JOURNAL OF RESEARCH ON ADOLESCENCE, 29(2), 254–275

Processes of Religious and Spiritual Influence in Adolescence: A Systematic

Review of 30 Years of Research
Sam A. Hardy , Jenae M. Nelson, and Pamela Ebstyne King
Joseph P. Moore Fuller Theological Seminary
Brigham Young University

This is a systematic review of 30 years (1988-2017) of empirical research on processes of religious/spiritual influence in
adolescence. We followed a multi-step process that resulted in 241 studies organized according to eight research ques-
tions and the corresponding methods and analyses typically used to address them. We coded these studies based on
the dimensions of religiosity/spirituality and the youth outcomes involved. In some cases (quantitative studies of
mediation and moderation, as well as qualitative studies) we also coded a third process variable. Results of the coding
process revealed a number of interesting patterns. First, religiosity/spirituality is generally adaptive for adolescents,
protecting them from negative outcomes (e.g., risk behaviors and mental illness), and promoting positive youth devel-
opment and flourishing. Nevertheless, in some contexts, religiosity/spirituality may be at least partially maladaptive.
Second, there is some evidence, from experimental and longitudinal studies, that relations between religiosity/spiritu-
ality and adaptive outcomes are causal. Third, there are numerous complex and dynamic processes by which religios-
ity/spirituality relate to youth outcomes. In terms of mediation studies, the most salient mediating processes seem to
involve religiosity/spirituality dimensions, peers, values/attitudes, and social control/norms. Fourth, religiosity/spiri-
tuality is multidimensional, involving various interwoven facets at the individual and ecological levels. Private or per-
sonal aspects of religiosity/spirituality (e.g., religious/spiritual importance) tend to be more salient predictors of
outcomes than public aspects of religiosity/spirituality (e.g., religious worship service attendance). The results of this
systematic review point to promising directions for future research. First, more research is needed studying a broader
range of dimensions of religiosity/spirituality, processes of influence, and outcomes. In terms of religiosity/spirituality,
much of the prior work has focused on overall religiosity/spirituality, and religious/spiritual behaviors (e.g., worship
service attendance). In terms of outcomes, the emphasis has been on religiosity/spirituality protecting against maladap-
tive outcomes (e.g., substance use). Second, more research is needed examining the role of culture, and using more
rigorous methods (e.g., experience sampling, experimental design, longitudinal design, or mixed methods). This
systematic review provides a detailed analysis of what is known regarding processes of religious/spiritual influence in
the lives of adolescents, and hopefully better positions researchers to move the field forward.

Substantial evidence suggests religiosity and spiritu-
ality (RS) are linked to a plethora of youth outcomes,
such as constructive and destructive behaviors
(Cheung & Yeung, 2011; King & Boyatzis, 2015;
King, Ramos, & Clardy, 2013), positive youth devel-
opment (Benson, Roehlkepartain, & Scales, 2012),
mental health (Dew et al., 2008), and physical health
(Rew & Wong, 2006). What is less clear are the
processes by which RS might influence youth in
these areas. To date, the field has inadequately
addressed questions such as the following regarding
the processes of religious and spiritual influence1:
1 Is the development of RS related to the develop-
ment of youth outcomes?
Requests for reprints should be sent to Sam A. Hardy, Depart-
ment of Psychology, Brigham Young University, 1040 KMBL,
Provo, UT 84602. E-mail: sam_hardy@byu.edu
1
These eight questions and the corresponding methods for
examining them are further discussed in the introductory article
that heads the special section in which this systematic review
was published.
2 What is the directionality of relations between
RS and youth outcomes over time?
3 Is daily variability in RS linked to daily variabil-
ity in youth outcomes?
4 Are relations between RS and youth outcomes
causal?
5 What are the mediating processes by which RS
yield adaptive youth outcomes?
6 What are the moderating processes upon which
links between RS and youth outcomes are condi-
tional?
7 What typical patterns of RS and youth outcomes
are present in adolescents?
8 How do adolescents experience their RS as being
meaningfully related to other aspects of their
life?
Such questions push researchers to go beyond
merely demonstrating associations between RS and
youth outcomes to generating knowledge regarding
© 2019 Society for Research on Adolescence
DOI: 10.1111/jora.12486

the underlying processes responsible for these asso-
ciations. Given the burgeoning growth in the study
of RS development, the following paper presents a
systematic review of the literature in order to cap-
ture the state of knowledge of relations between RS
and youth outcomes and point to directions for
future research.
The Review Process
We took three steps to identify a pool of studies
for analysis. First, we used PsycINFO to identify
all empirical publications on RS among adoles-
cents published in the last 30 years (1988–2017;
for the search criteria see Appendix S1). We then
imported these 1,920 records into Endnote (ver-
sion X8) bibliographic software. Second, in End-
note we searched the abstracts using criteria
outlined in Appendix S2 to identify studies tar-
geted at the eight RS influence questions above,
based on eight methodological approaches used to
address these research questions.2 Third, we fil-
tered results for each research question, using cri-
teria outlined in Appendix S3, to ensure the
studies indeed captured processes of RS influence.
This resulted in 241 studies (see Appendix S3 for
the final numbers for each research question and
corresponding methodological category).
We then coded all studies in Zotero (version 5)
bibliographic software in a number of ways (see
Appendix S4 for coding for all studies). First, we
coded based on the dimension(s) of RS that was
the source of influence (see Appendices S5 and S6).
Numerous multidimensional models of RS have
been proposed in sociology (Cornwall, Albrecht,
Cunningham, & Pitcher, 1986; Glock & Stark, 1965;
Pearce, Hayward, & Pearlman, 2017) and psychol-
ogy (Idler et al., 2003; King, Clardy, & Ramos,
2014; Koenig, Parkerson, & Meador, 1997; Saroglou,
2011). However, each seems to be missing one or
more dimensions included in the others, so we
synthesized them into seven core dimensions of
RS, each with multiple sub-dimensions: Cognitive,
Behavioral, Affective, Identification; Well-being,
Spiritual, Ecological, as well as Transformational
RS Experiences and Overall RS (see Appendix S5
for brief descriptions of each; see Appendix S6 for
coding frequencies). Second, for each research
2
Although addressed at lengths in the limitation section, we
note studies were included only if they examined RS influences
on youth outcomes using methods that went beyond bivariate
relationships based on the identified methodological and analyti-
cal approaches pertaining to our eight questions.
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 255
question we also coded studies based on the type
of outcome, with coding categories developed
inductively and labeled using major constructs in
the field (e.g., Substance Use, Internalizing, Exter-
nalizing, Coping, Psychological Well-being, Sexual
Behavior, and Moral/Prosocial; see Appendix S7).
Third, we further coded the Mediation, Modera-
tion, and Qualitative studies based on key process
variables. We coded Mediation articles based on
the type of mediator (see Appendix S8). We found
two types of Moderation studies: those where RS
was the predictor and those where RS was the
moderator. Thus for studies testing for moderation,
in addition to coding for RS, we coded for other
types of moderator or predictor variables (see
Appendix S9). We coded Qualitative studies based
on the process of RS influence (see Appendix S10).
However, given that Qualitative studies do not
involve operationalized variables, distinctions were
often blurred between RS, the processes of influ-
ence, and the outcomes. Fourth, we coded any
other variables used in addition to RS dimensions
to create profiles in Person-Centered studies.
Descriptions for all coding categories other than RS
dimensions are in Appendix S11.3 4 Fifth, we also
coded articles based on whether they were cross-
sectional or longitudinal, as well as the cultural
background of the participants (see Appendix S4).
(Q1) Is Development of RS Related to the
Development of Youth Outcomes?
One direct way to understand relations between
developments in RS and youth outcomes is using
latent growth curve modeling of longitudinal data,
specifically what are called parallel process models
(Grimm, Ram, & Estabrook, 2016). Growth factors
(intercepts and slopes) are estimated simultane-
ously for multiple variables, as are correlations
among the growth factors. We found three studies
that used this methodology. Two of them focused
3
This includes all variables other than RS dimensions whether
coded as mediators, moderators in studies with RS predictors,
predictors in studies with RS moderators, variables used in cre-
ating person-centered profiles, processes of influence in qualita-
tive studies, and outcomes.
4
Some coding categories of non-RS variables conceptually
overlapped with those for RS variables (i.e., Coping/Resilience
and RS Coping; Parenting/Family and Family RS; Peers and
Peer RS; Self/Identity and RS Identity; Social Capital/Support
and RS Support; Social Control/Norms and RS Belief). In these
cases, if RS was explicitly a part of how it was operationalized
or assessed, it was coded as an RS dimension, otherwise, it was
not.
256 HARDY, NELSON, MOORE, AND KING
on religious attendance among U.S. (Steinman &
Zimmerman, 2004) and Canadian (Hardy, Pratt,
Pancer, Olsen, & Lawford, 2011) youth, which
showed decreases over time. The less religious
attendance decreased across adolescence, the less
alcohol use (among boys) and sexual intercourse
(among girls) increased (Steinman & Zimmerman,
2004), and the more youth progressed in identity
formation (Hardy et al., 2011). The third study
showed increases over time in religious practices
among Indonesian Muslim youth (French, Christ,
Lu, & Purwono, 2014), with greater increases
linked to decreases in problem behaviors (a com-
posite of 20 behaviors; e.g., fighting and alcohol
use), particularly for boys. In short, increases in or
maintenance of religious behaviors across adoles-
cence is associated with increases in adaptive out-
comes (e.g., identity formation) and decreases in
maladaptive outcomes (e.g., substance use, sexual
behavior, and externalizing).
(Q2) What is the Directionality of Relations
Between RS and Youth Outcomes Over Time?
Temporal ordering or directionality of longitudinal
relations between RS and youth outcomes is most
clearly established using auto-regressive cross-
lagged models (McArdle & Nesselroade, 2014).
Paths are estimated between one variable at each
time point, and a second variable at a succeeding
time point, and vice versa (typically controlling
for auto-regressive relations over time). We found
12 studies of longitudinal bidirectionality. First,
five studies examined internalizing (e.g., depres-
sion) as an outcome. Bidirectional inverse relations
with internalizing were evident for religious atten-
dance (but not religious importance; Rasic,
Asbridge, Kisely, & Langille, 2013) and existential
spirituality (Yang, Mao, Wei, & Huang, 2017). Fur-
thermore, greater positive spiritual coping (e.g.,
“seeking God’s help in letting go of anger”) pre-
dicted less subsequent internalizing, while greater
internalizing predicted later negative spiritual cop-
ing (e.g., “wondering what I did for God to pun-
ish/abandon me”; Reynolds, Mrug, Hensler,
Guion, & Madan-Swain, 2014). However, internal-
izing negatively predicted later religious atten-
dance (Horowitz & Garber, 2003) and relationship
with God (Goeke-Morey, Taylor, Merrilees, Shir-
low, & Cummings, 2014), while reciprocal rela-
tions were not statistically significant. Second, two
studies found bidirectional effects between RS and
identity formation (Duriez, Smits, & Goossens,
2008; Hardy et al., 2011). In the latter, religious
attendance negatively predicted later identity dif-
fusion and moratorium (less mature identity sta-
tuses), and positively predicted later identity
foreclosure (a more mature identity status). Third,
three studies found that RS predicted sexual
debut over time (Hardy & Raffaelli, 2003; Meier,
2003; Ream, 2006), but in only one did transition
to sexual activity reduce later RS (Ream, 2006).
