Examining Religion as A Preventative Factor
to Delinquency
Russell K. VanVleet
Jeff Cockayne
Timothy R. Fowles
August 1999
2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................... Page 3
Penitentiaries of the Past ................................................... Page 5
Parameters and Purpose of the Study ......................................... Page 6
Religious Attendance...................................................... Page 7
Other Factors-Forced Religion .............................................. Page 7
Religious Involvement of High School Seniors ................................. Page 8
Morals and Values ....................................................... Page 11
Hellfire and Delinquency .................................................. Page 12
The Ecology Theory ..................................................... Page 12
The Provo Study Testing Hellfire and Delinquency ............................. Page 13
Defining and Resting Religiosity Correctly.................................... Page 14
Other Factors to Consider When Evaluating Religiosity.......................... Page 14
Quality of Research ...................................................... Page 14
Is Religiosity Connected to Delinquency ..................................... Page 15
Conclusion ............................................................. Page 16
References ............................................................. Page 17
1
Religiosity is a term researchers use to quantify an individual’s commitment to any
particular religion. Although the terms “religion”, “religiousness”, and “religiosity” are often
used interchangeably, many researchers prefer “religiosity” because it denotes a specific measure
of individual commitment (like “velocity” as a scientific measure in physics) rather than simply
common belief held by a number of people.
3
Executive Summary
Throughout the past, clergymen, church members, and social scientists, have assumed
that religious beliefs and church attendance are effective deterrent to delinquent behavior. Many
hypothesized that the more religious a person was, the less likely he or she will be to participate
in delinquent behavior. As time and technology progressed researchers began looking more
empirically at the connection between religion and delinquency. Unfortunately, science has
neither confirmed nor refuted the age old hypothesis that religion deters delinquency. “During
the 1970's and 1980's several studies using more sophisticated methodologies and statistical
analysis produced mixed results.” (Chadwick, and Top, 1993) These mixed results allow church
officials, legislators, and social workers to pick and choose research that supports their particular
view. However, an overall analysis reveals that no theory can account for all the research. As
Tittle and Welch (1983) point out, religiosity
1
cannot in and of itself be conclusively held as a
deterrent for delinquency.
Despite numerous theoretical reasons for expecting religion to contribute to social conformity,
social scientists cannot say with any confidence whether religiosity actually inhibits deviant
behavior. Over forty years of research has produced results which are often interpreted as
inconclusive or even contradictory.
A large amount of the inconsistency between various studies in the ways in which
researchers have operationalized religiosity and delinquency. Many studies choose to define
religiosity simply as church attendance. This provides an easy way to quantify religiosity, and
4
therefore is easy to analyze statistically. In addition, many studies show that church attendance
is declining, which concerns those who believe in religion as an important component of crime
prevention. However, this measure of delinquency is confounded by a number of factors
including forced attendance at church, attendance based on sentimental rather than commitment,
component skewing research.
Other attempts to define religion attempt to include morals and values, cultural context,
and individual determining factors. Defining delinquency is often just as difficult. Researchers
must decide whether deviant behavior must be misdemeanors and felonies, drug use, etc.
Because of differing definitions, studies report differing results. Consequently, social science
has yet to make a definitive statement regarding the connection between religion and
delinquency.
