Abstract
What youth do is not what they say. Declining levels of religious practice among young adults in the United States does not necessarily mean that they are becoming less religious. That conclusion emerges from A Faith of Their Own, an in-depth analysis of quantitative survey data and follow-up in–person interviews with American youth aged 13 to 17 in 2002 who were re-interviewed in 2005. In this very readable and carefully argued book, Lisa Pearce and Melinda Denton find evidence that for youth the conduct of religious practice is not the only or even the most important window into the centrality of religious identity or the content of religious belief. In fact, many youth are quite comfortable saying they became more religious during adolescence—pointing to higher levels of identity salience or more surety of their beliefs—even while acknowledging declining religious practice. If we wish to understand accurately the religiosity of youth, according to Pearce and Denton, measurement strategies must account for the specific configuration of centrality, content, and conduct that constitute adolescent religious identities.
To capture the complexity of religious identity formation among youth, Pearce and Denton develop five ideal types, which emerge both from latent class analysis of quantitative survey data and theoretical reflection on transcripts from semi-structured personal interviews with 267 adolescents (122 of whom were re-interviewed in 2005). Each of the types represent about a fifth of America’s youth. One category is consistently high on all measures of religiosity. Their conventional and institutional form of religion earns them the label, Abiders. At the other extreme are the Atheists, which are consistently at the low end of religious conduct, content, and identity centrality. The problem with most research on religiosity is that it stops there. But important distinctions are necessary in the middle of the religiosity spectrum. The Assenters, for example, who believe in a personal God and have some outward religious practices but do not claim that religion is central to their identity, are distinct from the Adapters, for whom beliefs about God are less conventional but religiosity—in terms of prayer and identity centrality—is stronger. The Adapters are very religious but not very committed to a religious congregation or group, and not highly involved in conventional religious practices. The remaining religious profile, the Avoiders, have some level of belief in God and limited religious practice, but seem mostly concerned with not falling into the religiosity extremes, namely, the Abiders or the Atheists. The goal of the book is to understand these religious profiles, showing the personal characteristics of youth that embody each profile and explaining how these profiles shift however slightly through adolescence.
The religiosity profiles are not surprisingly associated with various demographic variables. For example, African Americans compared to whites are more likely to be Abiders and Adapters but not Atheists; Latinos are not likely to be Atheists either, but are more likely to be Adapters and Assenters. Women and conservative Protestants tend to be Adaptors and Abiders. More interesting is the finding that family stability is associated with the two more consistent religiosity profiles, the Abiders and the Atheists. Abiders tend to have higher levels of social stability, including more educated parents, higher family incomes, a traditional family structure, and a closer relationship with at least one parent.
One of the book’s main findings is that religious change through the adolescent years is not as dramatic as commonly thought. On average, religious practice shows a slight decline among youth, but decline in religious conduct does not necessarily correspond to decline in the centrality of religion to personal identity or the strength of religious beliefs. As evidence of overall stability, the authors note that 85 percent of Abiders remained Abiders throughout the study. Although overall religious change is minor, latent transition analysis of the quantitative data revealed interesting patterns. For example, Abiders appear to see conduct, centrality, and content as one piece; if they do shift categories, they bypass the Adapters and fall in among the Assenters.
Emotional access to parents goes a long way toward explaining religious trajectories of youth. The authors further suggest that religious trajectories depend on social instability and resources. An Adapter response is likely to emerge in a social context with low levels of family support for religious involvement, higher levels of family stress, and difficult parent work schedules. Structural obstacles to involvement then may explain why Adapters combine high salience of religion with lower levels of conventional participation in religious institutions.
Parenting explains religious trajectories of youth, since parents are one of the most important sources of support for religious identity formation. Pearce and Denton argue that youth need an appropriate level of scaffolding on which they can stand to refine and personalize their religious identity through adolescent transitions. Parents can be religiously over-controlling, which tends to shut down the process of questioning, exploring, and refining youth religious identity. But providing too little scaffolding for religious development has a strong negative impact on religiosity. The best scenario is the parent (at least one) who provides a contingent response, one designed to meet the specific religious needs, questions, and experiences of their children, which neither evades issues of religious development nor short-circuits the process. Most of the Abiders and Atheists had parents whose support for religious personalization provided the appropriate balance of structure and openness, understanding “the current capabilities and emotions of adolescents and gearing one’s support toward bolstering adolescent efforts to develop well-founded autonomy” (p. 151). Peer relationships marked by understanding, acceptance, and open communication can be an important source of scaffolding, according to the authors, but their impact is often negligible since most friendships do not engage issues of religious development and exploration. Religious institutions matter too, but only if they not only show youth that they are valued and loved but also that their religious concerns and struggles are taken seriously. Any opportunity to put into practice nascent religious commitments, such as service opportunities in or through religious congregations, provides an important avenue for religious identity formation of many youth.
Whatever the source, the form of religiosity has an impact on health and well-being, but the relationship is not simply linear. Instead, the positive impact is found among the Abiders and the Atheists. This is partly a function of family background differences, but not entirely. Note that each of the other religious types has some incongruity across the dimensions of religious centrality, content, and conduct. This may impact life outcomes negatively, since consistent and integrated religious identities offer “confidence, self-assurance, and cognitive harmony that is beneficial to their personal well-being and aspirations for the future” (p. 85). Adolescent health and well-being is a function of a coherent worldview or meaning system, whether rooted in high religiosity or no religiosity at all. Both Abiders and Atheists benefit from “the time and parental encouragement to consider their own personal religious beliefs, identity, and practices and work to keep them in line with one another” (p. 84).
What are we to do with this new-found appreciation of religious types, their sources and trajectories? The accessible writing along with the many sensible suggestions for those interested in child socialization will make this book a helpful resource for religious leaders and parents of all religious persuasions. Religion, family, and youth development researchers will appreciate the quality and depth of qualitative and quantitative analysis along with the helpful extensions and correctives to the current literature. Other sociological audiences may not want to wade through all the complexity and detail, which in a few places becomes overly descriptive, but will likely be intrigued by the new insights that emerge when attention to specific identity configurations is combined with analysis of religious change.