Lastly, two studies looked at associations with
problem behaviors, with mixed results. One found
RS negatively predicted later alcohol use, but not
the inverse (Mason & Windle, 2001), while a sec-
ond found only marginally significant longitudinal
relations between RS and externalizing (a compos-
ite of 20 problem behaviors) in both directions
(French et al., 2014). Taken together, six studies
found evidence for bidirectional relations (50%),
three found RS predicting later outcomes, two found
outcomes predicting later RS, and one did not find
significant paths in either direction. In short, evi-
dence exists for temporal ordering such that changes
in RS predict later changes in youth outcomes.
(Q3) Is Daily Variability in RS Linked to Daily
Variability in Youth Outcomes?
Growth modeling and cross-lagged studies exam-
ine longitudinal relations between RS and youth
outcomes across adolescent development, but tell
us nothing about how they are linked from day to
day—that is the role of experience sampling stud-
ies (Bolger & Laurenceau, 2013). Such studies
involve intensive longitudinal data typically col-
lected at least once per day for at least a week with
measures assessing states rather than traits. This
allows analysis of short-term intra-individual vari-
ability, such as how a teen’s RS fluctuates from
day to day, and how that variability is linked to
outcomes. Our search found only three such stud-
ies—all from the same research group. In two stud-
ies participants made greater use of religious
coping strategies to handle daily stressors when
they felt more negative affect (Aldridge & Roesch,
2008; Roesch, Vaughn, Aldridge, & Villodas, 2009).
Furthermore, while teens who use religious coping
tend to be those who have higher trait hopefulness
(Roesch, Duangado, Vaughn, Aldridge, & Villodas,
2010), they are also those more likely to think that
the sources of stress are permanent and have a
broad impact on other aspects of their life. In short,
adolescents’ use of religious coping strategies to
deal with stressful life events is linked to stable
personality traits as well as daily variability in neg-
ative affect.

(Q4) Are Relations Between RS and Youth
Outcomes Causal?
Causality can primarily be determined through
experimental design, where participants are ran-
domly assigned to conditions, an independent vari-
able is manipulated, and its effect on a dependent
variable is tested (Greenhoot, 2003). When random
assignment and manipulation is not feasible, quasi-
experimental design is an alternative, where at
least there are pre and post assessments of inter-
vention effects. We found only three studies using
an experimental design. The first was a religion-
based smoking intervention for Jewish boys where
one condition received a pamphlet by mail regard-
ing health effects of and rabbinical prohibitions
regarding smoking (Knishkowy, Verbov, Amitai,
Stein-Zamir, & Rosen, 2012). The intervention did
not significantly affect smoking attitudes or behav-
iors. The second study was a basic research experi-
ment of religious beliefs as potential motivators for
violence (Ginges, Sheikh, Atran, & Argo, 2016).
Findings demonstrate how beliefs about God can
exacerbate or mitigate prejudice. The third study
found a 10-week spiritual training program signifi-
cantly increased life satisfaction among Persian
orphan adolescents compared to controls (Rouho-
lamini, Kalantarkousheh, & Sharifi, 2017). In short,
there is experimental evidence, albeit limited and
mixed, for a causal role of RS on youth outcomes.
However, five quasi-experimental studies evalu-
ated the effects of RS interventions. The first com-
pared Thai teens who participated in a 6-week
Buddhist monastic program to a comparison group
in an English language course (Thananart, Tori, &
Emavardhana, 2000). The RS intervention group
showed greater improvements over time in virtu-
ous behavior, emotional control, and adherence to
Buddhist precepts. The second study tested effects
of a spiritually based mindfulness program on
homeless youth and found decreases in internaliz-
ing symptoms, and increases in psychological well-
being, spirituality, and resilience (Grabbe, Nguy, &
Higgins, 2012). Two other studies evaluated the
effects of RS transformative experiences at Chris-
tian summer youth camps (Schnitker, Felke, Bar-
rett, & Emmons, 2014a, 2014b). In one study,
participation in the camp predicted improvements
in psychological well-being, while having a reli-
gious or spiritual transformative experience at
camp predicted later virtue (i.e., patience, grati-
tude, and responsibility; Schnitker et al., 2014a). In
the second study, religious or spiritual transforma-
tion at the summer camp predicted increased
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 257
virtue (intellectual, theological, other-focused, and
temperance virtues; Schnitker et al., 2014b). Lastly,
aggressive youth in India involved in a spiritual
music intervention showed increases in spirituality
(Sharma & Kaur, 2017). Thus, there is quasi-experi-
mental evidence that RS interventions may yield
adaptive changes for teens.
(Q5) What Are the Mediating Processes by Which
RS Yield Adaptive Youth Outcomes?
One of the predominant approaches to examining
processes of influence is analyses of indirect effects,
or mediation (Jose, 2013). Our search yielded 82
studies of mediators linking adolescent RS to out-
comes, including those in the following most fre-
quently occurring mediator categories (with the
number of studies in parentheses; see Appendix S8):
Parenting/Family (20), RS (17), Values/Attitudes
(16), Peers (15), Self-control (13), Psychological
Well-being (11), Social Capital/Support (9), and
Social Control/Norms (8). Whenever possible we
cited representative studies that were longitudinal,
providing evidence for temporal ordering (see
Appendix S4 for coding regarding whether the
study was cross-sectional or longitudinal).5
One frequently occurring type of mediators was
RS (i.e., sometimes RS dimensions influence youth
outcomes through other RS dimensions; 17 stud-
ies). A common approach, found in 12 studies, was
to test how individual-level RS dimensions medi-
ated the effects of ecological-level RS variables on
youth outcomes. Specifically, parent or family RS
(e.g., Kim-Spoon, Farley, Holmes, Longo, & McCul-
lough, 2014; Regnerus, 2003; Vaidyanathan, 2011)
and supportive religious communities (e.g., Cohen-
Malayev, Schachter, & Rich, 2014) predicted adoles-
cents’ personal RS (e.g., involvement, importance,
beliefs, spirituality, or overall RS), which in turn
predicted various youth outcomes. In 10 studies,
predictors and mediators were individual-level RS
variables. For example, religious beliefs (e.g.,
Chamratrithirong et al., 2013) and spirituality
(Dowling et al., 2004) predicted religious involve-
ment or overall RS, which in turn predicted youth
outcomes. Inversely, in one study religious involve-
ment predicted youth outcomes via spirituality
(Kang & Romo, 2011). Overall RS also predicts
5
The gold standard for testing mediation is using longitudinal
three-wave mediation design, where predictors predict later
mediators, and mediators predict later outcomes, often control-
ling for prior levels on each. Thus, we specifically note which
studies used such methods.
258 HARDY, NELSON, MOORE, AND KING
youth outcomes via afterlife beliefs (Holmes &
Kim-Spoon, 2017). Lastly, a few studies had indi-
vidual-level RS predictors with Ecological RS medi-
ators (e.g., Kang & Romo, 2011), or Ecological RS
predictors and mediators (e.g., Cohen-Malayev
et al., 2014). In short, often RS dimensions work
together to explain youth outcomes. Two of the 17
studies used three-wave mediation design, provid-
ing robust tests of such mediating processes over
time (Holmes & Kim-Spoon, 2017; Jang & Johnson,
2011), although the former only measured the out-
come at the first and third waves.
Three of the other frequently occurring mediator
categories are inherently relational: Parenting/Fam-
ily (20), Peers (15), and Social Capital/Support (9).
From a relational developmental systems perspec-
tive, individual development and functioning is
dynamically embedded in relationships and social
contexts (Lerner, Agans, DeSouza, & Gasca, 2013).
As such, it makes sense that some of the key ways
RS influences youth outcomes are via relationships,
whether with parents, peers, or others. In most of
the studies with Parenting/Family mediators, at
least one operationalization of RS was as family RS.
Thus, there is evidence that parents’ RS (e.g., Kim-
Spoon et al., 2014; Simons, Simons, & Conger, 2004)
or overall family RS (e.g., Li, 2014; Manlove, Logan,
Moore, & Ikramullah, 2008) are linked to youth out-
comes by way of marital relationship quality, par-
ent-adolescent relationship quality, and parenting
practices. That said, one study also found that, fam-
ily RS is not always related to positive youth out-
comes. In this case, for adolescents being less
religious than their parents predicted greater exter-
nalizing and internalizing via reduced parent-ado-
lescent relationship quality (Kim-Spoon, Longo, &
McCullough, 2012). In some studies (e.g., Regnerus
& Elder, 2003; Ulmer, Desmond, Jang, & Johnson,
2012), at least one operationalization of RS was at
the level of the individual adolescent. In line with
transactional models of parent-adolescent relation-
ships (Kuczynski, Parkin, & Pitman, 2015), perhaps
more religious and spiritual adolescents have adap-
tive youth outcomes in part due to improved family
relationships and functioning. Although some stud-
ies of Parenting/Family mediators were longitudi-
nal, none used a three-wave mediation design.
The next most frequently occurring relational
mediator category was Peers. All studies with peer
mediators proposed RS as a predictor of peer char-
acteristics, which in turn predicted youth out-
comes. Peers were typically operationalized in
terms of their level of engagement in delinquent or
risk behaviors, their level of prosociality or
conventionality, or both. While numerous studies
found support for peers as mediators, only one
study assessed RS predictors, peer mediators, and
youth outcomes across three waves to examine lon-
gitudinal mediation (Metzger, Dawes, Mermelstein,
& Wakschlag, 2011). Teens more religiously
involved at baseline had peers who engaged in
fewer problem behaviors at the next wave, which
in turn predicted less frequent smoking at the final
wave. Several other studies similarly tested peers
as a mediator using longitudinal data, but without
measuring predictors, mediators, and outcomes at
all three time points (e.g., Glanville, Sikkink, &
Hern
andez, 2008; Manlove et al., 2008).
The third most frequently occurring relational
mediator category was Social Capital/Support,
which expands beyond the family and peer con-
texts to include school and community contexts.