5
Penitentiaries of the Past
Throughout history, the line separating crime and sin has been blurry at best, and
in most cases non-existent. During the eighteenth century, many thought deviant behavior was
caused by evil spirits, supernatural powers, or the result of individual free choice. (Schafer and
Knudten, 1970) In 1790, Philadelphia’s Walnut Street Jail was converted into a penitentiary,
where penance was adopted as the new ideology. Penance is defined as, “The act of self
punishment as reparation for guilt, sins, etc.” (Abate, 1998, emphasis added) Institutions were
initially named penitentiaries because the question of crime with sin necessitated a means of
reformation for “unclean” offenses. The first “penitentiaries” were founded on the religious
philosophy that the offenders should make amends with society and accept responsibility for
their own misdeeds. In the eighteenth century prisons, “Penance was the primary vehicle
through which rehabilitation was anticipated, and the study of the Bible was strongly
encouraged.” (Schmalleger, 1997) Capital punishment, often conducted in public, made
offenders examples in order to discourage crime. The death sentence was used as a consequence
all manners of crimes including, “murder and arson, horse stealing, and children’s disrespect for
their parents.” (Rothman, 1971, pg15)
The late eighteenth century marked a paradigm shift from corporal punishment towards
imprisonment with the hope of conforming the will of the individual. Early prison systems used
solitary confinement and congregate silent systems in an attempt to compel offenders to reflect
on the damage they had caused to others and society. Eighteenth century lawmakers aspired to
establish penitentiaries, “free of corruptions and dedicated to the proper training of the inmate,
Religion and Delinquency
2
This paper was a literature search intended to examine the varioius studies and materials
regarding the effects of religiosity on delinquency. It was not an experimental study, nor an
empirical analysis drawing its own conclusions, but simply an overview of the studies already
conducted.
6
[penitentiaries] would inculcate the discipline the negligent parents, evil companions, taverns,
houses of prostitution, theaters, and gambling halls had destroyed.” (Rothman 1971, pg 82) In
many ways, this type of religiously driven penal goal starkly contrasts our modern system. The
United States no longer believes in public executions, and has detached the taut correlation of
religion and delinquency from that of the past,
Contemporary society often claims sciences such as psychology, sociology, and
criminology as empirical solutions to religiously driven penal systems; however, there is
still much debate on how much of a bearing religion has on deviant behavior. “As
observations on the influence of religion in the formation and volume of delinquency are
scattered and inconclusive, the exact relationship between religion on one hand and delinquency
and criminality on the other is unknown.” (Schafer & Knudten, 1970) Throughout the decades of
research, various studies have conclusively shown conflicting results. This report
2
examines the
effects of religion as a preventative factor in delinquency using the following parameters:
1. What is religiosity, and how has it been measured?
2. Why is there such a vast disparity in the correlation of religiousness and delinquent
behavior?
3. Is religion directly correlated to delinquency, and to what extent?
Religion and Delinquency
3
Bachman, Johnson & O’Malley, working at the University of Michigan’s Institute for
Social Research, conducted an ongoing cross-sectional study questioning youth extensively
about various issues. The results were reported yearly in a work titled Monitoring the Future.
7
Church Attendance: A Poor Measure of Religiosity
Religion is a multi-faceted word with many implications, which makes describing
religion extremely difficult and often subjective. For some, being religious means simply
attending church, for others it includes specific beliefs and practices such as prayer, rituals, and
accepting certain values and morals. This ambiguity makes operationalizing religion difficult for
researchers. As a result many narrowly define one’s religiosity, or commitment to religion
simply as church attendance. Hirschi and Stark (1969) illustrate why:
We shall not here be concerned with what religiosity really is. Instead we shall take for
granted the view that religiosity is many things...The usual beginning point in studies of the
effects of religion is a measure of church attendance. In our opinion this is as it should be.
Another reason researchers operationalize religiosity as church attendance is because
data shows that youth are attending church less and less. Lawmakers and parents alike want to
know to what extent relaxed attitudes toward church contribute to delinquency. Data collected
by Bachman, Johnston & O’Malley (various years
3
) contributes to the idea that church
attendance is declining among today’s youth.
Researchers at the Institute for Social Research conducted a long-term study examining the
beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors of young adults 19-32 in the United States (see Figure 1). They
examined 420 public and private schools between 1976 and 1991. In 1976, approximately
40.7% of high school seniors attended church weekly. During 1991, the average attendance of
Religion and Delinquency
8
high school seniors was 31.2%; indicated a 9.5% decline in religious attendance during a fifteen
year period. The survey also depicts an increase in the population of high school seniors that
consider religion “Not Important,” from 12.7% in 1976 to 15.3% in 1991.
Figure 1:
Religious involvement of high school seniors: 1976 to 1991
SOURCE: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Monitoring the Future, various
years.
