Religious Socialization Among Malaysian Muslim Adolescents: A Family Structure Comparison

1 23

Review of Religious ResearchThe Official Journal of the ReligiousResearch Association ISSN 0034-673XVolume 54Number 4 Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499-518DOI 10.1007/s13644-012-0068-z

Religious Socialization Among MalaysianMuslim Adolescents: A Family StructureComparison

Steven Eric Krauss, Azimi Hamzah,Ismi Arif Ismail, Turiman Suandi, SitiRabaah Hamzah, Dzuhailmi Dahalan &Fazilah Idris

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and

all rights are held exclusively by Religious

Research Association, Inc.. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you

wish to self-archive your work, please use the

accepted author’s version for posting to your

own website or your institution’s repository.

You may further deposit the accepted author’s

version on a funder’s repository at a funder’s

request, provided it is not made publicly

available until 12 months after publication.

ORI GIN AL PA PER

Religious Socialization Among Malaysian MuslimAdolescents: A Family Structure Comparison

Steven Eric Krauss • Azimi Hamzah •

Ismi Arif Ismail • Turiman Suandi •

Siti Rabaah Hamzah • Dzuhailmi Dahalan •

Fazilah Idris

Received: 5 January 2012 / Accepted: 14 April 2012 / Published online: 11 August 2012

� Religious Research Association, Inc. 2012

Abstract Despite the plethora of research on correlates of adolescent religiosity,

few studies have examined the contribution of socialization factors to adolescent

religiosity in the context of non-Western Muslim samples from different family

contexts. To address this gap, the current study explored the contribution of par-

enting (direct socialization) and community engagement (indirect socialization)

factors on religiosity among 895 Malaysian Muslim high school students from

single-/non-parent and two-parent families. T-test results showed that religiosity

was higher for students from two-parent families than single-/non-parent parent

homes. After controlling for (a) social desirability, (b) gender and (c) school type,

the hypothesized factors of: parental attachment, parental religious socialization,

parental supervision, youth organization involvement, school attachment, and

mosque involvement significantly predicted religiosity for the full sample of stu-

dents from both types of families. Hierarchical regression results further revealed

that while both indirect and direct parental socialization factors were stronger

predictors of religiosity for two-parent families than single-/non-parent families,

direct parental socialization effects were more robust. Implications of the findings

are discussed.

Keywords Religious socialization � Adolescents � Malaysia � Religiosity �Family structure

S. E. Krauss (&) � A. Hamzah � I. A. Ismail � T. Suandi � S. R. Hamzah � D. Dahalan

Institute for Social Science Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia

e-mail: [email protected]

F. Idris

Universiti Kebangsaan, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

123

Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518

DOI 10.1007/s13644-012-0068-z

Author's personal copy

In the context of religious development, adolescence has been defined by Hall

(1904) as the ‘age of conversion’ for its uniqueness as a period of great biological,

psychological, cognitive and social change. Adolescence is when youth energy

shifts from themselves to their relationships with others, toward resolving the task of

identity consolidation and formation through trying to gain a deeper understanding

of oneself in the context of others (Erikson 1980). It is also the age where young

people begin to concern themselves with questions of who they are, not just in the

context of other people but within the realm of life’s ‘big questions,’ in a search for

meaning and a reason for being (Ream and Savin-Williams 2006). Religion is a

natural medium for exploring these questions, as it provides answers to questions

that go beyond material existence and address concerns of an ‘ultimate’ nature.

According to Emmons (1999: 875), ‘‘Religion invests human existence with

meaning by establishing goals and value systems that pertain to all aspects of a

person’s life, with the potential to confer unity upon discordant impulses and

strivings.’’ For young people searching to understand themselves and life, religion

often acts as a means of addressing meaninglessness and instability that can occur as

a result of the multiple changes that adolescence undergo in this stage of

development (Garbarino 2000).

It has become widely accepted that adolescence is a significant period for the

development of religiosity (Desmond et al. 2010). Religiosity has been defined as

‘‘the extent to which an individual is committed to the religion he or she professes

and its teachings, such that the individual’s attitudes and behaviors reflect this

commitment’’ (Johnson et al. 2001, p. 25). A large body of research has studied

factors contributing to adolescent religious development, with the majority focusing

on the emotional and cognitive aspects of religiosity (Regnerus et al. 2004).

Through this line of inquiry, social scientists have learned much about teenagers’

religious lives, yet less is known about the social environment through which

religious development occurs. Apart from the parent–child relationship, there are

still significant gaps in understanding the influence of adolescents’ social world on

their religious development, especially in the context of adolescents from non-

Western, non-Judeo-Christian backgrounds (Regnerus et al. 2004).

Theoretically, explaining religious development among adolescents is still a

relatively new undertaking, although several approaches have received considerable

attention by researchers. Benson et al. (2003) discussed the multidimensional nature

of spiritual development among children and youth as a developmental process that

is shaped by both individual and ecological factors. The channeling theory or

hypothesis has gained significant attention as an approach that looks at the role of

parents in ‘channeling’ their youth to peer groups and community institutions that

share similar beliefs and practices as parents (Martin et al. 2003). Understood within

the context of a social learning paradigm, spiritual modeling is a more direct-effect

approach that purports that adolescents model the religious behaviors and norms of

respected others, often parents (King and Mueller 2004). Another important

theoretical line of inquiry related to social context and religious development is that

of attachment theory. According to Ream and Savin-Williams (2006), one of the

most consistent findings in the literature on religious socialization is the quality of

young peoples’ relationships with their parents as a determinant of the effectiveness

500 Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518

123

Author's personal copy

of parental religious socialization. The religiosity of securely attached youth, i.e.,

those who have positive relationships with their parents, tends to correspond with

their parents’ religiosity, while the religiosity of insecurely attached youth tends to

differ from that of their parents. Attachment theory has also been used to explain

religious conversion and apostasy, as well as the role of families, religious

institutions and other social attachments on religious involvement and non-

involvement.

Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979) has also been used as a basis

for explaining the multifaceted role that social and community factors such as

parents, friends, schools and community play as key developmental supports of

adolescent religious development. Such ecological approaches go beyond the

parent–child relationship and focus on the inputs that young people receive outside

the home as supports to their developing religious beliefs and practices.

In the context of the current study, despite the recent general interest in

religiosity among Muslims, little work has been done on understanding how

social context influences the religious development of Muslim youth. Much of

the research on social and contextual factors has been carried out in the U.S.,

making use of national and longitudinal data sets, which generally do not exist

in most majority Muslim countries. Although many studies conducted in the

West have included Muslims in their sample, little attempt has been made to

delve into the development of Muslim religiosity in the context of majority

Muslim countries where unique cultural and normative differences exist,

including the central role that parents, extended family and religious institutions,

mosques in particular, still play in societies that remain more traditional than

those in the West (Taylor 2006). This omission in the current literature on youth

religious socialization is thus an important one that needs to be addressed.