Mediators in this category capture the extent to
which youth experience things like acceptance,
connection, and support, or conversely leave them
feeling alienated. Indeed, there is evidence that
aspects of social capital and social support such as
attachment to school, close relationships with tru-
sted others (e.g., parents, peers, and other adults),
and intergenerational closure (i.e., relationships
teens’ parents have with the parents of their friends)
mediate between various RS dimensions and
decreased maladaptive outcomes (e.g., depression,
delinquency, and substance use; Le, Tov, & Taylor,
2007; Regnerus & Elder, 2003; Ulmer et al., 2012)
and increased adaptive outcomes (e.g., academic
achievement, empathy, and prosocial behavior;
Glanville et al., 2008; King & Furrow, 2004).
In addition to social mediators, two frequently
occurring mediator categories pertained to beliefs:
Values/Attitudes (16) and Social Control/Norms
(8). Values are goals that guide one’s life (Schwartz
& Bardi, 2001), while attitudes are positive or nega-
tive evaluations of ideas, behaviors, or people (Maio,
Olson, & Cheung, 2013). Often the values or attitudes
of interest pertain to the behavior that is the study
outcome. Most such studies have looked at sub-
stance use (e.g., Ford & Hill, 2012; Vaughan, de Dios,
Steinfeldt, & Kratz, 2011), often finding support for
values or attitudes as mediators. But, evidence also
exists for behavior-specific values or attitudes medi-
ating relations between RS and media use (e.g.,
Hardy, Steelman, Coyne, & Ridge, 2013), prosocial
behavior (Hardy & Carlo, 2005), sexual behavior
(e.g., Hull, Hennessy, Bleakley, Fishbein, & Jordan,
2011), and externalizing (Simons et al., 2004). Other
studies have looked at the mediating role of values
or attitudes more generally (e.g., Li & Chow, 2015).

The other mediator category pertaining to beliefs
was Social Control/Norms. While attitudes are our
own evaluations, norms are our perceptions of what
others think we should or should not do (Gillmore
et al., 2002). Similarly, social control involves per-
ceived social consequences, typically stemming
from connections to conventional institutions (e.g.,
religion), for engaging in norm-violating behaviors.
Although social control theory has been a key expla-
nation for RS influence for more than a century
(Durkheim, 1872), surprisingly few studies have
empirically tested the ideas (Rostosky, 2004). Never-
theless, evidence exists suggesting that social control
or social norms mediate relations between RS and
decreased or delayed substance use (e.g., Ford &
Hill, 2012; Ward, Allen, & Gryczynksi, 2014), sex
(Hull et al., 2011), pornography use (Hardy et al.,
2013), and externalizing (Benda, 1995). One of these
studies was longitudinal (Hull et al., 2011), but none
used three-waves mediation design.
The final two frequently occurring mediator cate-
gories pertain to healthy psychological functioning:
Self-control/Impulsivity (13) and Psychological
Well-being (11). Growing evidence points to self-
control or self-regulation as an adaptive outcome of
RS (McCullough & Carter, 2013), perhaps because
RS facilitates self-monitoring and a sense of being
monitored by supernatural agents (Carter, McCul-
lough, & Carver, 2012). In turn, self-control may
influence youth outcomes through the ability to ini-
tiate adaptive responses and inhibit maladaptive
ones (Eisenberg, 2015). For example, evidence was
found for the mediating role of self-control as a pro-
tective factor linking RS to decreased substance use
(e.g., Desmond, Ulmer, & Bader, 2013; Kim-Spoon
et al., 2014; Ulmer et al., 2012), externalizing (Piruti-
nsky, 2014; Shepperd, Miller, & Smith, 2015), and
harmful media use (i.e., pornography; Hardy et al.,
2013), as well as increased psychological well-being
(Schnitker, Houltberg, Dyrness, & Redmond, 2017).
One three-wave mediation study found that overall
RS predicted increased self-control, which in turn
predicted decreased aggression (Shepperd et al.,
2015). Two other studies also establish temporal
ordering using longitudinal data with more than
two waves (Holmes & Kim-Spoon, 2017; Pirutinsky,
2014), although in the former not all variables were
measured at all waves.
The second frequently occurring mediation cate-
gory related to psychological health was Psychologi-
cal Well-being. Much work has examined the role of
RS in promoting psychological well-being (Cash-
well, 2005). However, psychological well-being can
in turn predict other outcomes of RS (Orth, Robins,
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 259
& Widaman, 2012). Put together, evidence exists for
indirect effects of RS through psychological well-
being (e.g., agency, meaning, and self-esteem) to
outcomes such as disordered eating (Latzer et al.,
2015), depression (Le et al., 2007; P
erez, Little, &
Henrich, 2009), coping (Krok, 2015), quality of life
(Sawatzky, Gadermann, & Pesut, 2009), gratitude
(Ng & Chan, 2015), and substance use and delin-
quency (Regnerus & Elder, 2003). One study used
three-waves mediation design to show how spiritu-
ality predicted later personal agency and coping,
which in turn predicted decreases in depression
(P
erez et al., 2009).
Given that examining mediating processes is
arguably the most common and straightforward
approach to studying RS influence, we discuss the
relative utility of various RS predictors and media-
tors examined in the literature. Space constraints
prohibit a systematic evaluation of significance
tests and effect sizes, so our comments on the mat-
ter will be more general and informal. Looking
across the 82 mediation studies reviewed, a num-
ber of patterns emerged. First, more private and
personal aspects of RS, particularly RS Importance,
tend to be stronger predictors of youth outcomes
than Public RS Involvement. Indeed, these two
dimensions are the most frequently compared in
the same study, and often religious importance
wins out in terms of statistical significance and
effect size (e.g., Hardy, Walker, Rackham, & Olsen,
2012; Markstrom, Huey, Stiles, & Krause, 2010;
Rose, Shields, Tueller, & Larson, 2015). This is iro-
nic given that the Affective dimension (e.g., RS
Importance) is less frequently studied than the
Behavioral dimension (e.g., Public RS Involve-
ment). Yet, it suggests that simply engaging in reli-
gious behavior, particularly attending religious
worship services, may have less impact on youth
than the degree to which they appropriate and
internalize their RS. In addition, there is evidence
for their interaction, such that the role of Behav-
ioral dimensions may be contingent on Affective
dimensions (e.g., Hardy et al., 2012).
Second, in terms of mediators, it seems that the
following mediator categories were more consis-
tently statistically significant with larger effect sizes
than the others: RS dimensions, Peers, Values/Atti-
tudes, and Social Control/Norms. It makes sense
that RS dimensions are salient mediators of RS
influence, given that they are simply other dimen-
sions or operationalizations of the same overarch-
ing construct. Additionally, given that peer
selection and influence peaks during adolescence,
it is not surprising that peers are a key risk or
260 HARDY, NELSON, MOORE, AND KING
protective factor in many youth outcomes involv-
ing RS (Wrzus & Neyer, 2016). Values/Attitudes
and Social Control/Norms both have to do with
beliefs teens have regarding their own or other’s
evaluations of ideas, behaviors, or people. The fact
that many such beliefs are specific to particular
youth outcomes (e.g., substance use) may account
for their salient predictive role.
The other four frequently occurring mediator
categories (Parenting/Family; Self-control; Psycho-
logical Well-being; Social Capital/Support) were
less consistently statistically significant and tended
to have smaller effect sizes. Parenting/Family and
Social Capital/Support deal with contexts other
than peers (although sometimes peers are included
in the latter). Our review thus suggests that per-
haps during adolescence peers eclipse the role of
adults in RS development. The variables included
in the categories of Self-control/Impulsivity and
Psychological Well-being involve psychological
processes, like Values/Attitudes, Social Control/
Norms, and some other RS dimensions (e.g., RS
Importance), and are generally less outcome-speci-
fic. Perhaps this accounts for their limited mediat-
ing roles? Alternatively broad categories, like we
used with Psychological Well-being, may include a
mix of adaptive, maladaptive, and inert processes.
(Q6) What Are the Moderating Processes Upon
Which Links Between RS and Youth Outcomes
Are Conditional?
Another frequently used approach to unpacking
relations between predictors and outcomes is
through analyses of interaction effects, or modera-
tion (Jose, 2013). Moderation analyses look at the
way in which a third variable, the moderator,
affects the strength of relations between the predic-
tor and outcome, and thus address questions of
when, where, and for whom. There are two types
of studies of RS influence that examine moderation
(see Appendix S9): those where RS is the predictor
and those where RS is the moderator. In the former
case, moderation analyses tested whether the link
between RS and youth outcomes equally applied to
all individuals, or was conditional on the level of
another variable. Our search yielded 40 such stud-
ies. We focus our discussion on the following two
most frequently occurring moderator categories:
Gender (17) and Ethnicity (9). Much work has
looked at gender (Best & Bush, 2016) and ethnic
(Chao & Otsuki-Clutter, 2011) differences among
adolescents on various aspects of psychosocial
functioning. However, there is a distinction
between the difference in mean levels and differ-
ences in relations between predictors and out-
comes, and less has been done on the latter. Much
of this work has looked at the differential effects of
parenting across gender (e.g., Kincaid, Jones, Ster-
rett, & McKee, 2012) or ethnicity (e.g., Clark, Yang,
McClernon, & Fuemmeler, 2015). We found several
studies that looked at such interaction effects for
RS influence, with mixed results. For gender, nine
of the studies did not find evidence for modera-
tion, while the other eight did. Typically stronger
RS relations were found for girls than boys (e.g.,
van der Jagt-Jelsma et al., 2017; Pitel et al., 2012),
perhaps due to differential gender norms.
As with gender, findings regarding interactions
between RS and ethnicity were mixed. Six studies
did not find evidence for moderation by ethnicity,
while the other three did. Sometimes African
American teens had the strongest RS effects (Dev-
ido, Sereika, Cohen, & Charron-Prochownik, 2016),
while other times they had the weakest (Hull, Kil-
bourne, Reece, & Husaini, 2008; Rostosky, Reg-
nerus, & Wright, 2003). The finding that RS is less
protective for African American teens, at least in
terms of sexual risk-taking, is not new (Rostosky,
Wilcox, Wright, & Randall, 2004). While African
American teens have the highest rates of RS, some-
times they receive the least protective effects of RS
relative to other groups. Perhaps this is due to dif-
fering behavioral norms and values across ethnic
and religious communities.