Religious activity Percent of Seniors
and level of interest
1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1985
Frequency of attending religious services:
Weekly................. 40.7 39.4 43.1 37.3 37.7 35.3
1-2 times a month. 16.3 17.2 16.3 17.4 16.2 16.6
Rarely.................. 32.0 34.4 32.0 35.8 35.8 37.0
Never................... 11.0 9.0 8.6 9.6 10.2 11.1
Importance of religion in life:
Very important.... 28.8 27.8 32.4 28.4 29.7 27.3
Pretty Important.. 30.5 33.0 32.6 33.0 32.6 32.4
A little................. 27.8 27.9 25.3 27.9 26.7 27.6
Not important..... 12.9 11.2 9.8 10.7 11.0 12.7
Religious activity Percent of Seniors
and level of interest
1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Frequency of attending religious services:
Weekly................ 34.4 31.8 31.9 31.4 30.4 31.2
1-2 times a month. 16.8 15.6 17.3 16.6 15.7 16.8
Rarely.................. 36.9 39.6 39.0 38.5 39.7 37.6
Never.................. 12.0 13.0 11.7 13.5 14.1 14.4
Importance of religion in life:
Very important.... 26.3 24.9 26.1 27.2 26.4 27.7
Pretty important.. 32.7 31.7 31.9 30.3 29.5 30.0
A little................. 27.8 28.8 28.4 27.8 28.7 27.0
Not important.......... 13.3 14.5 13.6 14.7 15.5 15.3
Although these figures indicate that church attendance and importance of religion may be
Religion and Delinquency
4
Yochelson and Samenow in their book The Criminal Personality describe various
characteristics of criminality they believe are inherent to certain individuals. Because this
criminality is a part of their personality, they propose, church attendance most likely does not
motivate them to change - rather, it is simply one dimension of their personality.
9
on the decline among today’s youth, analysis such as these have been criticized because of their
superficial view of religiousness. Stark, Kant, and Doyle (1982) point out that:
Many people who attend church frequently who are not particularly religious in any other way–
they do not believe in the theology of their church, they do not pray (except as part of the ritual of
church services), nor do they think of themselves as concerned about religion. By the same token
many persons who are very devout in other ways are infrequent churchgoers, and some such
persons never attend at all. Thus, if one is interested in measuring inner religiousness, church
attendance is not as good a measure as are direct inquiries about what a person believes and feels.
Moreover, in the case of teenage boys, this measurement error is likely to be magnified because,
compared to most adults, youth have less control over whether or not they go to church. It is this
less accurate measurement provided by church attendance that produces the weaker correlations
between church attendance and delinquency...
Stark et. al. points out that many teenagers and delinquents are coerced into going to
church. This “forced religion” can skew research findings, and weaken the connection between
religiosity and delinquency. Correlations may also be confounded by the “conscience factor,”
which has an influence on deviants attending church. Delinquents consciences’ may weigh them
down, causing an increased frequency of church attendance for purification of the soul.
Yochelson and Samenow (1977) illustrate this phenomenon when describing “the criminal
personality
4
:
Criminals of all ages have periods of self-doubt and may go to church themselves. This
state of mind sometimes lasts no longer than the church service itself and is concurrent with
criminality. Church-going serves as a palliative measure for the criminal’s conscience.
(Yochelson, and Samenow, 1977)
Religion and Delinquency
10
Even the non-criminal may attend church for reasons other than devotion. For example,
some attend services simply out of tradition or sentiment, rather than commitment to ideals and
values preached within the denomination. This too leads researchers to question using church
attendance as a measure of true religiosity.
Religion still serves another function: it is of sentimental value to some. The criminal may cling
to the religion of his childhood. Walking into a church, hearing the music, reading psalms, and
participating in the ritual may evoke a strong nostalgia. This sentimentality may be a factor in
frequent church attendance. (Yochelson, and Samenow, 1977)
Research conducted by Hirschi and Stark (1969) confirms the problem with using church
attendance as a measure of religiousness. In an exhaustive survey involving 4,077 students of
Western Contra Costa, California, Hirschi and Stark’s well known study entitled “Hellfire and
Delinquency” found no casual relationship between church attendance and delinquency.