Without a better understanding of these developmental processes of over one-

quarter of the world’s youth population, our general understanding of religious

socialization and development will be limited, thereby hindering further

theoretical development in this area.

Religious Socialization: The Roles of Family and Community

From their comprehensive meta-analysis on religious socialization across the

lifespan, Hood et al. (2009) point to parents as the most powerful early influence on

child religious development. The influence of parents tends to decline, however, as

young people enter adolescence as their broadening social contexts bring other

factors into the fore, such as peers, educational settings, religious schooling, and the

mass media. Throughout the process, parents and other potential socialization

agents ‘‘reinforcing the same or similar religious perspectives tend to strengthen the

socialization effect on young people. Trends established early in life for people to

become more or less religious may continue into adulthood as well’’ (Hood et al.

2009: 125; Myers 1996).

Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518 501

123

Author's personal copy

Most researchers have identified the family/parents, church (i.e., religious

institutions and education), and peers as the main agents of religious socialization,

with some arguing for the family as the principle agent with peers and religious

institutions as secondary agents (Gunnoe and Moore 2002; Martin et al. 2003;

Regnerus et al. 2004; Petts 2009). Furthermore, much of the literature has pointed to

the quality of parental and family relationships as key contributors to adolescent

religious involvement and religiosity (Brody et al. 1995; Mahoney et al. 2003;

Smith and Kim 2003; Hood et al. 2009). Smith and Sikkink (2003), in their study of

religious retention, reported that greater religious commitment, religious similarity

and intentionality of parents in transmitting their faith were key factors in the

children following the faith of their parents and on the quality of relationships

between parents and their children. Ozorak (1989) found parents’ religious

affiliation and practices related to all aspects of religiosity during early and middle

adolescence, with less of an association among older adolescents. In his study,

Erickson (1992) reported that religious activity at home (i.e., prayer and family

devotions) exhibited greater influence on adolescents’ religious commitment than

peers or religious education, while others have shown that young people tend to

replicate the religious beliefs and practices of their parents over time (Snell 2009).

Although parents are a powerful influence on adolescent religious development,

other influences outside of the home have been shown to have an impact. Alongside

parents’ influence on religiosity, peers are frequently cited as a major influence in

the religious development of adolescents. King et al. (2002) found that both family

and peer influences were both significant predictors of adolescent experience of God

and importance of religion among a sample of high school students. Using data from

three waves of the National Survey of Children in the U.S., Gunnoe and Moore

(2002) found that subsequent young adult religiosity was best predicted by their

peers’ church attendance patterns during high school, ethnicity (African American),

and gender (female). In their study of American youth from Grade 7 to Grade 12

from six Protestant denominations, Martin et al. (2003) found that peers modestly

mediated the relationship between parental influence and faith maturity. Regnerus

et al. (2004) examined several ecological influences that may bear on adolescent

religiosity and its development, including the role of family, parents, peers, school

and community. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent

Health in the U.S., they found that parents, friends and school context strongly

influenced the religious service attendance habits of adolescents in Grades 7–12,

which further shaped the importance of religion in their lives.

Religious institutions and religious education have also received attention by

researchers studying the role of socialization and social context in the development

of adolescent religiosity. Erickson (1992, p. 171) found support for the channeling

hypothesis when he argued that parents indirectly contribute to religiosity by

channeling their children into religious educational institutions that contribute to

religiosity by ‘‘blending the religious institution with peers who are religious.’’

Smith and Sikkink (2003) cite several studies on the effects of parochial schooling

on the religious commitment of Jewish and Catholic youth (e.g., Himmelfarb 1977;

Greeley et al. 1976; Lazerwitz 1995) suggesting that parochial education increases

religious commitment.

502 Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518

123

Author's personal copy

Other factors embedded within communities have received less attention in the

literature. Important community institutions such as schools have only recently been

looked at for their possible role in religious development. Drawing on data from the

Add Health survey that included a mix of religious and non-religious schools,

Regnerus et al. (2004) found that the school environment—particularly whether

one’s schoolmates are inclined toward religion—matters for youths’ own religious

service attendance and how important they consider religion in their lives. In

addition to schools, Snell (2009) studied the prospect of religious youth ministry

programs as potential contributors to the development of religiosity in youth by

acting as an extension of parental religiosity, considering that parents are often the

reason for youth group participation. Snell’s findings, though more robust for later

adolescents, indicated that religious youth group participation influenced several

religious factors.

Family Structure and Religious Socialization

In addition to the importance of parenting and family relationships on the religious

socialization of young people, the role of family structure has become more

prevalent with the dramatic structural changes that have occurred in families over

the past 30 years (Rindfleisch et al. 1997). In general, existing research has found

that the nature of the parent–child relationship and the structure of the family have

an influence on religious transmission (Chadwick and Top 1993; Myers 1996;

Gunnoe and Moore 2002; Bader and Desmond 2006).

The majority of findings on family structure have consistently shown that young

people growing up in traditional, two-parent families report higher levels of

religiosity (Myers 1996; Regnerus et al. 2004). Although less theoretical work has

been done that attempts to explain the importance of two-parent families in

transmitting religiosity, Petts (2009) argues that married parents may be more

capable of providing stable religious socialization for their children than unmarried

or single parents due to greater consistency in religious teaching that is further

reinforced by multiple family members. Therefore, ‘‘parental religious socialization

may affect the religiosity of offspring directly, via communication of explicit

religious messages and teaching of religious routines and practices, as well as

indirectly, through the channeling of youth activities and the selection of

friendships’’ (Zhai et al. 2007, p. 126). In contrast, youth raised in single-parent

families may not receive the same level of religious socialization; ‘‘single parents

may be less likely to attend religious services themselves, and youth may have access

to fewer family members that reinforce religious teachings’’ (Petts 2009, p. 555).

The literature on family structure, specifically on the differences in religious

socialization among youth in the context of one and two-parent families, indicates

that the religious socialization process for young people in two-parent families

differs from those from single-parent families. Aside from the evidence showing

that religiosity among youth from two-parent families is generally higher than those

from single-parent families, two-parent families are also more likely to be involved

in religious communities and religious activities outside of the home. From this it is

Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518 503

123

Author's personal copy

assumed that the process of religious socialization for young people growing up in

two-parent homes will involve more inputs from community factors and institutions

than those from single-parent families.

Religious Socialization Among Muslim Adolescents in Malaysia

In the Malaysian Muslim (Malay) family system, which is heavily influenced by

Islamic customs and practices, the father is responsible for the care and protection of

his family and children (Hossain et al. 2005). With the ongoing modernization of

Malaysia, however, traditional roles and customs have given way to new trends and

social realities, particularly within the traditional family structure, including rising

divorce rates and the growth of single-parent (mostly single-mother) families

(Baharudin et al. 2011). With significant rises in adolescent social problems over the

past generation, these changes have prompted considerable interest on the effects of

family structure on adolescent’s lives and well-being (Mohamed 2002). Despite this

general concern, however, few attempts have been made to understand how changes

in family structure have impacted the religious socialization and development of

Muslim youth.