The other type of RS influence moderation stud-
ies position RS as the moderator. We found 53 such
studies—most of which conceptualized RS as a
“buffer” or “protective factor” against contextual
and individual risks, particularly the following:
Stress (10), Parenting/Family (10), Victimization
(7), Violence Exposure (6), and Self-control/Impul-
sivity (6). Although interactions were only statisti-
cally significant about half of the time, they
provide evidence for this protective effect of RS. In
terms of buffering against risks, although findings
are somewhat mixed, there is evidence that the
more religious or spiritual teens are the less likely
they are to experience negative outcomes (particu-
larly substance use, externalizing, and internaliz-
ing) from daily stressors and adverse life events
(e.g., Belgrave et al., 2010; Wills, Yaeger, & Sandy,
2003), parental substance use (e.g., Haber & Jacob,
2007; Yu & Stiffman, 2007), victimization by family,
peers, or community members (e.g., Helms et al.,
2015; Pearce, Jones, Schwab-stone, & Ruchkin,
2003; Phan & Kingree, 2001), exposure to political
or community violence (e.g., Barber, 2001; Pearce

et al., 2003; Shannon, Oakes, Scheers, Richardson,
& Stills, 2013), and high sensation seeking or
impulsivity (Laird, Marks, & Marrero, 2011; Salas-
Wright, Vaughn, Maynard, Clark, & Snyder, 2017).
Interestingly, negative religious coping worsens the
negative impact of risk factors (Carpenter, Laney,
& Mezulis, 2012; Terreri & Glenwick, 2013).
(Q7) What Typical Patterns of RS and Youth
Outcomes Are Present in Adolescents?
Quantitative data can be analyzed using variable-
centered and person-centered approaches. Both are
valuable and provide different angles for under-
standing psychological phenomena (DiStefano,
2012). Most research on adolescent RS employs
variable-centered analyses in which variables are
the primary theoretical and analytical units and the
purpose is to understand interrelations among
them. Person-centered analyses, on the other hand,
focus on the person as the unit of analysis, and
heterogeneity among people based on the variables
of interest is modeled in the form of profiles (Berg-
man, von Eye, & Magnusson, 2006). Thus, these
analyses provide a picture of the way multiple
variables occur together within people. In terms of
processes of RS influence, these analyses identify
the most predominant ways RS is structured at the
individual level and link these structural differ-
ences to youth outcomes.
Our search found eight studies that used per-
son-centered analyses. Four of these identified RS
profiles, and compared the different profile groups
on youth outcomes. In general, profiles evidencing
higher levels of RS across multiple dimensions
have the most adaptive outcomes (e.g., Salas-
Wright, Vaughn, Hodge, & Perron, 2012). Never-
theless, sometimes findings are more nuanced. For
instance, the most recent study pooled numerous
items and found six factors (Longo, Bray, & Kim-
Spoon, 2017): religious importance/internalized
religious motivation (e.g., How important is it to
rely on religious beliefs as a guide for day to day
living?), introjected religious motivation, God mon-
itoring, religious involvement/social support, pri-
vate religious activities, and deterministic
monitoring. They used these factors to identify the
following three classes of youth with different reli-
giosity profiles: Introjected (highest on introjected
motivation and deterministic monitoring), Highly
Religious (highest on importance/internalized, pri-
vate religious activities, God monitoring, and reli-
gious involvement/social support), and Low
Religiosity (lowest on most of the factors).
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 261
Introjected teens were higher than Highly Religious
teens on internalizing symptoms. Highly Religious
teens were lowest on externalizing behaviors, while
Introjected and Low Religiosity teens were not dif-
ferent from each other. This highlights that not just
the level of religiosity matters, but also the way in
which one is religious. For example, these findings
suggest that being religious in order to avoid
shame or disapproval may be maladaptive.
Four other person-centered studies used RS vari-
ables, along with other variables, in identifying
classes. Profiles were not based solely on the way
RS was structured within individuals, but the way
in which RS manifest relative to other variables
within individuals. In general, these studies sug-
gest that it is not just the level of RS that matters,
but the ways in which RS relates to outcomes in
concert with or in the absence of other characteris-
tics. For example, one study found that the profile
highest on self-esteem was not the highest on reli-
gious identity, but was relatively high on both reli-
gious and national identity (Ng Tseung-Wong &
Verkuyten, 2013). On the other hand, in another
study, the two groups lowest in substance use
were the one highest in church attendance and the
one highest in school attendance (Zimmerman &
Maton, 1992). These studies remind us that RS does
not occur in a vacuum, but is interconnected with
other variables within persons and context.
(Q8) How Do Youth Experience Their Religiosity
and Spirituality as Being Meaningfully Related to
Other Aspects of Their Life?
Our search yielded 43 studies using qualitative
methods to explore how RS may influence youth
outcomes (see Appendix S10 for how we coded
processes of influence in Qualitative studies). Qual-
itative research uses an inductive approach, which
skirts limitations of operationalization and hypoth-
esis testing, is generative and often surprising—ca-
pable of both escaping and producing theory. As
such, qualitative research provides meaningful
insight into the religious and spiritual lives of ado-
lescents and respects the richness and ambiguity of
RS and its processes of influence (King et al., 2014).
The purpose of many of these studies was to
understand how religious and spiritual youth cope
with life hardships such as physical or mental
health problems, exposure to violence, low socioe-
conomic status, natural disasters, being an immi-
grant or refugee, or being a minority in terms of
ethnicity, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation
(29 of 43 studies had outcomes coded as Coping/
262 HARDY, NELSON, MOORE, AND KING
Resilience or Psychological Well-being). Given that
qualitative studies do not involve variables, distinc-
tions between RS, processes of influence, and youth
outcomes were blurry. Thus, often the RS sources
of influence were somewhat generically coded as
Overall Religiosity, Spiritual, or Public RS Involve-
ment, and the processes of influence were often RS
dimensions (37 of 43 studies). Furthermore, it was
often difficult to differentiate between, for example,
RS Coping as a process and Coping/Resilience as
an outcome. Nevertheless, the most frequently
coded processes of influence that were RS dimen-
sions were RS Support (18), RS Belief (13), RS Cop-
ing (11), and RS Spiritual (8).
First, the dimension of RS most often seen as a
way RS influences youth outcomes in qualitative
studies was RS Support. Fiala, Bjorck, and Gorsuch
(2002) proposed a three-part model of religious
support including God support, congregation sup-
port, and church leader support. In quantitative
studies, RS Support is usually limited to interper-
sonal support through religious communities,
which fails to recognize the theistic component of
support—i.e., support from God. Indeed, God sup-
port has a significant impact on psychological well-
being even when controlling for religious atten-
dance, distinguishing God support as a separate
process of influence (e.g., Bjorck & Maslim, 2011).
Evidence of the three-component model of support
surfaced in several qualitative studies. Cook’s (2000)
study of the resilience of inner-city minority youth
found that religious youth had greater psychological
well-being than the control group because the
church provided teens with the three levels of sup-
port—mentorship, community support, and a rela-
tionship with God. All three components of support
also appeared in three other studies (Clayton-Jones,
Haglund, Belknap, Schaefer, & Thompson, 2016;
Liu, Carter, Boehm, Annandale, & Taylor, 2014;
Nourian, Shahbolaghi, Tabrizi, Rassouli, & Biglar-
rian, 2016). However, given that most often church
leader and community support were the only types
of support mentioned (11 out of 18 studies), we
coded God support as Spiritual (specifically Theistic
Spirituality) and support in religious communities
as RS Support.
Second, RS Belief was another process of influ-
ence frequently identified in Qualitative studies.
Teens often felt that religion gave them a sense of
belonging (e.g., Benavides, 2012), scriptures pro-
vided them with important values and directions for
life (e.g., Clayton-Jones et al., 2016), and that God
was a trusted source of protection, strength, comfort,
and guidance (e.g., Hills, Meyer-Weitz, & Asante,
2016; Liu et al., 2014; Van der Meer Sanchez, De Oli-
veira, & Nappo, 2008). These themes have largely
been ignored by quantitative researchers.
The third dimension of RS most frequently seen
as a process of influence in qualitative studies was
RS Coping. We distinguish between RS Coping (e.g.
drawing on RS to cope with challenges; Pargament,
Koenig, & Perez, 2000), and Coping/Resilience as
an outcome, which more generally captures a per-
son’s resilience or ability to cope. The question then
is whether a RS approach to coping actually
improves coping and resilience related youth out-
comes. Several qualitative studies indeed revealed
teens effectively used RS as a source of coping (e.g.,
Al Omari, Wynaden, Al-Omari, & Khatatbeh, 2017;
Dill, 2017) leading to psychological well-being (e.g.
Eryilmaz, 2015; Jones et al., 2010).
Finally, the fourth RS dimension frequently
mentioned as a process of influence in the qualita-
tive studies was RS Spiritual (i.e., Theistic Spiritual-
ity or Theistic/Existential [Both] Spirituality; 8).
Qualitative studies examining the role of spiritual-
ity tended to focus on theistic aspects rather than
existential aspects. Connection to God was facili-
tated through regular engagement in religious
practices (e.g., worship service attendance, prayer,
and scripture study; e.g., Clayton-Jones et al., 2016;
Kubiliene, Yan, Kumsa, & Burman, 2015).
In addition to these five dimensions of RS, there
were two other frequently occurring processes of
RS influence in Qualitative studies: Psychological
Well-being and Values/Attitudes. These were also
frequently occurring mediator categories in Media-
tion studies. In this case, teens themselves identi-
fied these as important avenues by which RS led to
positive outcomes in their lives. For instance, in a
study youth talked about how religion helps them
stay away from substance use directly via teach-
ings about the harms of using substances and indi-
rectly by improving their self-esteem and
autonomy (Sanchez, Opaleye, Chaves, Noto, &
Nappo, 2011). Thus, diverse methods converge in
evidencing Psychological Well-being and Values/
Attitudes as two key processes of RS influence.
One important finding from several qualitative
studies was that, while RS can be an important
source of support and coping, it can also bring
unique challenges. One reoccurring theme was that
religious minority teens (particularly Muslims) often
experienced prejudice for their beliefs, religious
practices, and culture (e.g., Abo-Zena & Barry, 2013;
Kumar, Seay, & Karabenick, 2015; Sirin & Fine,
2007). Similarly, sexual minority teens (Dahl & Gal-
liher, 2012) and those diagnosed with HIV

(Martinez, Lemos, & Hosek, 2012) also experienced
prejudice based on their behaviors, identity, and
lifestyle deviating from religious norms.
LIMITATIONS
We acknowledge limitations to consider when inter-
preting this systematic review. First, the review was
not comprehensive but was a result of the specific
process employed. We did not review all studies
linking RS to youth outcomes—only those that went
beyond bivariate relationships based on the method-
ological and analytic approaches pertaining to the
eight questions. Additionally, we limited our search
to the PsycINFO database as a necessary boundary
to make this analysis feasible. No doubt, other data-
bases would have yielded additional relevant stud-
ies. Furthermore, we searched within the database
results using specific terms. Thus, we likely missed
some relevant studies because they did not include
our chosen terms in the abstract. Second, the coding
process, including the naming of coding categories
and sorting studies into those categories, was sub-
jective. Challenges included a lack of conceptual
clarity distinguishing RS dimensions, balancing
breadth and depth in creating coding categories,
and coding qualitative and quantitative studies
using the same coding process. Third, given the
breadth of our systematic review, treating each topic
in depth was not possible.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The purpose of this paper was to review existing
theory and research on processes of RS influence in
adolescence. We structured the review around
eight research questions and the corresponding
methods perhaps best positioned to answer them.