In conclusion, although church attendance may be declining among today’s youth, this
decline does not clearly correlate to rates of delinquency. Therefore, church attendance along is
an ineffective way to measure religiosity.
Moral Poverty and Ecological Theory
Religion and Delinquency
11
In an attempt to better understand religion’s contribution to preventing delinquency,
researchers have attempted to focus studies more on the moral contributions of religious activity.
When researchers use cultural, moral, and societal influences, to examine religiousness, the
research reveals correlations between religion and delinquency more effectively. Since many of
the moral ideals within a given society stem from religion, morals and values are crucial factors
when observing religiosity. Morals can be defined as acceptable behaviors, that do not violate
the norms of society; or right moral conduct. (Abate, 1998)
Sadly, many believe that the current “norms of society” are moving further and further
away from true morality. The Advertising Council’s Strategic Task Force observed, “Americans
are convinced that today’s youth face a crisis...not in their economic or physical well-being but
in their values and morals.” (Merkly Newman Harty, Public Agenda Foundation) Their
observation was based on a sample of 2,000 randomly selected adults aged 18 years and older,
and of 600 randomly selected youth between 12 and 17; both conducted in December 1996. The
study contends that parents are fundamentally responsible for the aberrant condition of their
youth, and that children are suffering because of the disinterest of the parents. According to their
findings, most Americans view today’s teenagers with trepidation, considering them
undisciplined, disrespectful, and unfriendly. But is this really true? If so, what is the source of
declining morality among today’s youth?
Social scientists have long accepted poverty and low socio-economic status as
contributing risk factors for delinquency; however, Sagi and Eisikovits (1981) propose a new
risk factor: moral poverty. “Moral Poverty,” as explained by Sagi and Eisikovits, is a deficiency
Religion and Delinquency
12
of concerned adults capable of teaching their children right from wrong. This moral deprivation
may be partly responsible for the increasing number of crimes committed by juveniles.
Presently, many youth are without parents and other authorities to habituate them to feel others
joy and pain, or happiness when doing what is right, and remorse when doing what is wrong.
(DiIulio, 1997)
Religion plays a major role in dictating contemporary views of morality. Therefore,
another factor contributing to moral poverty could be the continued attempts to divorce religion
from society. In the name of tolerance, many accept what traditional religion would call
immoral. Furthermore, in attempts to separate church and state, governments often end up
separating religion from the state. If researchers can effectively correlate moral depravity and
delinquency, a more religious community might be our most effective tool for eradicating moral
poverty.
Results of studies including moral variables reveal new implications about the connection
between morality and religion. During the early 1980's a new ideology was presented that shed a
new light on why there were conflicting results with religion and delinquency surveys.
Parameters of religiosity have changed since the Hellfire and Delinquency (see pg 10 and
annotated bibliography) test, and “As a consequence, virtually every published work subsequent
to Hirschi and Stark’s has found evidence of a statistically significant, inverse, bivariate
relationship [opposite] between some indicator of religiosity and various indicators of delinquent
or deviant behavior.” (Cochran, Akers, 1989) However, most of this research hinges on the
cultural cont or “religious ecology” in which the study is conducted. As Chadwick and Top
Religion and Delinquency
5
When the Provo Study was administered, in 1972, the population of Provo was
approximately 50,000 people; the overwhelming majority of which were members of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. At the time, Utah stood first among states in terms
of church membership rates, and the Provo-Orem metropolitan area stood first among American
cities with the rate of 966 per 1,000; compared to the 320 per 1,000 for the San Francisco-
Oakland area, in which Richmond is located. (The area where Hirschi and Stark administered
their survey) (Stark, Kant, Doyle, 1982)
13
(1993) explain, “Religion is negatively associated with deviance only when it is part of widely
accepted social values and norms prohibiting such behavior.” The study done by Chadwick and
Top (1993) helped to settle some controversy concerning the ecological explanation used by
researchers in the 1980's including Stark, Kant, and Doyle (1982) who observed,
...conflicting findings stem from variations in the religious ecology of the communities studied. In
communities where religious commitment is the norm, the more religious an individual, the less likely
he or she will be delinquent. However, in highly secularized communities, even the most devout
teenagers are no less delinquent than the most irreligious.