From the basic teachings of Islam that stress the importance of parents on the

religious upbringing of children, to a variety of anthropological and observational

studies on Muslims societies, there is much evidence to indicate that social and

contextual factors are important contributors to Muslim adolescent religious

development. Islamic teachings based primarily in the Qur’an and traditions of

Prophet Muhammad tend to place special emphasis on the role of parents, the

religious community and the mosque in the religious upbringing of children and

youth (Dhami and Sheikh 2000; Taylor 2006). Extrapolating from the life and

practices of traditional Muslim communities dating back to Muhammad’s Medina,

children and youth have always been active participants in the mosque and religious

community (Taylor 2006). From these experiences, religious lessons were handed

down and the practice of Islam was modeled by the adults in the community.

This practice has extended to the present day in many Muslim countries,

including Malaysia, where one can see the presence of children and youth at the

mosque as full participants in the religious community. Mosques also act as

educational institutions where young people often meet for religious classes and

programs, and they are often embedded within neighborhoods and communities.

The role of schools also plays a central role in the lives of Malaysian youth, who

receive both secular and religious lessons along with co-curricular activities. Youth

organizations and associations are also present both inside and outside of the formal

education system. In 2006, Malaysia boasted 2,723 active youth associations in the

country, including sports and recreation-based groups, service organizations,

religious groups, uniformed clubs (e.g. Scouts, Red Cross) and others (Malaysia

2006).

Despite this high prevalence of Muslim youth religious socialization, the area

remains considerably understudied. Drawing primarily on ecological systems and

attachment theories, therefore, the current study aimed to compare the contribution

504 Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518

123

Author's personal copy

of socialization factors, i.e., parenting and community engagement, to religiosity

among Malaysian Muslim secondary school students from single and two-parent

families. From the literature presented above, the study set out to test the following

hypotheses: (1) that religiosity would be higher among youth from two-parent

families; (2) that parenting (i.e., parental attachment, parental supervision and

parental religious socialization) and community engagement (i.e., school engage-

ment, mosque involvement and youth organization involvement) factors would

significantly predict adolescent religiosity for the full sample; but that (3) the

contribution of individual parenting and community engagement factors to

religiosity would differ according to family type.

Method

Participants

The sample included 895 third year Muslim high school students (M Age = 16.06,

SD = .25; 50.5 % male; 75.7 % urban1; 98.1 % Malay) from 16 public secondary

schools: 11 national secondary schools2 and five religious secondary schools

throughout the Klang Valley (greater Kuala Lumpur region). Approximately 68.6 %

of the teens were living with both parents, 19 % were living with either their mother

or father only and 7 % were living with someone other than their parents. Roughly

27 % of the fathers and 23 % of the mothers had at least a 4-year college degree.

The mean family income for the sample was RM4,325 per month (approximately

USD1,441), which is nearly equal to the national average monthly household

income for urban families of RM4,356 (Department of Statistics, Malaysia 2007).

Procedures

Prior to data collection a pilot test was conducted with 36 students from one

secondary school to ensure clarity of the survey items and reliability of the scales.

During the pilot test, respondents were encouraged to highlight any items that were

not clear or difficult to understand. Unclear items were later reworded for greater

clarity. For both the pilot test and field test all scales were translated into Malay

language by the researchers and then reverse translated to ensure consistency and

accuracy. Translated items were only used after full consensus of the 8-member

research team was reached. On the survey booklet itself, all items were presented in

both Malay and English.

1 Malaysian national (public) schools are divided into urban, rural and sub-urban classifications; the

sample in this study was primarily drawn from an urban school population residing within the Kuala

Lumpur metropolitan area.2 Malaysian national secondary schools are sub-divided into several types: National Secondary Schools

(Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan), Religious Secondary Schools (Sekolah Menengah Agama), National-

Type Secondary School (Sekolah Menengah Jenis Kebangsaan) (also referred to as Mission Schools),

Technical Schools (Sekolah Menengah Teknik), Residential Schools and MARA Junior Science College

(Maktab Rendah Sains MARA).

Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518 505

123

Author's personal copy

Prior to full data collection, approval to carry out the study was first sought from

the Malaysian Ministry of Education at both the Federal and State levels. As the

lead university involved in the study did not require ethics approval for social

science survey research at the time of the present study, ethics approval from the

Ministry of Education and the individual schools was sufficient following their

review of the survey questionnaire contents. The respondents were encouraged to

answer all questions on the survey but were also reminded that their participation

was voluntary and that they were free to decline to respond to any question that they

were not comfortable answering.

Upon approval, the first 12 schools included in the sample were selected

randomly from a master list of all public secondary schools in the Klang Valley.

Random selection yielded a total of 12 schools, 11 government schools and one

religious school. To balance out the sample by school type, another four religious

schools were added to bring the total number of schools to 16, with an overall

sample size of 895 students. Due to restrictions posed by the Education Ministry

limiting the research team’s ability to randomly select students, a direct request was

made to each school’s Headmaster/Headmistress to personally select 50 students

comprising an equal mix according to gender and academic performance. The

median self-report score for the student’s grades was 4.0 (half B’s and half C’s), on

a scale of one (mostly D’s or lower) to seven (mostly A’s).

Data were collected using survey method. At each school, the research team

members administered the questionnaires in groups. Questionnaires were given to

the respondents and collected as soon as they were completed. Respondents were

given 45 min–1 h to complete the surveys. Scores for each scale were summed

(negatively worded items were reverse scored). For all analyses, missing data were

addressed through listwise deletion. Data were entered, cleaned and analyzed using

SPSS v.19. All measures used in the study were adolescents’ self-report.

Measures

Islamic Religiosity

There has been much debate in the past regarding how to best define and measure

religiosity (Benson 2004). As a result, there are numerous measures of religiosity

(Hill and Hood 1999). For measuring religiosity among Muslims, however, several

authors have stressed the importance of using multi-dimensional measures relevant

to the specifics of the Islamic faith (Abu-Raiya and Pargament 2010). In line with

this perspective, for the dependent variables the Muslim Religiosity–Personality

Inventory (MRPI) was used (Krauss et al. 2006). The MRPI is comprised of two

main constructs: Islamic Worldview (IW) and Religious Personality (RP), which

were combined for an overall measure of Muslim religiosity (a = 0.90).