We found substantial evidence demonstrating
numerous processes of influence linking RS to
youth outcomes. Yet, much work remains. Here we
outline recommendations for future research.
First, Study a Broader Range of Dimensions of
RS
The most common approach is to examine RS as
Overall Religiosity (77 studies; 32%). In fact, in 62
studies (26%) this was the sole approach used. In
quantitative studies, this was assessed using a sin-
gle item regarding overall RS, or a combination of
items capturing various dimensions of RS (often
Public RS Involvement and RS Importance items).
In qualitative studies where RS was coded as
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 263
Overall RS, RS was discussed more generally with-
out explicit reference to specific dimensions of RS,
or the focus was on overall religious identification.
Thus, in a substantial majority of cases, no attempt
was made to differentiate or nuance RS—it was
seen as a unitary construct.
Although the remaining studies did examine
specific RS dimensions, the following dimensions
have been almost entirely overlooked: RS Knowl-
edge (one study; a Cognitive subdimension), RS
Identity (5 studies; an Affective subdimension), RS
Doubt (one study; a Well-being subdimension),
and Peer RS (two studies; an Ecological subdimen-
sion), as well as Transformational RS Experiences
(five studies). These gaps are surprising in that
many of the neglected RS dimensions are central to
adolescent development in general and seem cen-
tral to adolescent RS development specifically. For
instance, issues pertaining to identity and doubt
are central to navigating adolescence (Erikson,
1968). Peer relationships are seminal to adolescent
development (Brown & Larson, 2009), not only as
key influencers but also as a source of belonging
and acceptance (King, 2015). Furthermore, transfor-
mational spiritual experiences may be important
for the internalization of RS in a way that leads to
sustained RS beyond adolescence (Dean, 2010; King
et al., 2014). Lastly, the amount and type of RS
knowledge and understanding, such as the nature
and extensiveness of adolescent RS beliefs, may
have capture a Cognitive dimension of RS tradi-
tionally studied only in children, but that arguably
develops throughout the lifespan (Day, 2009). In
short, we are neglecting many of the dimensions
most central to RS development and functioning
during adolescence.
Even work on the more frequently studied RS
dimensions can be further expanded. First, in the
Cognitive dimension, more studies of RS Belief
might examine relations between specific beliefs
(e.g., chastity) and specific behaviors (e.g., sex). Sec-
ond, within the Behavioral dimension, studies of
Public RS Involvement focus on worship service
attendance, and those of Private RS Practices focus
on prayer and scripture study, oversimplifying the
richness of religious behaviors (Smith, 2017). Third,
regarding the Affective dimension, RS Importance is
often measured with a single item (20 studies; 57%
of quantitative RS Importance studies), and thus
overlooks the diverse ways in which RS can be
important to people such as informing identity and
guiding how one lives out their RS commitments
(see Furrow, King, & White, 2004; King, Kim, Fur-
row & Clardy, 2017). Fourth, in the Well-being
264 HARDY, NELSON, MOORE, AND KING
dimension, most studies of RS Coping used qualita-
tive or moderation methods, leaving ample room for
other methods such as mediation and person-cen-
tered analyses to shed insight into complex array of
potentially harmful and helpful processes involved
with RS Coping during adolescence. Fifth, Spiritual-
ity was only broken into two sub-dimensions (Theis-
tic Spirituality and Existential Spirituality); research
is needed for further unpacking of spirituality and
transcendence in youth development (e.g., King
et al., 2014; King et al., 2017). Sixth, regarding the
Ecological dimension, Family RS encompasses all
other RS dimensions. In other words, studies were
coded as Family RS if they involved parental or fam-
ily measures of RS such as religious beliefs, religious
involvement, or spirituality. Thus, research is
needed to understand the dynamics of how all these
dimensions of RS work at the parent or family levels
as well as at the teen level. This work could be
guided by relational developmental systems theory
(Lerner et al., 2013; Overton, 2015).
Second, Study a Broader Range of Processes of
Influence
Within the eight methodological categories of focus
in our review, the majority focused on a small set
of processes of influence. For instance, most media-
tion studies focused on mediators in the following
categories: Parenting/Family, RS, Values/Atti-
tudes, Peers, Self-control/Impulsivity, and Psycho-
logical Well-being. While we agree these are
important mediators, certainly there are other sali-
ent processes involved which have been over-
looked. For instance, one process of influence we
find particularly compelling, which was only a part
of one mediation study that we know of (Page,
Lindahl, & Malik, 2013), is identity. Prior theory
and research have supported RS as a context for
fostering identity formation (Hardy et al., 2011;
King, 2003), while substantial work has shown that
identity formation is predictive of numerous youth
outcomes (Kroger & Marcia, 2011). Given that RS
provides ideological resources that answer ques-
tions about existential meaning, purpose, and
belonging—all central to identity development,
there are many opportunities to examine how these
paths might link together in a mediating process.
We can undertake a similar exercise regarding
moderation. More than half of the moderation
studies have positioned RS as the moderator, pri-
marily as a buffer or protective factor against indi-
vidual and contextual risks. Certainly, though,
there are other ways in which RS might moderate
the role of predictors on youth outcomes. If RS can
buffer effects of negative individual characteristics
and environments, perhaps it can also enhance the
effects of positive individual characteristics and
environments (Smith, 2017). For instance, there is
evidence RS can boost the effects of positive par-
enting (Petts, 2009) and values (King, Schnitker, &
Houltberg, in press; Rechter & Sverdlik, 2016).
Other moderation studies positioned RS as the pre-
dictor, with the effect on outcomes being moder-
ated by other variables. Typically, such studies
have focused on demographic variables as modera-
tors, particularly gender and ethnicity. Other indi-
vidual characteristics have received less attention
as moderators, and rarely have contextual variables
(e.g., family, peers, and religious communities)
been examined as moderators of RS effects. One
avenue we find promising, which we only saw in
nine studies, is to look at how certain dimensions
of RS moderate the role of other dimensions. For
instance, there is evidence for interactions between
Behavioral and Affective dimensions in predicting
outcomes (e.g., Hardy et al., 2012). Furthermore,
the role of various RS dimensions may differ across
religious affiliation (e.g., Cohen et al., 2005; Mar-
siglia, Kulis, Nieri, & Parsai, 2005).
Another related issue is that most qualitative
studies have focused somewhat narrowly on pro-
cesses of influence in the categories of RS dimen-
sions (RS Support, RS Belief, and RS Coping), as
well as Psychological Well-being and Values/Atti-
tudes. With the limitless possibilities for studying
processes of influence using qualitative methods,
we encourage researchers to branch out from these
areas. One intriguing possibility is to study the
integration of RS, identity, and morality (see King
et al., in press). For religious and spiritual teens,
the three seem integrated developmentally. It is
difficult for quantitative studies to adequately cap-
ture these dynamics, and indeed few have
attempted to do so (for an exception, see Hardy,
Nadal, & Schwartz, 2017). Thus, much could be
learned from qualitatively exploring dynamic rela-
tion between identity formation, moral develop-
ment, and RS, for both exemplary and more typical
youth (e.g., King et al., 2014; Layton, Hardy, &
Dollahite, 2012). Qualitative exploration can eluci-
date how RS provides a transcendent narrative giv-
ing meaning and inspiring commitment to moral
virtues that sustain thriving (see King et al., in
press; Schnitker, King, & Houltberg, 2019).
Lastly, while RS is typically adaptive or at least
inert, there are exceptions where it seems to be mal-
adaptive. We found 39 studies (16%; 31 quantitative

and eight qualitative) that reported maladaptive
outcomes of RS. Sometimes such studies also
reported adaptive outcomes, but at least in some sit-
uations for some people, RS was maladaptive. We
noted several common themes. Some dimensions of
RS, such as negative religious coping (Reynolds,
Mrug, & Guion, 2013), controlled religious motiva-
tion (i.e., external or introjected religious motiva-
tions; e.g., Holmes & Kim-Spoon, 2016) or extrinsic
religious orientation (e.g., Weinberger-Litman,
Rabin, Fogel, Mensinger, & Litman, 2016), and reli-
gious doubt (K
ezdy, Martos, Boland, & Horv
ath-
Szab
o, 2011), tend to be maladaptive. The level of
RS can also be problematic, such as when youth are
only moderately religious (Li & Chow, 2015), or are
less religious than their parents (Kim-Spoon et al.,
2012). Maladaptive outcomes of RS are also more
common for certain youth, such as sexual (e.g., Dahl
& Galliher, 2012; Page et al., 2013) or religious (e.g.,
Muslim youth; Abo-Zena & Barry, 2013) minorities.
Lastly, RS is sometimes linked to greater prejudice
toward out-group members (e.g., Hammack, Pilecki,
Caspi, & Strauss, 2011) and sexual minorities (Col-
lier, Bos, Merry, & Sandfort, 2013). It is also interest-
ing that often at least one maladaptive outcome of
RS was internalizing, negative affect, or stress. Thus,
while sometimes RS protects against such problems
with psychological well-being, at other times it con-
tributes to them. In short, more work is needed
exploring situations when RS can be maladaptive.
Third, Study More Positive and Adaptive Youth
Outcomes
Although many studies document a positive associ-
ation between adolescent RS and positive outcomes
(see King & Boyatzis, 2015), the vast majority of
studies that consider RS influences targeted negative
or maladaptive outcomes, particularly Substance
Use (68 studies, 28%), Internalizing (47 studies,
19%), and Externalizing (47 studies, 19%), as well as
Sexual Behavior (18 studies, 7%). In fact, 138 studies
(57%) only included negative outcomes. Although
such maladaptive aspects of human functioning
should be studied, especially given their prevalence
during adolescence, the positive psychology (Selig-
man & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and positive youth
development (Lerner, Lerner, & Benson, 2011)
movements in the field urge us to look upward, in
this case to learn how RS fosters strengths and pro-
motes growth. This includes further studying RS
influences on outcomes already included in our
review such as Psychological Well-being (29 studies,
12%), Coping (29 studies, 12%), Moral/Prosocial (13
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 265
studies, 6%), RS (11 studies, 5%), Academic (nine
studies, 4%), Self/Identity (seven studies, 3%), and
Virtues (four studies, 2%).
When youth are asked how they think RS have
impacted their lives, they often note their role in
improving relationships (McMurdie, Dollahite, &
Hardy, 2013), but in our review this rarely was
examined (no studies looked at Parenting/Family
outcomes, and only five looked at Peer outcomes).