Presently, many sociologists would agree that conflicting results from studies of the past (Hirschi
and Stark) are from ecological conditions or the religious climate of the community studied.
The Provo Study
5
tested the ecological theory and compared the youth of Provo to the
area of Hirschi and Stark’s. The data was based on a sample of boys from Provo, Utah. As
cited, “Indeed, while Hirschi and Stark found that only 37 percent of white boys in Richmond
attended church weekly, 55 percent of the boys in Provo attended at least that often, and 30
percent of them went to church at least three times a week.” (Stark, Kant, Doyle, 1982) Due to
the different conclusions and sampling methods, other studies were conducted to bring about
some clarification on the validity of the ecology theory. “The inconsistent support discovered
for the religious ecology explanation justifies additional exploration of whether religion’s
Religion and Delinquency
6
William Sims Bainbridge is a professor in the Department of Sociology, Anthropology,
and Social Work at Illinois State University. He conducted a survey titled, “The Religious
Ecology of Deviance.” His data was collected from the 75 American metropolitan areas outside
New England. Delinquency was measured by suicide, crime, homosexuality, and cultism;
religiosity was the rate of church membership. Their findings were that although many forms of
crime and cultism are directly deterred by religion, the influence of religion upon suicide and
homosexuality appears indirect, if it exists at all. (Bainbridge, 1989)
14
relationship to delinquency is a function of social cohesion or whether religious beliefs and
values are related to such behaviors independent of the moral ecology.” (Chadwick, Top, 1993)
Other researchers expanded the ecological systems view when examining the religion-
delinquency connection. Bainbridge
6
(1989) suggested that old age, poverty levels, and
education can all influence correlations in delinquency and religiosity. According to Bainbridge
(1989), effective evaluation of religion and delinquency requires controlling for a wide variety of
variables:
...divorce might be an interesting variable through which religion affects deviance... Other factors
that influence rates of each kind of deviance must also be employed as controls, especially those
that might be associated with religiousness. Suicide is stimulated by despair that sometimes
accompanies old age, and many kinds of crime may be more common where substantial portions
of the population experience economic and social frustrations.
The ecological theory gave researchers an effective alternative to using church
attendance as their only method of operationalizing religiosity. As cited above, this led to
important breakthroughs in examining religion and delinquency; however, this did not provide
authoritative answers, nor did it settle controversy over the true correlation.
Religion and Delinquency
15
Is Religiosity Connected To Delinquency?
Although studies define religiosity and delinquency differently, creating contradictions
and ambiguous conclusions, research does tend to support several generalizations. Correlations
can be shown when religiosity is defined according to an individual’s social, moral, and cultural
context. For example, Chadwick and Top (1993) conclude:
Two measures of religiosity, private religious behavior and feelings of integration, also made
significant contributions to predicting delinquency. The more frequent the private religious
behavior and the stronger the feelings of being accepted in the local congregation the lower
was the level of delinquency. (Chadwick, Top, 1993)
However, whenever correlations between religion and delinquency are examined, a
certain degree of scientific skepticism must be reserved. Geographical locations, predominant
areas of religion, family structure, socio-economic status, divorce, and poverty; all affect
correlations. The methods of measuring religion, and delinquency respectively also largely
determines the results of any study. Therefore, despite advances in theory and methodology,
social science cannot conclude that overall religiosity is directly correlated with delinquency, not
that any casual relationship exists. However, specific studies indicate that certain attributes of
religion definitely have an impact of delinquency.