The IW construct is based on the aqidah (creed) of traditional Sunni Islam and

measures the level of agreement with statements relating to the Islamic pillars of

faith (arkan al-Iman) (i.e., belief in: God, Angels, Messengers and Prophets of God,

Books of Revelation, The Day of Judgment, and Divine Decree), which represent

506 Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518

123

Author's personal copy

the foundation of the Islamic aqidah. Example items include, ‘‘All human activities

must be done for the sake of Allah,’’ ‘‘Allah will not test a person who internalizes

and practices religion,’’ ‘‘To fully develop their nations, Muslims cannot completely

follow Islamic teachings,’’ ‘‘Worldly life cannot be separated from life hereafter,’’

and ‘‘All Islamic laws can be modified to fulfill contemporary needs.’’ The IW

portion of the MRPI included 18 items that were based on a six-point Likert scale

ranging from one—‘strongly disagree,’ to six—‘strongly agree.’

The RP construct reflects the manifestation of Islamic worldview in ‘‘righteous

works,’’ as promoted by Islamic teachings. Such actions or behaviors include those

occurring on four levels: actions towards God; actions towards fellow human

beings; actions toward non-human beings (animals, the environment, etc.); and

actions towards oneself. Example items include, ‘‘I find time to recite the Qur’an

even if I am busy,’’ ‘‘I try to understand the meaning of Qur’anic words/verses,’’ ‘‘I

take advantage of opportunities to understand Islam with my family,’’ ‘‘Whenever

possible, I pray in congregation,’’ ‘‘I feel worried when I hurt my parents,’’ ‘‘I

respect other people’s opinions,’’ ‘‘I do not expose the shortcomings of others,’’ ‘‘I

make effort not to display my personal good deeds,’’ and ‘‘I make effort to make my

guests feel as comfortable as possible.’’ The RP portion of the MRPI included 27

items that were based on a six-point scale ranging from: one—‘never,’ to six—

‘always.’

Parental Attachment

Parental attachment was measured using the revised version of the Inventory of

Parent and Peer Attachment (IPPA) (Armsden and Greenberg 1987). The IPPA

assesses adolescents’ perceptions of the positive and negative affective/cognitive

dimension of relationships with parents—particularly how well these figures serve as

sources of psychological security (Armsden and Greenberg 1987). The revised IPPA

is comprised of 25 items (a = 0.91). Although the revised IPPA comprises a separate

scale for each parent, for the sake of brevity, in the current study only one IPPA scale

was used replacing ‘father’ or ‘mother’ with ‘parents,’ in line with the original IPPA

scale format. Example items include, ‘‘My parents respect my feelings,’’ ‘‘I like to get

my parents’ point of view on things I’m concerned about,’’ ‘‘My parents sense when

I’m upset about something,’’ and ‘‘When we discuss things, my parents consider my

point of view.’’ The IPPA is a self-report questionnaire. In the current study, in line

with the other measures, a six-point Likert scale response format ranging from one—

‘strongly disagree,’ to six—‘strongly agree’ was used.

Parental Supervision

Parental supervision was measured using a six-item version of the Parental

Supervision scale (PSS) (Cochran et al. 1994) (a = 0.74). The PSS was designed to

measure the control effect of parental supervision. The original scale comprised three

items: (1) When I was younger my parents kept a close eye on me; (2) When I was

younger my parents recognized when I had done something wrong; and (3) When I was

younger my parents punished me when they knew I had done something wrong. An

Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518 507

123

Author's personal copy

additional three items were added to measure the respondents’ perceptions of current

level of parental supervision. The additional three items are: (4) My parents still keep a

close eye on me; (5) My parents recognize when I do something wrong; and (6) My

parents punish me when they know I have done something wrong. The PSS is a self-

report questionnaire with a six-point Likert scale response format ranging from one—

‘strongly disagree,’ to six—‘strongly agree.’

Parental Religious Socialization

Parental religious socialization was measured using the 10-item Socialization-Based

Religiosity Scale (SBRS) (Granqvist and Hagekull 1999). This scale was created to

measure the degree of transmission and adoption of religious standards and

practices from parent to offspring. According to the scale’s authors, the SBRS ‘‘may

be used when research efforts are directed at determining to what extent the

offspring has adopted the religious standards of his or her parents’’ (Granqvist and

Hagekull 1999, p. 269). In the current study, two items were removed from the

original SBRS scale due to their low item-total correlation scores, leaving a

composite of 8 items (a = 0.77). As with the IPPA scale, only one SBRS scale was

used replacing ‘father’ or ‘mother’ with ‘parents.’ Wording of the items was also

slightly adjusted for relevance to the study sample. The items on the SBRS used in

the current study are, ‘‘I feel sympathetic towards my parents’ views on religious

issues,’’ ‘‘I will probably speak to my children about religious issues in a similar

way as my parents do to me,’’ ‘‘Religion is as important to me as it is to my

parents,’’ ‘‘I pray as often as my parents do,’’ ‘‘My parents and I are equally active

religiously,’’ ‘‘My religious beliefs correspond with my parents religious beliefs,’’

‘‘My parents and I attend the mosque about equally often,’’ and ‘‘I read the Qur’an

as often as my parents do.’’ The SBRS is a self-report questionnaire with a six-point

Likert scale response format ranging from one—‘strongly disagree,’ to six—

‘strongly agree.’

School Engagement

School engagement was measured using a six-item scale measuring the respon-

dents’ adherence to the educational goals and values of their school (Cochran et al.

1994) (a = 0.74). The items on the scale are, ‘‘Going to school has been an

enjoyable experience for me,’’ ‘‘Doing well in school is important for getting a good

job,’’ ‘‘Some people like school very much. Others don’t. How do you feel about

going to school,’’ ‘‘How often do you feel the schoolwork you are assigned is

meaningful and important,’’ ‘‘How interesting are most of your courses to you,’’ and

‘‘How important do you think the things you are learning in school are going to be

for your later life.’’ All items were measured with six-point scales.

Mosque Involvement

Mosque involvement was measured using two items (r = 0.53, p \ 0.001). The first

item, ‘‘How often do you go to the mosque,’’ was measured on a four-point scale

508 Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518

123

Author's personal copy

ranging from one = never to four = everyday. The second item, ‘‘How often do

you engage in voluntary activities at the mosque,’’ was also measured on a four-

point scale ranging from one = never to four = everyday.

Youth Organization Involvement

Youth organization involvement was measured with two items (r = 0.53, p \ 0.001).

Respondents were first asked, ‘‘How would you rate your level of involvement in a

youth organization/youth club?’’ The first item was measured on a four-point scale

ranging from one = not involved/not very involved to four = highly involved. Then,

they were asked, ‘‘If you are involved, how many hours per week are you involved?’’

The second item was measured on a four-point scale ranging from one = 1 h or less

(including those not involved) to four = more than 3 h.

Family Type

Family type was measured with one item. Respondents were asked to indicate their

family structure. Responses initially ranged from both parents at home, only mother

at home, only father at home, and neither parents at home. For the sake of analysis,

responses two, three and four were combined to create a new category of ‘single-/

non-parent household’ to form a dichotomous variable of 0 = single-/non-parent

household and 1 = two-parent household.

