation between family type and education, so this path was
deleted from the model. Reestimation without this path yielded a χ2(18) of
43.50. Path coefficients for fathers are presented in parentheses in Figure 2.
Again, the significance of direct and indirect paths from parental religiosity
to adolescent responsibility were tested by constraining the alternate paths to
be zero. Attempts to fit a model including only indirect effects through par-
enting yielded a χ2(19) of 52.50; inclusion of only the direct path yielded a
χ2(19) of 51.75. Paralleling the results for mothers, the hypothesized model
for fathers was clearly a better fit to the data than either of the models wherein
only one mechanism of effect was permitted.
Because the objective for the article was to report as general a statement as
possible about parental religiosity, parenting, and adolescent adjustment, it
was hoped that the obtained model could be said to fit equally well for both
parents. Accordingly, differences in associations between the primary con-
structs across mothers and fathers were tested using the AMOS multiple-
groups option. This option permits the analyst to test for differences across
groups by permitting specific paths to vary across groups or constraining
them to be equal. First, completely separate path coefficients for the two
groups were obtained. This estimation yielded a χ2(30) of 69.78. Next, the
218 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

three primary paths—religiosity to parenting, parenting to social responsibil-

ity, and religiosity to social responsibility—were constrained to be equal
across groups. This model yielded a χ2(33) of 70.33. This gain of three
degrees of freedom relative to a gain of less than 1 in chi-square indicated that
the effects of parental religiosity on adolescent social responsibility (as
assessed in this research) did not differ significantly across mothers and
fathers and that the same core model was appropriate both for mothers and for
fathers.
Estimates from all three sets of models (mothers only, fathers only, and
mothers and fathers combined) indicated support for the hypothesized model
wherein parental religiosity effects adolescent social responsibility indi-
rectly through authoritative parenting, as well as directly (i.e., not through
authoritative parenting, but possibly through some other factor not assessed
in this study). Goodness-of-fit indices indicated a moderate-to-good fit
across the differences indices. For example, CFIs above .90 are considered a
“good” fit of the data to the model (Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). Comparisons
of the magnitude of the standardized estimates (by multiplying the path co-
efficients from parental religiosity to authoritative parenting and from
authoritative parenting to adolescent social responsibility) indicated that the
direct effect was much larger than the indirect effect.

DISCUSSION

A better understanding of the role of parental religiosity in adolescent pro-

social development was sought by examining, first, the association between
religiosity and parenting style. Hypothesis 1 was that religiosity would be
associated positively with authoritative parenting. Results from regression
analyses yielded support for that hypothesis. After accounting for the effects
of several demographic factors that have been linked previously to parenting
style (parental education, family income, adolescent age and gender, and fac-
tors related to family structure), parental religiosity explained additional
variance in authoritative parenting, both for mothers and for fathers. These
results indicate that religiosity per se, rather than demographic factors that
covary with religiosity, is predictive of authoritative parenting.
Links between religiosity and authoritarian parenting also were sought
because a positive association between religiosity and authoritative parenting
would not preclude a positive association between religiosity and authoritar-
ian parenting (because both are high in demandingness). However, no posi-
tive associations between religiosity and authoritarian parenting were
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 219