Nevertheless, a growing body of research is demon-
strating the salient role of RS in family relationships,
including marriage and parenting (Mahoney, 2013;
Marks & Dollahite, 2016). In adolescent research,
relationships are typically seen as contexts for devel-
opment, not outcomes. But, relational developmen-
tal systems approaches highlight dynamic relations
between individuals and contexts (Lerner et al.,
2013), and socialization research argues for the bidi-
rectional nature of parent-child relationships
(Kuczynski et al., 2015). Thus, we encourage exami-
nation of relational outcomes of RS in adolescence,
such as family and peer relationships.
Fourth, Study the Role of Culture in Processes of
RS Influence in Adolescence
Most research in this area has involved samples in
the U.S., Canada, and Europe, limiting research to
Western cultures dominated by Judeo-Christian
religions. Of the 241 studies reviewed, 162 (67%)
solely involved U.S. samples. However, four had
samples from the U.S. and other Western countries,
44 focused on samples from Western countries
other than the U.S., and 31 involved Eastern sam-
ples. The fact that the majority of the studies only
involved samples from the U.S., or other Western
countries, manifests an inherent assumption that
the processes of RS influences are fairly universal,
at least culturally. But only five studies actually
compared RS influence in adolescents across cul-
tures. This is troubling given the movement toward
greater cultural awareness in developmental science
(Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2016), but leaves
open great opportunities for those willing to tackle
the issue. Given different ontologies and anthro-
pologies present in religious traditions, at least
some RS influence processes likely vary across the
globe (Richert, Boyatzis, & King, 2017; Tirrell et al.,
2018; Trommsdorff, 2015).
Fifth, Use More Rigorous and Innovative
Research Methods
Experimental research can arguably best elucidate
causal relations between RS and youth outcomes,
266 HARDY, NELSON, MOORE, AND KING
yet we found only eight studies in this area that
were experimental or quasi-experimental. This lim-
ited use of experimental design is common across
most areas of research with adolescents, given the
ease of survey research among this population.
However, we encourage researchers to find ways
to creatively apply experimental design to under-
standing processes of RS influence in adolescence,
building on the precedent set in areas such as
social psychology, clinical psychology, and neuro-
science (Hood, 2013). This will add credibility and
robustness to the research area.
We also encourage greater use of longitudinal
data. Only 70 studies (29%) reviewed involved lon-
gitudinal data. Outside of experimental design,
temporal ordering (Bidirectional studies) can only
be established using longitudinal data. Dynamic
interconnections between RS and outcomes over
the short-term (Experience Sampling studies) and
long-term (Correlated Growth studies) can also
only be established using longitudinal data.
Despite the accessibility of various sophisticated
techniques for analyzing longitudinal data (Pakpa-
han, Hoffmann, & Kr€ oger, 2017) we found only 12
Bidirectional and three Correlated Growth studies
of RS influence. Despite the call for more attention
to intra-individual variability (Nesselroade &
Molenaar, 2010), only three studies of RS influence
used Experience Sampling. Much is left unknown
without greater utilization of these methods.
Furthermore, mediation and moderation are more
robustly assessed using longitudinal data (ideally
three-wave design for mediation), and even
person-centered and qualitative studies can be
enhanced with longitudinal data.
Mixed-methods and qualitative research designs
provide a richness and depth not obtainable in
purely quantitative research (Creswell, 2009). Qual-
itative design places a premium on people’s lived
experiences, and the inductive nature leaves it
open to findings often unanticipated by, and per-
haps critical of, existing theory. We cannot truly
understand RS influence, which is heavily mean-
ing-laden, without substantial involvement of qual-
itative and mixed-methods research. Fortunately, a
good portion of the studies on RS influence used
such methods (e.g., 43 Qualitative studies; 18%).
One example of the benefits of qualitative design is
that while few quantitative studies examined possi-
ble negative outcomes of RS, such negative out-
comes emerged from qualitative studies. In other
words, deductive quantitative studies typically
assume positive effects of RS, while inductive qual-
itative studies allow teens to reveal negative
experiences. Most quantitative methods also
emphasize nomothetic findings, while qualitative
methods are especially helpful for surfacing impor-
tant ideographic findings whether beneficial or
deleterious influences of RS (see Schachter & Ben
Hur, this volume). Another example is that in
numerous Qualitative studies, the process of influ-
ence involved RS beliefs about divine intervention
or the role of God in their lives. This was rarely a
part of quantitative studies of RS influence, likely
in part because few quantitative measures capture
the phenomena, as well as the fact that the social
sciences, given their secular nature, discourage the-
istic explanations (Slife & Reber, 2009). Thus, we
encourage greater use of qualitative methods given
their richness and openness that are well poised to
explore diverse meanings and functions of RS.
Although a few studies include mixed methods
designs (four Qualitative studies, with a quantita-
tive component; Beyerlein, Trinitapoli, & Adler,
2011; Cook, 2000; Eryilmaz, 2015; Tuicomepee &
Romano, 2008) we encourage more such studies to
leverage advantages of both quantitative and quali-
tative approaches and to help hedge against limita-
tions of each. We encourage researchers to think of
innovative ways to combine quantitative and quali-
tative design elements in order to best investigate
these multidimensional phenomena of RS. Some of
the most typical ways of doing this are outlined
elsewhere (Clark, Creswell, Green, & Shope, 2008).
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this paper was to provide a system-
atic review of research on the influence of RS on
youth outcomes. We focused on studies going
beyond mere correlations between RS and out-
comes, targeting those that used eight different
methodological approaches. This process led to a
number of insights. First, we identified the ways in
which RS has been most frequently conceptualized
and studied. Second, we identified the most fre-
quently studied processes of influence and out-
comes of RS. Third, we saw trends regarding
which processes may most effectively influence
youth outcomes. Fourth, we saw gaps in the
research that open opportunities for future work
on RS influence in adolescence.
This review likely generated more questions
than answers. However, several summary state-
ments are warranted. First, RS is generally adaptive
for adolescents, protecting them from negative out-
comes such as risk behaviors and mental illness,
and promoting positive youth development and

flourishing. Nevertheless, in some contexts RS may
be at least partially maladaptive. Second, there is
some evidence, from experimental and longitudinal
studies, that relations between RS and outcomes
are causal. Third, there are numerous complex and
dynamic processes by which RS relates to youth
outcomes. Fourth, RS is multidimensional, involv-
ing various interwoven facets at the individual and
ecological levels.
Given the scant presence of RS in the develop-
mental sciences until the last two decades, we are
especially pleased to be at a point in the history of
this work where such a systematic review was pos-
sible. In fact, as developmentalists we might say
that this historical perspective suggests that the
empirical study of RS on youth outcomes is follow-
ing the orthogenetic study of development (Over-
ton, 2015), moving from generalities to more
differentiated specificity. Despite the growth in the
field, the results of our analysis show the extensive
and exciting work remaining. We hope our analy-
sis of the existing literature yields a better under-
standing of processes of RS influence in
adolescence, as well as potentially fruitful direc-
tions for future endeavors.
REFERENCES
Abo-Zena, M. M., & Barry, C. M. (2013). Religion and
immigrant-origin youth: A resource and a challenge.
Research in Human Development, 10, 353–371. https://d
oi.org/10.1080/15427609.2013.846052
Al Omari, O., Wynaden, D., Al-Omari, H., & Khatatbeh,
M. (2017). Coping strategies of Jordanian adolescents
with cancer: An interpretive phenomenological analy-
sis study. Journal of Pediatric Oncology Nursing, 34(1),
35–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043454215622408
Aldridge, A. A., & Roesch, S. C. (2008). Coping with
daily stressors: Modeling intraethnic variation in Mexi-
can American adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 30(3), 340–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0739986308318708
Barber, B. K. (2001). Political violence, social integration,
and youth functioning: Palestinian youth from the Inti-
fada. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(3), 259–280.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.1017
Belgrave, F. Z., Johnson, J., Nguyen, A., Hood, K., Tademy,
R., Clark, T., & Nasim, A. (2010). Stress and tobacco use
among African-American adolescents: The buffering
effect of cultural factors. Journal of Drug Education, 40(2),
173–188. https://doi.org/10.2190/DE.40.2.e
Benavides, L. E. (2012). A phenomenological study of
spirituality as a protective factor for adolescents
exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Social Service
Research, 38(2), 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01488376.2011.615274
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 267
Benda, B. B. (1995). The effect of religion on adolescent
delinquency revisited. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 32(4), 446–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022427895032004004
Benson, P. L., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Scales, P. C.
(2012). Spirituality and positive youth development. In
L. J. Miller(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of psychology and
spirituality (pp. 468–485). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/
9780199729920.013.0030
Bergman, L. R., von Eye, A., & Magnusson, D. (2006).
Person-oriented research strategies in developmental
psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti, & D. J. Cohen (Eds.),
Developmental psychopathology, Vol 1: Theory and method
(2nd ed., pp. 850–888).Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons Inc.
Best, D. L., & Bush, C. D. (2016). Gender roles in child-
hood and adolescence. In U. P. Gielen, & J. L. Roop-
narine (Eds.), Childhood and adolescence: Cross-cultural
perspectives and applications (pp. 209–239). Santa Bar-
bara, CA: Praeger/ABC-CLIO.
Beyerlein, K., Trinitapoli, J., & Adler, G. (2011). The effect of
religious short-term mission trips on youth civic engage-
ment. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 50, 780–795.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01607.x
Bjorck, J. P., & Maslim, A. A. (2011). The Multi-Faith
Religious Support Scale: Validation with a sample of
Muslim women. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 6(1),
62–80. https://doi.org/10.3998/jmmh.10381607.0006.
105
Bolger, N., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2013). Intensive longitudi-
nal methods: An introduction to diary and experience sam-
pling research (1st ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Brown, B. B., & Larson, J. (2009). Peer relationships in
adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, & L. Steinberg (Eds.),
Handbook of adolescent psychology: Contextual influences
on adolescent development (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 74–103).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Carpenter, T. P., Laney, T., & Mezulis, A. (2012). Reli-
gious coping, stress, and depressive symptoms among
adolescents: A prospective study. Psychology of Religion
and Spirituality, 4(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0023155.
Carter, E. C., McCullough, M. E., & Carver, C. S. (2012).
The mediating role of monitoring in the association of
religion with self-control. Social Psychological and Per-
sonality Science, 3, 691–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1948550612438925
Cashwell, C. S. (2005). Spirituality and wellness. In J. E.
Myers, & T. J. Sweeney (Eds.), Counseling for wellness:
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 197–205). Alexandria,
VA: American Counseling Association.