Control Variables

An eight-item short version of the Crowne-Marlowe social desirability scale was used

to measure social desirability responding (Ray 1984). Self-enhancement strivings,

such as those typically found in the context of studies on religiosity, are prevalent,

potent, and universal and should thus be accounted for (Sedikides and Gebauer 2010).

The original eight-item Crowne-Marlowe short scale used in the current study reported

satisfactory reliabilities among samples of German and Australian respondents (Ray

1984). In the current study, however, reliability of the scale was lower at a = .54. In

addition to social desirability, to minimize the possibility that results might be due to

spurious effects, gender (1 = male; 0 = female) and school type (1 = government

school; 0 = religious school) were also included as control variables.

Results

Means, standard deviations, ranges, and t-test scores for the test variables by family

type are listed in Table 1. Despite the differences in sample size by family type,

Levene’s tests indicated equal variances for all the test variables except mosque

involvement and religiosity. From the results, the mean religiosity score was

significantly higher for youth from two-parent families (M = 4.64, SD = .50) than

those from single-/non-parent families (M = 4.40, SD = .61) t = -5.72, p \ .001.

For the community engagement factors, the results indicate that youth from two-

Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518 509

123

Author's personal copy

parent families were more involved in youth organizations (t = -3.80, p \ .001) as

well as in the mosque (t = -3.24, p \ .01), and were more engaged in school

(t = -2.48, p \ .05). For the parenting factors, youth from two-parent families

indicated higher levels of parental religious socialization (t = -5.63, p \ .001)

parental supervision (t = -3.55, p \ .001) and parental attachment (t = -2.78,

p \ .01).

In Table 2, partial correlations among the test variables were calculated for the

overall sample, as well as for each family type controlling for social desirability,

gender, and school type (and family type for the overall sample). For the overall

sample, all of the parenting and community engagement factors were positively

correlated with religiosity. The strongest association was found between religiosity

and parental religious socialization (r = .52, p \ .001), while moderate-to-low

correlations were found between religiosity and school engagement (r = .38,

p \ .001), parental supervision (r = .35, p \ .001), and parental attachment

(r = .33, p \ .001), mosque involvement (r = .28, p \ .001), and youth organi-

zation involvement (r = .17, p \ .18). Using Fisher’s r-to-z transformation test to

compare all the correlations by family type, the results indicated no significant

differences in correlations with religiosity between the two family types.

Prior to testing the direct and indirect effects of parental socialization factors on

religiosity by family type, it was first necessary to determine the extent to which the

socialization factors differed for two-parent and single-/non-parent households. We

first included a model that only focused on the predictors, without the connection to

youth religiosity, to allow for a cleaner analysis of the extent to which the indirect

and direct parental socialization factors differ by family type.

To test the relationship, multiple linear regression was employed as shown in

Table 3. Preliminary analyses were conducted to ensure no violation of the

assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and homoscedasticity. Gender,

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the test variables by family type

Variable Range Single-/non-parent

(N = 281)

Two-parent

(N = 614)

t

Mean SD Mean SD

Dependent variable

Religiosity 1–6 4.40 .61 4.64 .50 -5.72***

Community engagement factors

School engagement 1–6 4.73 .73 4.86 .69 -2.48*

Mosque involvement 1–4 1.94 .85 2.15 .92 -3.24**

Youth organization involvement 1–4 1.60 .78 1.82 .83 -3.80***

Parenting factors

Parental religious socialization 1–6 4.53 .78 4.82 .66 -5.63***

Parental supervision 1–6 4.96 .77 5.14 .68 -3.55***

Parental attachment 1–6 4.09 .77 4.23 .72 -2.78**

Note: * p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001

510 Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518

123

Author's personal copy

school type and social desirability were entered as controls, followed by the three

community engagement factors (school engagement, mosque involvement and

youth organization involvement) and the three parenting factors (parental religious

socialization, parental supervision and parental attachment). The results showed that

in addition to the controls gender and school type, youth organizational involvement

and parental religious socialization significantly and positively correlated with

family type, indicating higher associations for both for youth from two-parent

families.

To address hypothesis 2, the relationships between all of the independent

variables and religiosity were analyzed using hierarchical linear regression as shown

in Table 4. Gender, school type, social desirability and family type were entered in

Step 1 as controls. In Step 2 the three community engagement factors were entered,

followed by the three parenting factors, which were entered in Step 3. The first

model explained 19.7 % (p \ .001) of the variance in religiosity; Step 2, including

the three community engagement factors, explained an additional 16.9 % (p \ .001)

of the variance; while in Step 3, the addition of the three parenting factors explained

an additional 12.5 % (p \ .001) of the variance in religiosity. In terms of individual

effects, in the final model, all six socialization factors significantly predicted

religiosity, with parental religious socialization and school engagement indicating

the highest beta values, respectively.

Table 2 Partial correlation coefficients of the test variables with religiosity for the overall sample and by

family type

Variable Overall sample Single-/Non-parent Two-parent Fisher’s z

Youth organization involvement .17*** .11 .18*** -.98

School engagement .38*** .40*** .37*** .48

Mosque involvement .28*** .23*** .30*** -1.03

Parental religious socialization .52*** .50*** .52*** -.37

Parental supervision .35*** .28*** .38*** -1.53

Parental attachment .33*** .27*** .36*** -1.36

Note: * p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001

Table 3 Beta coefficients for

predictors of family type

(N = 890)

Note: * p \ .05, ** p \ .01,

*** p \ .001; R2 = .09,

F = 9.19, p \ .001

Variable B SE B b

Social desirability -.06 .07 -.03

Gender -.11 .03 -.11**

School type -.16 .04 -.17***

Youth organization involvement .04 .02 .07*

School engagement .01 .02 .01

Mosque involvement .01 .02 .01

Parental religious socialization .07 .03 .11**

Parental supervision .04 .02 .06

Parental attachment -.01 .03 -.02

Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518 511

123

Author's personal copy

To address hypothesis 3, a second hierarchical regression analysis was conducted

including only the significant predictors from Table 3 to determine the extent to

which family structure differences in religiosity are mediated by indirect and direct

parental socialization factors (Table 5). In Step 1, family type was entered along

with the controls gender and school type and was significant with a beta of .11

(p \ .01). In Step 2, youth organization involvement was added and found to be

significant as a predictor of religiosity with a beta of .16 (p \ .001), while the beta

for family type remained significant but slightly lower at .10 (p \ .01). In Step 3,

parental religious socialization was added to the model and was found to be

significant with a beta of .49 (p \ .001) while family type was no longer significant

as a predictor of religiosity, indicating a full mediating effect for parental religious

socialization and a slight mediating effect for youth organizational involvement.