obtained. In fact, the association between maternal religiosity and authoritar-

ian parenting was negative. Although causality cannot be surmised from
cross-sectional data, this negative association raises the possibility that
religiosity deters mothers’ authoritarian parenting. For fathers, religiosity
was unrelated to authoritarian parenting. This negative association for moth-
ers, and lack of association for fathers, provided evidence that the associa-
tions obtained between religiosity and authoritative parenting are, indeed, an
indication that many religious parents combine demandingness with high
responsiveness rather than simply make demands.
The second hypothesis was that parental religiosity would predict adoles-
cent social responsibility indirectly through authoritative parenting and
directly (i.e., through factors not assessed in this research). SEMs including
parental religiosity, authoritative parenting, and adolescent social responsi-
bility were estimated to provide a more comprehensive representation of the
effects of parental religiosity within the broader family system than was pos-
sible with regression analyses. An explicit test of cross-model equivalence
indicated that the same general model could be used to represent associations
between the three primary variables for mothers and for fathers.
The results of SEM provided support both for indirect and direct effects.
In addition to replicating the association between religiosity and authorita-
tive parenting established in the first set of analyses (with a reduced set of
demographic controls) and the association between authoritative parenting
and positive adolescent functioning (well-established in the developmental
literature), evidence of an association between parental religiosity and ado-
lescent responsibility not mediated by authoritative parenting was also
obtained. Comparison of the magnitude of the path coefficients indicated that
this direct effect was the larger of the two effects.
What accounts for this large direct (i.e., not mediated by parenting) effect
of parental religiosity on adolescent competence? As stated in the introduc-
tion, religiosity is reportedly more important to younger than older adoles-
cents. The present focus on preadolescents and early adolescents was
prompted by the recognition that adolescents’ own religiosity probably plays
an important role in this association. Subsequent research concerning the role
of parental religiosity in adolescent adjustment should account explicitly for
the transmission of parental religiosity to their adolescent children. Retro-
spective studies of religiosity in the family of origin indicate that parents play
an active role in fostering adolescents’ attachment to the religious commu-
nity, not only through overt religious teaching but also through less direct
methods, such as “channeling” children into a network of peers with similar
religious beliefs (Cornwall, 1988; Himmelfarb, 1979). Because parental
220 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

influence, direct and indirect, wanes as children get older, systematic

examination of the relation between parental religiosity and adolescents’
competence as a function of development also would be merited. Other path-
ways from parental religiosity to adolescent competence also are likely;
those pathways might include the role of religion in organizing other family
relationships (Brody et al., 1997) and the extra-familial support experienced
by those in religious communities (Hathaway & Pargament, 1991).
Several limitations and caveats of this research must be noted. To begin
with, the study is cross-sectional. Although SEM is intended to help elucidate
the underlying causal structure in a set of variables, the end result is simply an
estimation of the degree to which existing data fit the hypothesized model
and does not suppose causality. Next, the present model was far from exhaus-
tive. As an initial effort to understand the impact of religiosity on adolescent
development, the model was limited to a single parenting style and a single
youth outcome construct. Inclusion of additional family process variables
and youth outcome measures might have yielded more complex associations
between the primary constructs.
Related is the scope of the parenting and religiosity measures employed.
Because parenting scores were awarded on the basis of a 10-minute video-
taped interaction, the obtained associations between parenting and other con-
structs in the model probably underestimate the actual associations between
these elements of family life. Most likely, even a portion of the direct effects
of religiosity on adolescent social responsibility are attributable to aspects of
parenting not accounted for in the observational measure of authoritative
parenting.
Similarly, the religiosity measure employed accounted for manifestations
of religious beliefs but not the beliefs themselves. This is a subtle but impor-
tant distinction. Because the objective was to construct religiosity items
applicable to persons of all faiths, items assessing specific beliefs were not
included. Thus, an examination of whether the positive associations of religi-
osity with parenting and adolescent social responsibility might be moderated
by specific beliefs was not possible. For example, enforcement of the strict
family hierarchies advocated by many who endorse literal interpretations of
the Bible seems incompatible with social scientists’ conceptions of healthy
family relationships—but whether this hierarchy actually is maintained at the
expense of family support or the fostering of children’s autonomy is unclear
(Ellison & Sherkat, 1993b). Although it seems reasonable to expect that the
positive association between religiosity and healthy family functioning
might not be found within all interpretive communities, approximately 25%
to 40% of the present sample were affiliated with religious denominations
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 221