Religion deters some deviant acts, but not others. If religion lacks a particular community,
it may have had an influence before and may still have an influence elsewhere. (Bainbridge, 1989)
Religion and Delinquency
16
Conclusion
For parents, lawmakers, and other community leaders, scientific results may not be
conclusive, but they do make important implications. Religion should not be abandoned as a
possible variable in the prevention of delinquency. Nor should inconclusive evidence further
promote the separation of religion from the community. The place of religion in prevention of
delinquency may not be clear, but it is there nonetheless.
Religion and Delinquency
17
References
Bachman, J.G., Johnston, L.D., & O’Malley, P.M.. (various years). Monitoring the
Future. University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research.
Bainbridge, W.S. (1989). The Religious Ecology of Deviance. American Sociological
Review 54: pg. 288-95.
Benda, B.B. (1997). Examination of a Reciprocal Relationship Between Religiosity and
Different Forms of Delinquency Within a Theoretical Model. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 34,2 (May): pg. 163-186.
Blum, R. & Rinehart, P.M.. (1997). Reducing the Risk: Connections that Make a
Difference in the Lives of Youth. Youth Studies Australia 16, N 4 (December): pg. 37-50.
Burkett, S.R. & White, M. (1974). Hellfire and Delinquency: Another Look. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion 13, N 1 (March): pg. 455-62.
Chadwick, B.A. & Top, B.L. (1993). Religiosity and Delinquency among LDS
Adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32, N 1 (March): pg. 51-67.
Cochran, J.K. & Akers, R.L. (1989). Beyond Hellfire: An Exploration of the variables
affects religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 26, N 1 (February): pg. 198-225.
Cortes, J.B. & Gatti, F.M.. (1972). Delinquency and Crime: A Biopsychosocial
Approach. Seminar Press, New York and London.
DiIulio, J.J.Jr. (1997). Lack of Moral Guidance Causes Juvenile Crime and Violence. In
Sadler, A.E. (Editor). Juvenile Crime: Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press, Inc. San Diego,
California. Pg. 107-117.
Ellis, L. (1985). Religiosity and Criminality Evidence and Explanations of Complex
Relationships. Sociological Perspectives 28, N4 (October): pg. 501-15.
Evans, T.D., Cullen, F.T., Burton, V.S. Jr., Dunaway, R.G., Payne, G.L., Kethineni, S.R.
(1996). Social Bonds, and Delinquency. Deviant Behavior 17, N 1 (January-March): pg. 43-70.
Religion and Delinquency
18
Fernquist, R.M.. (1995). Research Note on the Association Between Religion and
Delinquency. Deviant Behavior 16, N 2 (April-June): pg. 169-175.
Hirshi, T. & Stark, R. (1969). Hellfire and Delinquency. Social Problems 17, N 1: pg.
202-13.
Abate, F. (Editor). (1998). The Oxford American Desk Dictionary. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Merkly Newman Harty and the Public Agenda Foundation. (1997). Kids These Days:
What Americans Really Think About the Next Generation.
Rothman, D.J. (1971). The Discovery of the Asylum. Little, Brown and Company,
Boston, Toronto.
Safi, A. & Eisikovits, Z. (1981). Juvenile Delinquency and Moral Development.
Criminal Justice and Behavior 8, N 1 (March): pg. 79-93.
Schafer, S. & Knudten, R.D. (1970). Juvenile Delinquency: An Introduction. Random
House, Inc. Toronto, Canada. pg. 234-238.
Schmalleger, F. (1997). Criminal Justice Today. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New
Jersey. Pg. 432-443.
Stark, R., Kent, L. & Doyle, D.P. (1980). Religion Delinquency: The ecology of a “lost”
relationship. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 19, N 1 (January): pg. 4-24.
Tittle, C.R. & Welch, M.R. (1983). Religiosity and Deviance: Toward a Contingency
Theory of Constraining Effects. Social Forces 61, N 3 (March): pg. 653-682.
Yochelson, S. & Samenow, S.E. (1977). The Criminal Personality, Volume 1: A Profile
for Change. Jason Aronson, New York. pg. 297-308.