Discussion

The current study set out to address existing gaps in the current literature on Muslim

adolescent religious development including examining Muslim adolescent

Table 4 Beta coefficients for

hypothesis 2: direct effects on

religiosity (N = 890)

Step 1 R2 = .20, F = 54.20,

p \ .001, Step 2 R2 = .37,

F = 72.58, p \ .001, R2

D = .17, F D = 78.18,

p \ .001, Step 3 R2 = .49,

F = 84.65, p \ .001, R2

D = .13, F D = 71.95, p \ .001

Note. * p \ .05, ** p \ .01,

*** p \ .001

Variable B SE B b

Step 1

Social desirability .48 .07 .20***

Gender -.06 .03 -.05

School type -.41 .04 -.35***

Family type .12 .04 .10**

Step 2

Social desirability .24 .07 .10***

Gender -.09 .03 -.09**

School type -.26 .04 -.23***

Family type .08 .03 .06*

Youth organization involvement .07 .02 .11***

School engagement .25 .02 .32***

Mosque involvement .14 .02 .23***

Step 3

Social desirability .14 .06 .06*

Gender -.11 .03 -.10***

School type -.19 .03 -.17***

Family type .02 .03 .02

Youth organization involvement .06 .02 .08**

School engagement .14 .02 .18***

Mosque involvement .09 .02 .15***

Parental religious socialization .24 .02 .31***

Parental supervision .10 .02 .13***

Parental attachment .05 .02 .06*

512 Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518

123

Author's personal copy

religiosity in a non-Western culture, examining the relationship between family

structure and religiosity, as well as examining the relations of parenting and

community engagement factors to religiosity. The cross-sectional study sample

included 895 students from religious and non-religious secondary schools in

Malaysia.

To reiterate, the following hypotheses were tested: (1) that religiosity would be

higher among youth from two-parent families; (2) that parenting (i.e., parental

attachment, parental supervision and parental religious socialization) and commu-

nity engagement (i.e., school engagement, mosque involvement and youth

organization involvement) factors would significantly predict adolescent religiosity

for the full sample; but that (3) the contribution of parenting and community

engagement factors to religiosity would differ according to family type. Hypothesis

1 was supported; religiosity was higher for youth from two-parent families than

single-/non-parent families. Hypothesis 2 was also supported; all three community

engagement factors as well as all three parenting factors significantly predicted

adolescent religiosity for the full sample. Hypothesis 3 was only partially supported,

however; regression analyses in Tables 3 and 5 indicated that only youth

organizational involvement and parental religious socialization differed as religious

socialization factors by family type.

The results of hypothesis 1 are much in line with previous findings showing

youth from two-parent families are higher in religiosity than those from single-

parent families (Myers 1996; Regnerus et al. 2004). Furthermore, the results for

hypothesis 2 indicate that the full parenting and community engagement model was

a moderate predictor of religiosity, as reflected by the R2 (.49) coefficient for the full

model in Step 3. The predictive ability of the overall model indicates that, barring

limitations, parenting and community engagement are both important factors in the

development of religiosity for Muslim youth from Malaysia. The addition of

community engagement or indirect parental socialization factors, followed by direct

parental socialization factors contributed an additional 17 % (p \ .001) and 12.5%

(p \ .001) of the variance, respectively, in religiosity. Furthermore, all six

individual factors showed direct predictive effects on religiosity in the final model,

ranging from parental religious socialization as the strongest predictor, to parental

attachment as the weakest. The findings further support the central role that parents

continue to play in the religious socialization of young Muslims, along with key

community institutions such as schools and mosques.

Turning our attention to Hypothesis 3 and speaking directly to differences in

socialization as they pertain to family type, results from Table 4 indicate a modest

indirect parental socialization effect and a more robust direct parenting effect, as

evidenced by the decrease in the significance of family type in Step 2 after

introducing the community engagement factors, and in Step 3 after introducing the

direct parental factors. This would indicate that two-parent families are slightly

better at socializing their children through indirect means and significantly more

effective at socializing their youth directly, specifically through parental religious

socialization (Table 5). We can look to attachment theory as a possible explanation

here as existing research has shown that the most important pathway to

religiousness in the case of relatively secure parental attachment goes via

Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518 513

123

Author's personal copy

socialization as security is not expected to have any effects on religiosity

independent of socialization (Granqvist 2002; Krauss et al. 2012). The findings here,

through the mediating role of parental religious socialization, seem to indicate that

secure attachment is stronger in two-parent families, as a ‘‘positive’’ affective

quality stemming from a more stable and functional family environment makes the

offspring more receptive to positive religious socialization. Family structure has

been linked to secure parental attachment among children and youth in a variety of

studies (e.g., Love and Murdock 2004; Amato and Keith 1991; White et al. 1985).

The extent to which family type differences were mediated by parental

channeling (Martin et al. 2003; Cornwall 1989; Himmelfarb 1980) for the current

study population appears to be only modest. Somewhat surprising perhaps is the

lack of difference by family type in mosque involvement as a socialization factor,

which would correlate to the role of congregational or church attendance in Western

contexts. Studies by Cornwall (1989) and Himmelfarb (1980) found a significant

mediation role of congregational attendance along with peer networks. Cornwall,

specifically, found that in her Mormon sample, family/parenting variables had little

direct influence on religiousness of offspring and clarified that the family exerted

influences that were mostly indirect through church attendance and peer networks.

Our findings seem to be more in line with Petts (2009) and Myers (1996), however,

who argued that contrary to findings from Cornwall (1989) and Erickson (1992),

parents have a primary influence on the religious socialization of offspring,

including and above any channeling effects that might also take place.

Overall, in terms of level of religiosity, as predicted by previous research, there

was clear evidence of higher religiosity among young people from two-parent

families. However, in terms of differences in how religious socialization occurs for

single/non-parent and two-parent families, the results could have been influenced by

the study sample being selected by individual school Headmasters/Headmistress’,

Table 5 Beta coefficients for

hypothesis 3: mediating effects

of family type on religiosity

(N = 894)

Note: ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001

Variable B SE B b

Step 1

Gender -.09 .03 -.08**

School type -.40 .04 -.34***

Family type .13 .04 .11**

Step 2

Gender -.10 .03 -.09**

School type -.36 .04 -.31***

Family type .11 .04 .10**

Youth organization involvement .11 .02 .16***

Step 3

Gender -.09 .03 -.08**

School type -.24 .03 -.21***

Family type .04 .03 .03

Youth organization involvement .07 .02 .10**

Parental religious socialization .38 .02 .49***

514 Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518

123

Author's personal copy

rather than according to random selection. Despite the research team’s request that

students be selected according to an even mix across gender and academic

performance being met, it is possible that ‘exemplar’ families were selected by

school personnel for participation in the study. In so doing, it is possible that they

selected families who are very involved in their respective schools, especially since

involved families are the ones they are most likely to know. It is also possible that

heavily school-involved families would be more likely to be involved in other sorts

of activities, namely religious, making it possible that in some ways families were

selected on the dependent variable, religiosity. More importantly, it is also a

possibility that the single-parent families were selected due to their being more like

the involved dual-parent families, and therefore they are particularly unrepresen-

tative of the broader population of single-parent families in these schools.