Chamratrithirong, A., Miller, B. A., Byrnes, H. F.,
Rhucharoenpornpanich, O., Cupp, P. K., Rosati, M. J.,
. . . Todd, M. (2013). Intergenerational transmission of
religious beliefs and practices and the reduction of
adolescent delinquency in urban Thailand. Journal of
268 HARDY, NELSON, MOORE, AND KING
Adolescence, 36(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ad
olescence.2012.09.011
Chao, R. K., & Otsuki-Clutter, M. (2011). Racial and eth-
nic differences: Sociocultural and contextual explana-
tions. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 47–60.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00714.x
Cheung, C., & Yeung, J. W. (2011). Meta-analysis of rela-
tionships between religiosity and constructive and
destructive behaviors among adolescents. Children and
Youth Services Review, 33(2), 376–385. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.10.004
Clark, T. T., Yang, C., McClernon, F. J., & Fuemmeler, B. F.
(2015). Racial differences in parenting style typologies
and heavy episodic drinking trajectories. Health Psychol-
ogy, 34, 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000150
Clark, V. L. P., Creswell, J. W., Green, D. O., & Shope, R.
J. (2008). Mixing quantitative and qualitative
approaches: An introduction to emergent mixed meth-
ods research. In S. N. Hesse-Biber, & P. Leavy (Eds.),
Handbook of emergent methods (pp. 363–387). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Clayton-Jones, D., Haglund, K., Belknap, R. A., Schaefer,
J., & Thompson, A. A. (2016). Spirituality and religios-
ity in adolescents living with sickle cell disease. Wes-
tern Journal of Nursing Research, 38, 686–703. https://d
oi.org/10.1177/0193945915625065
Cohen, A. B., Pierce, J. D., Jr, Chambers, J., Meade, R.,
Gorvine, B. J., & Koenig, H. G. (2005). Intrinsic and
extrinsic religiosity, belief in the afterlife, death anxi-
ety, and life satisfaction in young Catholics and Protes-
tants. Journal of Research in Personality, 39(3), 307–324.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.02.005.
Cohen-Malayev, M., Schachter, E. P., & Rich, Y. (2014).
Teachers and the religious socialization of adolescents:
Facilitation of meaningful religious identity formation
processes. Journal of Adolescence, 37(2), 205–214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.12.004
Collier, K. L., Bos, H. M. W., Merry, M. S., & Sandfort, T.
G. M. (2013). Gender, ethnicity, religiosity, and same-
sex sexual attraction and the acceptance of same-sex
sexuality and gender non-conformity. Sex Roles, 68,
724–737. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0135-5
Cook, K. V. (2000). “You have to have somebody watch-
ing your back, and if that’s God, then that’s mighty
big”: The church’s role in the resilience of inner-city
youth. Adolescence, 35, 717–730.
Cornwall, M., Albrecht, S. L., Cunningham, P. H., & Pitcher,
B. L. (1986). The dimensions of religiosity: A conceptual
model with an empirical test. Review of Religious Research,
27(3), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.2307/3511418
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quanti-
tative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dahl, A. L., & Galliher, R. V. (2012). LGBTQ adolescents
and young adults raised within a Christian religious
context: Positive and negative outcomes. Journal of Ado-
lescence, 35, 1611–1618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adole
scence.2012.07.003
Day, J. M. (2009). Religion, spirituality, and positive psy-
chology in adulthood: A developmental view. Journal
of Adult Development, 17, 215–229. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10804-009-9086-7
Dean, K. C. (2010). Almost Christian: What the faith of our
teenagers is telling the American church (1st ed.). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Desmond, S. A., Ulmer, J. T., & Bader, C. D. (2013). Reli-
gion, self control, and substance use. Deviant Behavior, 34,
384–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2012.726170
Devido, J. A., Sereika, S. M., Cohen, S. M., & Charron-
Prochownik, D. (2016). Race and religious beliefs are
associated with communication regarding reproductive
health and preconception counseling in young women
with diabetes. The Diabetes Educator, 42, 721–727.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721716671008
Dew, R. E., Daniel, S. S., Armstrong, T. D., Goldston, D.
B., Triplett, M. F., & Koenig, H. G. (2008). Religion/
spirituality and adolescent psychiatric symptoms: A
review. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 39,
381–398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-007-0093-2
Dill, L. J. (2017). “Wearing my spiritual jacket”: The role
of spirituality as a coping mechanism among African
American youth. Health Education & Behavior, 44, 696–
704. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198117729398
DiStefano, C. (2012). Cluster analysis and latent class
clustering techniques. In B. Laursen, T. D. Little, & N.
A. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research meth-
ods (pp. 645–666). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Dowling, E. M., Gestsdottir, S., Anderson, P. M., von
Eye, A., Almerigi, J., & Lerner, R. M. (2004). Structural
relations among spirituality, religiosity, and thriving in
adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 8(1), 7–16.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS0801_2
Duriez, B., Smits, I., & Goossens, L. (2008). The relation
between identity styles and religiosity in adolescence:
Evidence from a longitudinal perspective. Personality
and Individual Differences, 44, 1022–1031. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.028
Durkheim, E. (1872). Suicide: A study in sociology. London:
Routledge.
Eisenberg, N. (2015). Self-regulation: Conceptual issues
and relations to developmental outcomes in childhood
and adolescence. In G. Oettingen, & P. M. Gollwitzer
(Eds.), Self-regulation in adolescence (pp. 57–77). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9781139565790
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York,
NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Eryilmaz, A. (2015). Investigation of the relations
between religious activities and subjective well-being
of high school students. Kuram ve Uygulamada E gitim
Bilimleri, 15(2), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.
2015.2.2327
Fiala, W. E., Bjorck, J. P., & Gorsuch, R. (2002). The Reli-
gious Support Scale: Construction, validation and cross-
validation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 30,
761–786. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020264718397

Ford, J. A., & Hill, T. D. (2012). Religiosity and adoles-
cent substance use: Evidence from the national survey
on drug use and health. Substance Use & Misuse, 47,
787–798. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2012.667489
French, D. C., Christ, S., Lu, T., & Purwono, U. (2014).
Trajectories of Indonesian adolescents’ religiosity,
problem behavior, and friends’ religiosity: Covariation
and sequences. Child Development, 85, 1634–1646.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12234
Furrow, J. L., King, P. E., & White, K. (2004). Religion
and positive youth development: Identity, meaning,
and prosocial concerns. Applied Developmental Science, 8
(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532480XADS08
01_3
Gillmore, M. R., Archibald, M. E., Morrison, D. M., Wils-
don, A., Wells, E. A., Hoppe, M. J., . . . Murowchick, E.
(2002). Teen sexual behavior: Applicability of the the-
ory of reasoned action. Journal of Marriage and Family,
64, 885–897. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.
00885.x
Ginges, J., Sheikh, H., Atran, S., & Argo, N. (2016).
Thinking from God’s perspective decreases biased val-
uation of the life of a nonbeliever. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of Amer-
ica, 113(2), 316–319. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1512120113
Glanville, J. L., Sikkink, D., & Hern
andez, E. I. (2008).
Religious involvement and educational outcomes: The
role of social capital and extracurricular participation.
The Sociological Quarterly, 49(1), 105–137. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2007.00108.x
Glock, C. Y., & Stark, R. (1965). Religion and society in ten-
sion. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Goeke-Morey, M. C., Taylor, L. K., Merrilees, C. E., Shir-
low, P., & Cummings, E. M. (2014). Adolescents’ rela-
tionship with God and internalizing adjustment over
time: The moderating role of maternal religious cop-
ing. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 749–758. https://d
oi.org/10.1037/a0037170
Grabbe, L., Nguy, S. T., & Higgins, M. K. (2012). Spiritu-
ality development for homeless youth: A mindfulness
meditation feasibility pilot. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 21, 925–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-
011-9552-2
Greenhoot, A. F. (2003). Design and analysis of experimen-
tal and quasi-experimental investigations. In M. C.
Roberts, & S. S. Ilardi (Eds.), Handbook of research methods
in clinical psychology (pp. 92–114). Malden: Blackwell
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470756980
Grimm, K. J., Ram, N., & Estabrook, R. (2016). Growth
modeling: Structural equation and multilevel modeling
approaches. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Haber, J. R., & Jacob, T. (2007). Alcoholism risk modera-
tion by a socio-religious dimension. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol and Drugs, 68, 912–922. https://doi.org/10.
15288/jsad.2007.68.912
Hammack, P. L., Pilecki, A., Caspi, N., & Strauss, A. A.
(2011). Prevalence and correlates of delegitimization
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 269
among Jewish Israeli adolescents. Peace and Conflict:
Journal of Peace Psychology, 17(2), 151–178. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10781919.2010.544636
Hardy, S. A., & Carlo, G. (2005). Religiosity and prosocial
behaviours in adolescence: The mediating role of
prosocial values. Journal of Moral Education, 34(2), 231–
249. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240500127210
Hardy, S. A., & Raffaelli, M. (2003). Adolescent religios-
ity and sexuality: An investigation of reciprocal influ-
ences. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 731–739. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.09.003
Hardy, S. A., Nadal, A. R. C., & Schwartz, S. J. (2017).
The integration of personal identity, religious identity,
and moral identity in emerging adulthood. Identity, 17
(2), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/15283488.2017.
1305905
Hardy, S. A., Pratt, M. W., Pancer, S. M., Olsen, J. A., &
Lawford, H. L. (2011). Community and religious
involvement as contexts of identity change across late
adolescence and emerging adulthood. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(2), 125–135.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025410375920
Hardy, S. A., Steelman, M. A., Coyne, S. M., & Ridge, R.
D. (2013). Adolescent religiousness as a protective fac-
tor against pornography use. Journal of Applied Develop-
mental Psychology, 34(3), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.appdev.2012.12.002
Hardy, S. A., Walker, L. J., Rackham, D. D., & Olsen, J.
A. (2012). Religiosity and adolescent empathy and
aggression: The mediating role of moral identity. Psy-
chology of Religion and Spirituality, 4(3), 237–248.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027566
Helms, S. W., Gallagher, M., Calhoun, C. D., Choukas-
Bradley, S., Dawson, G. C., & Prinstein, M. J. (2015).
Intrinsic religiosity buffers the longitudinal effects of
peer victimization on adolescent depressive symptoms.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44(3),
471–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2013.865195
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2016). Most
people are not WEIRD. In A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Method-
ological issues and strategies in clinical research (4th ed.,
pp. 113–114). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-007
Hills, F., Meyer-Weitz, A., & Asante, K. O. (2016). The
lived experiences of street children in Durban, South
Africa: Violence, substance use, and resilience. Interna-
tional Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-
Being, 11. https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v11.30302
Holmes, C., & Kim-Spoon, J. (2016). Why are religious-
ness and spirituality associated with externalizing psy-
chopathology? A literature review. Clinical Child and
Family Psychology Review, 19(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10567-015-0199-1.