that place a great emphasis on the maintenance of family hierarchy. Explicit

examinations of possible interactions between level of religiosity and spe-
cific religious beliefs—particularly those concerning family life—might
help to clarify this seeming paradox.
Other groups to whom this general model might not generalize include
ethnic and religious minority groups and single-parent families. Although
the present sample was larger than samples employed in similar research and
included parents from four major faiths, almost two-thirds of the sample were
White Protestants and all adolescents lived with two parents. Moreover,
because the participants in the larger NSE study were selected on the basis of
parents’ and children’s biological relatedness, the percentage of stepfamilies
in this study, and certainly the percentage of adolescents living with step-
mothers, was greater than that in the general population. Despite those differ-
ences, the present results closely paralleled associations between religiosity
and healthy development reported in studies of African American families
(Brody et al., 1996, 1997; Strayhorn et al., 1990) and of Mormon families
(Wilkinson & Tanner, 1980). This indicates that, at least among two-parent
families, benefits of family religiosity are not unique to minorities but extend
across ethnic and religious groups.

SUMMARY

Parental religiosity positively predicted adolescent social responsibility,

both indirectly through authoritative parenting and directly (i.e., through fac-
tors not accounted for in the present model). Contrary to claims that religios-
ity promotes authoritarian childrearing practices, religiosity was associated
negatively with mothers’ authoritarian parenting and was unrelated to
fathers’ authoritarian parenting.

NOTE

1. Two variables assessing family structure were employed in this research. The first variable
(relatedness) assessed the relatedness of the target parent to the target adolescent (i.e., biological
or stepparent). The second variable (family type) assessed whether either of the adolescents par-
ticipating in the larger NSE project were living with a stepparent. Many of the younger adoles-
cents employed in the present research were living with both biological parents but had an older
sibling who was the biological offspring of only one of the parents. Although the target adoles-
cent’s parents were nondivorced from the perspective of the target adolescent, these families
were coded as stepfamilies on the family-type variable, because previous unpublished analyses
222 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

with the NSE database have indicated that the complexity of relationships within the entire fam-
ily predicts poorer adolescent functioning.

REFERENCES

Baumrind, D. (1978). Parental disciplinary patterns and social competence in children. Youth &
Society, 9, 239-276.
Baumrind, D. (1979a). Adolescent Q-sort. Berkeley: University of California, Institute of
Human Development, Family Socialization and Developmental Competence Project.
Baumrind, D. (1979b). Rating scales for parents of adolescent children. Berkeley: University of
California, Institute of Human Development, Family Socialization and Developmental
Competence Project.
Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family Relations, 45, 405-414.
Bee, H. (1997). The developing child (8th ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley.
Benson, P., Donahue, M., & Erikson, J. (1989). Adolescence and religion: Review of the litera-
ture from 1970-1986. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 1, 153-181.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & Flor, D. (1996). Parental religiosity, family processes, and youth
competence in rural, two-parent African-American families. Developmental Psychology,
32, 696-706.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., Flor, D., & McCrary, C. (1997). Religion’s role in organizing family
relationships: Family processes in rural, two-parent African-American families. Journal of
Marriage and the Family.
Bulcroft, R. A., Carmody, D. C., & Bulcroft, K. A. (1996). Patterns of parental independence-
giving to adolescents: Variations by race, age, and gender of child. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 58, 866-883.
Capps, D. (1992). Religion and child abuse: Perfect together. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 31, 1-14.
Cornwall, M. (1988). The influence of three agents of religious socialization: Family, church,
and peers. In D. L. Thomas (Ed.), The religion and family connection: Social science per-
spectives (Vol. 3, pp. 207-231). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.
D’Antonio, W. V., Newman, W. M., & Wright, S. A. (1982). Religion and family life: How social
scientists view the relationship. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 21, 218-225.
Day, R. D., & Peterson, G. W. (1996, April). Predictors of the frequent spanking of younger and
older children. Paper presented at the conference Research on Discipline: The State of the
Art, Deficits, and Implications. Chapel Hill, NC.
Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1996). Physical discipline among
African-American and European-American mothers: Links to children’s externalizing
behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 1065-1072.
Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., Nix, R., Harnish, J., & Pinderhughes, E. (1998). Physical
punishment, externalizing behaviors, and children’s beliefs about discipline: Individual and
ethnic group differences. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Domino, G. (1984). California Psychological Inventory. In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland
(Eds.), Test critiques, Vol. 1 (pp. 146-157). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.
Donahue, M. J. (1995). Religion and the well-being of adolescents. Journal of Social Issues,
51(2), 145-160.
Dornbusch, S. M., Ritter, P., Liederman, P., Roberts, D., & Fraleigh, M. (1987). The relation of
parenting style to adolescent school performance. Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 223

Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. New York: Free Press.