Unfortunately, we had little control over this limitation, as it was necessary in

order to gain access to the school-based target population. However, it deserves to

be highlighted that greater differences might exist between the two family structures

had a random sample of the populations been drawn. This should be considered in

future related studies.

A second limitation of the current study is the omission of a peer religiosity

measure. As was mentioned in the introduction, within the religious socialization

literature, the three major groups of variables are family, congregation, and peer

influences (Martin et al. 2003). The larger study upon which this paper is based,

however, relying more on an attachment framework, only included a peer

attachment measure rather than a peer religiosity measure. According to Granqvist

(2002), cross-sectional studies of peer attachment have shown secure attachment to

be linked to higher religiousness, in favor of the correspondence hypothesis which

states that an individual’s attachment style will be consistent across types of bonds

including those of caregivers, lovers, and God (McDonald et al. 2006). The peer

attachment measure could have been included to explore the perceived influence of

secure attachment with peers on respondents’ religiosity, however, since parental

attachment was already included to represent secure attachment we omitted the peer

attachment measure out of fear of over-controlling for secure attachment.

Although the current study did not include a peer religiosity measure, the result

of youth organization involvement having a slight mediating effect on religiosity by

family type could reflect the role of peer relationships within those organizations.

Families that channel their kids into youth organizations possibly do so out of the

belief that those organizations will have similar values as them. If the young people

from two-parent families in the study population indicated higher levels of

religiosity, then most likely they were ‘channeled’ into organizations with peers that

were also higher in religiosity than their single-/non-parent family counterparts.

Also, since Malaysia boasts many religious-based youth organizations and

programs, those involved in such programs would also most likely be socialized

by peers that share similar religious interests. Future research should consider

including the nature of youth organizations that students engage with, as well as the

kind of peer relationships that occur within them.

Despite the above limitations, we feel that the findings are an important

contribution to understanding how social context and family structure contribute to

Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518 515

123

Author's personal copy

or shape religiosity among young Muslims in the context of Muslim countries. It

should be noted that the Muslim population of Malaysia comprises *60 % of the

overall population; far less than many other Muslim countries such as those in the

Middle East or even neighboring Indonesia. Thus, Malaysia is not as homogeneous

as many other Muslim countries in terms of religious practice, culture and social

norms. Although Islam is the official religion of Malaysia, the country is also multi-

ethnic and multi-religious, with substantial populations of Buddhists, Hindus,

Christians, Taoists and others. These cultural idiosyncrasies make it difficult to

generalize the findings to other Muslim countries that are more culturally and

racially homogeneous.

The results provide evidence for the supportive role that parents and community

play as contributors to religiosity among Muslim youth, above and beyond family

structure. Future research should consider the roles of gender and school type, given

their significant contributions to the overall model in the current study. Although

there is much in the broader religiosity literature on differences in religiosity

according to gender, few studies have explored the role of Islamic schooling on

socialization and youth developmental outcomes. Muslim countries are also in need

of longitudinal study designs to explore trends related to religious development over

time. Additional measures on peer religiosity and family processes including the

roles of extended family members are also important considerations for majority

Muslim societies, where the extended family still plays a major role in the lives of

young people. Finally, especially in majority Muslim countries that are undergoing

rapid modernization such as Malaysia, the role of the media and the impact of social

networking should be considered due to the cultural-broadening element that it

brings to the lives of young people.

References

Abu-Raiya, Hisham, and Kenneth I. Pargament. 2010. Empirically based psychology of Islam: Summary

and critique of the literature. Mental Health, Religion and Culture 12: 1–23.

Amato, Paul R., and Bruce, Keith. 1991. Parental divorce and the well-being of children. PsychologicalBulletin 110: 26–46.

Armsden, Gay C., and Mark T. Greenberg. 1987. The inventory of parent and peer attachment: Individual

differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in adolescence.Journal of Youth andAdolescence 16(5):427–454.

Bader, Chrisopher D., and Scott A. Desmond. 2006. ‘‘Do as I Say and as I Do’’ The effects of consistent

parental beliefs and behaviors upon religious transmission. Sociology of Religion 67(3): 313–329.

Baharudin, Rozumah, Steven E. Krauss, Siti N. Yacoob, and Tan Jo Pei. 2011. Family processes as

predictors of antisocial behaviors among adolescents from urban, single-mother Malay families in

Malaysia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 42(4): 509–522.

Benson, Peter L. 2004. Emerging themes in research on adolescent spiritual and religious development.

Applied Developmental Science 8(1): 47–50.

Benson, Peter L., Eugene C. Roehlkepartain, and Stacey P. Rude. 2003. Spiritual development in

childhood and adolescence: Toward a field of inquiry. Applied Developmental Science 7(3):

205–213.

Brody, Gene H., Zolinda Stoneman and Douglas Flor. 1995. Linking family processes and academic

competence among rural African American youths. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(3):

567–579.

516 Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518

123

Author's personal copy

Bronfenbrenner, Uwe. 1979. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Chadwick, Bruce A., and Brent L. Top. 1993. Religiosity and delinquency among LDS adolescents.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 32(1): 51–67.

Cochran, John K., Peter B. Wood, and Bruce J. Arneklev. 1994. Is the religiosity–delinquency

relationship spurious? A test of arousal and social control theories. Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency 31: 92–123.

Cornwall, Marie. 1989. The determinants of religious behavior: A theoretical model and empirical test.

Social Forces 68: 572–592.

Department of Statistics Malaysia. 2007. Household income/basic amenities survey (HIS/BA).

http://www.statistics.gov.my/portal/index.php?lang=en. Accessed 24 August 2007.

Desmond, Scott A., Kristopher H. Morgan, and George Kikuchi. 2010. Religious development: How (and

why) does religiosity change from adolescence to young adulthood? Sociological Perspectives53(2): 247–270.

Dhami, Sangeeta, and Aziz Sheikh. 2000. The Muslim family: Predicament and promise. The WesternJournal of Medicine 173: 352–356.

Emmons, Robert A. 1999. Religion in the psychology of personality: An introduction. Journal ofPersonality 67(6): 873–889.

Erickson, Joseph A. 1992. Adolescent religious development and commitment: A structural equation

model of the role of family, peer group, and educational influences. Journal for the Scientific Studyof Religion 31(2): 131–152.

Erikson, Erik H. 1980. Identity and the life cycle. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Garbarino, James. 2000. Lost boys: Why our sons turn violent and how we can save them. New York: Free

Press.

Granqvist, Pehr. 2002. Attachment and religiosity in adolescence: Cross-sectional and longitudinal

evaluations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38(2): 254–273.

Granqvist, Pehr, and Berit Hagekull. 1999. Religiousness and perceived childhood attachment: Profiling

socialized correspondence and emotional compensation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion8(2): 254–273.

Greeley, Andrew M., William C. McCready, and Kathleen McCourt. 1976. Catholic schools in adeclining church. Kansas: Sheed and Ward.

Gunnoe, Marjorie L., and Kristin A. Moore. 2002. Predictors of religiosity among youth aged 17–22: A

longitudinal study of the national survey of children. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion41(4): 613–622.

Hall, Granville S. 1904. Adolescence, its psychology, and its relations to physiology, anthropology,sociology, sex, crime, religion and education, vol. 2. New York: D. Appleton and Co.

Hill, Peter C., and Ralph W. Hood (eds.). 1999. Measures of religiosity. Birmingham: Religious

Education Press.

Himmelfarb, Harold S. 1977. The interaction effects of parents, spouse, and schooling: Comparing the

impact. Sociological Quarterly 18: 464–477.

Hood, Ralph W., Peter C. Hill, and Bernard Spilka. 2009. The psychology of religion: An empiricalapproach, 4th ed. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hossain, Ziarat, Jaipaul L. Roopnarine, Jariah Masud, Abdullah A. Muhamed, Rozumah Baharudin,

Rohani Abdullah, and Rumaya Juhari. 2005. Mothers’ and fathers’ childcare involvement with

young children in rural families in Malaysia. International Journal of Psychology 40: 385–394.

Johnson, B.R., S.J. Jang, D.B. Larson, and S. De Li. 2001. Does adolescent religious commitment matter?

A reexamination of the effects of religiosity in delinquency. The Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 38(1): 22–45.

King, Pamela E., James L. Furrow, and Natalie Roth. 2002. The influence of families and peers on

adolescent religiousness. The Journal for Psychology and Christianity 21:109–120. http://psycnet.

apa.org/psycinfo/2002-15577-001.

King, P., and R. Mueller. 2004. Parents’ influence on adolescent religiousness: Exploring the roles of

spiritual modeling and spiritual capital. Marriage and Family: A Christian Journal 6: 413–425.

Krauss, Steven E., Azimi Hamzah, Turiman Suandi, Sidek M. Noah, Rumaya Juhari, Jamiah Manap, et al.

2006. Exploring regional differences in religiosity among Muslim youth in Malaysia. Review ofReligious Research 47(3): 238–252.

Krauss, Steven E., Ismi A. Ismail, Turiman Suandi, Azimi Hamzah, Siti R. Hamzah, Dzuhailmi Dahalan,

N. Farahana M. Daud, and Fazilah Idris. 2012. Parenting and community engagement factors as

Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518 517

123

Author's personal copy

predictors of religiosity among Muslim adolescents from Malaysia. International Journal for thePsychology of Religion (in press).

Lazerwitz, Bernard. 1995. Denominational retention and switching among American Jews. Journal forthe Scientific Study of Religion 34(4): 499–506.

Love, Keisha M., and Temara B. Murdock. 2004. Attachment to parents and psychological well-being:

An examination of young adult college students in intact families and stepfamilies. Journal ofFamily Psychology 18(4): 600–608.

Mahoney, Annette, Kenneth I. Pargament, Aaron Murray-Swank, and Nichole Murray-Swank. 2003.

Religion and the sanctification of family relationships. Review of Religious Research 44(3):

220–236.

Martin, Todd F., James White, and Daniel Perlman. 2003. Religious socialization: A test of the

channeling hypothesis of parental influence on adolescent faith maturity. Journal of AdolescentResearch 18(2): 169–187.

McDonald, Angie, Richard Beck, Steve Allison, and Larry Norsworthy. 2005. Attachment to god and

parents: Testing the correspondence vs. compensation hypotheses. Journal of Psychology andChristianity 24(1):21–28. http://www.acu.edu/img/assets/6655/AttachmenttoGodandParents.pdf.

Mohamed, Badaruddin. 2002. Planning for the children of the future—the case of Malaysia. In

Proceeding of the conference on children and the city, ed. Amman, Jordan, 11–13.

http://www.araburban.org/childcity/Papers/English/Badaruddin.pdf.

Myers, Scott M. 1996. An Interactive model of religiosity inheritance: The importance of family context.

American Sociological Review 61: 858–866.

Ozorak, Elizabeth W. 1989. Social and cognitive influences on the development of religious beliefs and

commitment in adolescence. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 28(4): 448–463.

Petts, Richard J. 2009. Trajectories of religious participation from adolescence to young adulthood.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(3): 552–571.

Ray, John J. 1984. The reliability of short social desirability scales. The Journal of Social Psychology123: 133–134.

Ream, G.L., and R.C. Savin-Williams. 2006. Religious development in adolescence. In BlackwellHandbook of Adolescence, eds. Adams, G.R., and Berzonsky, M.D, 51–59. Malden: Blackwell

Publishing.

Regnerus, Mark D., Christian Smith, and Brad Smith. 2004. Social context in the development of

adolescent religiosity. Applied Developmental Science 8(1): 27–38.

Rindfleisch, Aric, James E. Burroughs, and Frank Denton. 1997. Family structure, materialism, and

compulsive consumption. Journal of Consumer Research 23(4): 312–325.

Sedikides, Constantine, and Jochen E. Gebauer. 2010. Religiosity as self-enhancement: A meta-analysis

of the relation between socially desirable responding and religiosity. Personality and SocialPsychology Review 14: 17–36.

Smith, Christian, and Phillip Kim. 2003. Family religious involvement and the quality of parentalrelationships for families with early adolescents: A research report of the national study of youthand religion. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.

Smith, Christian, and David Sikkink. 2003. Social predictors of retention in and switching from the

religious faith of family of origin: Another look using religious tradition self-identification. Reviewof Religious Research 45(2): 188–206.

Snell, Patricia. 2009. What difference does a youth group make? A longitudinal analysis of religious

youth group participation outcomes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 48(3): 572–587.

Taylor, Pamela K. 2006. Personal responsibility with communal support: The spiritual education of

Muslim children. In Nurturing child and adolescent spirituality: perspectives from the world’sreligious traditions, ed. Karen M. Yust, Aostre N. Johnson, Sandy E. Sasso, and Eugene C.

Roehlkepartain, 352–365. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

White, Lynn K., David B. Brinkerhoff, and Alan Booth. 1985. The effect of marital disruption on child’s

attachment to parents. Journal of Family Issues 6(5): 5–22.

Zhai, Jiexia E., Christopher G. Ellison, Norval D. Glenn, and Elizabeth Marquardt. 2007. Parental divorce

and religious involvement among young adults. Sociology of Religion 68(2): 125–144.

518 Rev Relig Res (2012) 54:499–518

123

Author's personal copy