Ellison, C. G., & Sherkat, D. E. (1993a). Conservative protestantism and support for corporal
punishment. American Sociological Review, 58, 131-144.
Ellison, C. G., & Sherkat, D. E. (1993b). Obedience and autonomy: Religion and parental values
reconsidered. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 32, 313-329.
Evans, T. D., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., Dunaway, R. G., Payne, G. L., & Kethineni, S. R.
(1996). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43-70.
Feldman, S., & Gehring, T. (1988). Changing perceptions of family cohesion and power across
adolescence. Child Development, 59, 1034-1045.
Francis, L. J., & Gibson, H. M. (1993). Parental influence and adolescent religiosity: A study of
church attendance and attitude toward Christianity among adolescents 11 to 12 and 15 to 16
years old. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 3, 241-253.
Free, M. D. (1994). Religiosity, religious conservatism, bonds to school, and juvenile delin-
quency among three categories of drug users. Deviant Behavior, 15, 151-170.
Gecas, V., & Seff, M. (1990). Families and adolescents: A review of the 1980s. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 52, 941-958.
Goldman, A. L. (1991, April 10). Portrait of religion in U.S. holds dozens of surprises. New York
Times, pp. A1, A11.
Greven, P. (1990). Spare the child: The religious roots of punishment and the psychological
impact of physical abuse. New York: Knopf.
Gunnoe, M. L., & Mariner, C. L. (1997). Toward a developmental-contextual model of the
effects of parental spanking on children’s aggression. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent
Medicine, 151, 768-775.
Harter, S. (1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53(1),
87-97.
Hathaway, W. L., & Pargament, K. I. (1991). The religious dimension of coping: Implications for
prevention and promotion. In R. E. Hess, K. I. Pargament, & K. I. Maton (Eds.), Religion and
Prevention in Mental Health: Conceptual and Empirical Foundations, Prevention in Human
Services (pp. 65-92). New York: Hawthorne.
Hetherington, E. M., & Clingempeel, W. G. (with E. R. Anderson, J. E. Deal, M. Stanley Hagan,
E. A. Hollier, & M. S. Lindner (1992). Coping with marital transitions: A family systems
perspective. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 57(Iss. 2/3,
Serial No. 227).
Hetherington, E. M., Stanley Hagan, M., & Eisenberg, M. (1992). Family interaction global cod-
ing system. Charlottesville: University of Virginia, Department of Psychology, The Remar-
riage Project.
Hill, H. M., Soriano, F. I., Chen, S. A., & LaFromboise, T. D. (1994). Sociocultural factors in the
etiology and prevention of violence among ethnic minority youth. In L. D. Eron, J. H. Gen-
try, & P. Schlegal (Eds.), Reason to hope: A psychosocial perspective on violence and youth
(pp. 59-67). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Himmelfarb, H. S. (1979). Agents of religious socialization among American Jews. The Socio-
logical Quarterly, 20, 477-494.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Holmbeck, G. N., Paikoff, R. L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). Parenting adolescents. In M. H.
Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting (pp. 91-118). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johnston, L., O’Malley, P., & Bachman, J. (1986). Drug use among American high school stu-
dents, college students, and other young adults: National trends through 1985. Washington,
DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
224 JOURNAL OF EARLY ADOLESCENCE / May 1999

Kedem, P., & Cohen, D. W. (1987). The effects of religious education on moral judgment. Jour-
nal of Psychology and Judaism, 11, 4-14.
Lamborn, S. D., Mounts, N. S., Steinberg, L., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Patterns of compe-
tence and adjustment among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and
neglectful families. Child Development, 62(5), 1049-1065.
Lavee, Y. (1988). Linear structural relationships (LISREL) in family research. Journal of Mar-
riage and the Family, 50, 937-948.
Maccoby, E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interac-
tion. In E. M. Hetherington (Vol. Ed.) & P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psy-
chology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 1-101). New York:
John Wiley.
Miller, B., & Moore, K. (1990). Adolescent sexual behavior, pregnancy, and parenting: Research
through the 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 1025-1044.
Montgomery, A., & Francis, L. J. (1996). Relationship between personal prayer and school-
related attitudes among 11-16 year old girls. Psychological Reports, 78, 787-793.
Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child
Development, 52, 413-429.
Patterson, G. R., DeBarsyshe, B. D., & Ramsey, E. (1989). A developmental perspective on anti-
social behavior. American Psychologist, 44, 329-335.
Payne, I. R., Bergin, A. E., Beilema, K. A., & Jenkins, P. H. (1991). Review of religion and men-
tal health: Prevention and the enhancement of psychological functioning. In R. Hess (Ed.),
Religion and prevention in mental health: Conceptual and empirical foundations (pp. 11-40).
New York: Haworth.
Perry, C. M., & McIntire, W. G. (1994). High school seniors’ concern for others: Predictors and
implications. High School Journal, 77, 199-205.
Princeton Religion Research Center (1980). Religions in America, 1979-1980. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Reiss, D., Hetherington, E. M., Plomin, R., Howe, G. W., Simmens, S., Henderson, S., O’Connor,
T. G., Bussell, D., Anderson, E., & Law, T. (1995). Genetic questions for environmental stud-
ies: Differential parenting of siblings and its association with depression and antisocial
behavior in adolescents. Archives of General Psychiatry, 52, 925-936.
Steinberg, L. (1996). Adolescence (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Steinberg, L., Elmen, J. D., & Mounts, N. (1989). Authoritative parenting, psychosocial matur-
ity, and academic success among adolescents. Child Development, 60, 1424-1436.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Darling, N., Mounts, N. S., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1994). Over-
time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authori-
tarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.
Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S. D., Dornbusch, S. M., & Darling, N. (1992). Impact of parenting
practices on adolescent achievement: Authoritative parenting, school involvement, and
encouragement to succeed. Child Development, 63, 1266-1281.
Steinberg, L., Mounts, N. S., Lamborn, S. D., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1991). Authoritative parent-
ing and adolescent adjustment across varied ecological niches. Journal of Research on Ado-
lescence, 1, 19-36.
Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. (1987). Influences on marital satisfaction during the middle
stages of the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 751-760.
Straus, M. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent
antisocial behavior of children. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761-767.
 Gunnoe et al. / PARENTING AND ADOLESCENT RESPONSIBILITY 225

Strayhorn, J. M., Weidman, C. S., & Larson, D. (1990). A measure of religiousness and its rela-
tion to parent and child mental health variables. Journal of Community Psychology, 18,
34-43.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York:
Harper-Collins.
Watson, J. B., & Watson, R. R. (1928). The psychological care of infant and child. New York:
Norton.
Weihe, V. R. (1990). Religious influence on parental attitudes toward the use of corporal punish-
ment. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 173-186.
Wilkinson, M. L., & Tanner, W. C. (1980). The influence of family size, interaction, and religios-
ity on family affection in a Mormon sample. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 297-304.
Zern, D. S. (1985). Positive links among obedience pressure, religiosity and measures of cogni-
tive accomplishment: Evidence for the secular value of being religious. Journal of Psychol-
ogy and Theology, 15, 31-39.

Requests for reprints should be addressed to Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe, Department of Psychology, Calvin
College, 3201 Burton St., SE, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 49546; e-mail: mgunnoe@calvin.edu.