Holmes, C., & Kim-Spoon, J. (2017). Adolescents’ reli-
giousness and substance use are linked via afterlife
beliefs and future orientation. The Journal of Early Ado-
lescence, 37, 1054–1077. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0272431616642325.
270 HARDY, NELSON, MOORE, AND KING
Hood, R. W. J. (2013). Methodological diversity in the
psychology of religion and spirituality. In K. I. Parga-
ment, J. J. Exline, & J. W. Jones (Eds.), APA handbook of
psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol 1): Context, the-
ory, and research (pp. 79–102). Washington, DC: Ameri-
can Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.
1037/14045-004
Horowitz, J. L., & Garber, J. (2003). Relation of intelli-
gence and religiosity to depressive disorders in off-
spring of depressed and nondepressed mothers.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, 42, 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.
CHI.0000046831.09750.03.
Hull, P., Kilbourne, B., Reece, M., & Husaini, B. (2008).
Community involvement and adolescent mental
health: Moderating effects of race/ethnicity and neigh-
borhood disadvantage. Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy, 36, 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20253
Hull, S. J., Hennessy, M., Bleakley, A., Fishbein, M., &
Jordan, A. (2011). Identifying the causal pathways
from religiosity to delayed adolescent sexual behavior.
Journal of Sex Research, 48, 543–553. https://doi.org/10.
1080/00224499.2010.521868
Idler, E. L., Musick, M. A., Ellison, C. G., George, L. K.,
Krause, N., Ory, M. G., . . . Williams, D. R. (2003). Mea-
suring multiple dimensions of religion and spirituality
for health research: Conceptual background and find-
ings from the 1998 General Social Survey. Research on
Aging, 25, 327–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/01640275
03025004001
Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2011). The effects of childhood
exposure to drug users and religion on drug use in ado-
lescence and young adulthood. Youth & Society, 43,
1220–1245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10393483
Jones, B. L., Volker, D. L., Vinajeras, Y., Butros, L., Fitch-
patrick, C., & Rossetto, K. (2010). The meaning of sur-
viving cancer for Latino adolescents and emerging
young adults. Cancer Nursing, 33(1), 74–81. https://doi.
org/10.1097/NCC.0b013e3181b4ab8f.
Jose, P. E. (2013). Doing statistical mediation and modera-
tion. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Kang, P. P., & Romo, L. F. (2011). The role of religious
involvement on depression, risky behavior, and aca-
demic performance among Korean American adoles-
cents. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 767–778. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.08.003
K
ezdy, A., Martos, T., Boland, V., & Horv
ath-Szab
o, K.
(2011). Religious doubts and mental health in adoles-
cence and young adulthood: The association with reli-
gious attitudes. Journal of Adolescence, 34(1), 39–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2010.03.003
Kim-Spoon, J., Farley, J. P., Holmes, C., Longo, G. S., &
McCullough, M. E. (2014). Processes linking parents’
and adolescents’ religiousness and adolescent sub-
stance use: Monitoring and self-control. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 43, 745–756. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10964-013-9998-1
Kim-Spoon, J., Longo, G. S., & McCullough, M. E. (2012).
Adolescents who are less religious than their parents
are at risk for externalizing and internalizing symp-
toms: The mediating role of parent–adolescent relation-
ship quality. Journal of Family Psychology, 26, 636–641.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029176
Kincaid, C., Jones, D. J., Sterrett, E., & McKee, L. (2012).
A review of parenting and adolescent sexual behavior:
The moderating role of gender. Clinical Psychology
Review, 32(3), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.
2012.01.002
King, P. E. (2003). Religion and identity: The role of ideo-
logical, social, and spiritual contexts. Applied Develop-
mental Science, 7(3), 197–204. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S1532480XADS0703_11.
King, R. B. (2015). Sense of relatedness boosts engage-
ment, achievement, and well-being: A latent growth
model study. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 42,
26–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.04.002.
King, P. E., & Boyatzis, C. J. (2015). Religious and spiri-
tual development. In M. E. Lamb, & R. M. Lerner
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental
science: Socioemotional processes (Vol. 3, 7th ed., pp. 975–
1021). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
King, P. E., Clardy, C. E., & Ramos, J. S. (2014). Adoles-
cent spiritual exemplars: Exploring spirituality in the
lives of diverse youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 29
(2), 186–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558413502
534
King, P. E., & Furrow, J. L. (2004). Religion as a resource
for positive youth development: Religion, social capi-
tal, and moral outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 40,
703–713. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.5.703
King, P. E., Ramos, J. S., & Clardy, C. E. (2013). Searching
for the sacred: Religion, spirituality, and adolescent
development. In K. I. Pargament, J. J. Exline, & J. W.
Jones (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and
spirituality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and research (pp. 513–
528). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
ation. https://doi.org/10.1037/14045-028
King, P. E., Schnitker, S. A., & Houltberg, B. (in press).
Moral development and religious engagement. In L.
Jenson (Ed.), Handbook of moral development. New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
King, P. E., Kim, S.-H., Furrow, J. L., & Clardy, C. E.
(2017). Preliminary exploration of the Measurement of
Diverse Adolescent Spirituality (MDAS) among Mexi-
can youth. Applied Developmental Science, 21(4), 235–
250.
Knishkowy, B., Verbov, G., Amitai, Y., Stein-Zamir, C., &
Rosen, L. (2012). Reaching Jewish ultra-orthodox ado-
lescents: Results from a targeted smoking prevention
trial. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and
Health, 24(2), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijamh.
2012.026
Koenig, H., Parkerson, G. R. J., & Meador, K. G. (1997).
Religion index for psychiatric research. The American

Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 885–886. https://doi.org/10.
1176/ajp.154.6.885b
Kroger, J., & Marcia, J. E. (2011). The identity statuses:
Origins, meanings, and interpretations. In S. J.
Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.), Handbook
of identity theory and research (Vol. 1, pp. 31–53). New
York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9
Krok, D. (2015). Religiousness, spirituality, and coping
with stress among late adolescents: A meaning-making
perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 45, 196–203.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.10.004
Kubiliene, N., Yan, M. C., Kumsa, M. K., & Burman, K.
(2015). The response of youth to racial discrimination:
Implications for resilience theory. Journal of Youth Stud-
ies, 18(3), 338–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.
90.4.644
Kuczynski, L., Parkin, C. M., & Pitman, R. (2015).
Socialization as dynamic process: A dialectical, trans-
actional perspective. In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hast-
ings (Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and
research (2nd ed., pp. 135–157). New York, NY: Guil-
ford Press.
Kumar, R., Seay, N., & Karabenick, S. A. (2015). Immi-
grant Arab adolescents in ethnic enclaves: Physical
and phenomenological contexts of identity negotiation.
Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21(2),
201–212. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037748
Laird, R. D., Marks, L. D., & Marrero, M. D. (2011). Reli-
giosity, self-control, and antisocial behavior: Religiosity
as a promotive and protective factor. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 32(2), 78–85. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.appdev.2010.12.003
Latzer, Y., Weinberger-Litman, S. L., Gerson, B., Rosch,
A., Mischel, R., Hinden, T., . . . Silver, J. (2015). Nega-
tive religious coping predicts disordered eating pathol-
ogy among Orthodox Jewish adolescent girls. Journal of
Religion and Health, 54, 1760–1771. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10943-014-9927-y
Layton, E., Hardy, S. A., & Dollahite, D. C. (2012). Reli-
gious exploration among highly-religious American
adolescents. Identity: An International Journal of Theory
and Research, 12, 157–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15283488.2012.668728
Le, T. N., Tov, W., & Taylor, J. (2007). Religousness and
depressive symptoms in five ethnic adolescent groups.
International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 17(3),
209–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508610701402259
Lerner, R. M., Agans, J. P., DeSouza, L. M., & Gasca, S.
(2013). Describing, explaining, and optimizing within-
individual change across the life span: A relational
developmental systems perspective. Review of General
Psychology, 17(2), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0032931
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J. V., & Benson, J. B. (2011). Positive
youth development: Research and applications for pro-
moting thriving in adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, J. V.
Lerner, & J. B. Benson (Eds.), Advances in child
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 271
development and behavior, Vol 41: Positive youth develop-
ment (Vol 41, pp. 1–17). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Aca-
demic Press.
Li, K.-K., & Chow, W.-Y. (2015). Religiosity/spirituality
and prosocial behaviors among Chinese Christian ado-
lescents: The mediating role of values and gratitude.
Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 7(2), 150–161.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038294
Li, S. D. (2014). Familial religiosity, family processes, and
juvenile delinquency in a national sample of early ado-
lescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34, 436–462.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431613495445
Liu, E. X., Carter, E. W., Boehm, T. L., Annandale, N. H.,
& Taylor, C. E. (2014). In their own words: The place
of faith in the lives of young people with autism and
intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Dis-
abilities, 52, 388–404. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-
9556-52.5.388
Longo, G. S., Bray, B. C., & Kim-Spoon, J. (2017). Profiles
of adolescent religiousness using latent profile analy-
sis: Implications for psychopathology. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 91–105. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bjdp.12183
Mahoney, A. (2013). The spirituality of us: Relational
spirituality in the context of family relationships. In K.
I. Pargament, J. J. Exline, & J. W. Jones (Eds.), APA
handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (Vol 1):
Context, theory, and research (pp. 365–389). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.
org/10.1037/14045-020
Maio, G. R., Olson, J. M., & Cheung, I. (2013). Attitudes
in social behavior. In H. Tennen, J. Suls, & I. B. Weiner
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Personality and social psy-
chology (Vol. 5, 2nd ed., pp. 275–304). Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Manlove, J., Logan, C., Moore, K. A., & Ikramullah, E.
(2008). Pathways from family religiosity to adolescent
sexual activity and contraceptive use. Perspectives on
Sexual and Reproductive Health, 40(2), 105–117.
https://doi.org/10.1363/4010508
Marks, L. D., & Dollahite, D. C. (2016). Religion and fami-
lies: An introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814599
Markstrom, C. A., Huey, E., Stiles, B. M., & Krause, A. L.
(2010). Frameworks of caring and helping in adoles-
cence: Are empathy, religiosity, and spirituality related
constructs? Youth & Society, 42(1), 59–80. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0044118X09333644
Marsiglia, F. F., Kulis, S., Nieri, T., & Parsai, M. (2005).
God forbid! Substance use among religious and
nonreligious youth. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
75(4), 585–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.75.4.
585.
Martinez, J., Lemos, D., & Hosek, S. (2012). Stressors and
sources of support: The perceptions and experiences of
newly diagnosed Latino youth living with HIV. AIDS
Patient Care and STDs, 26(5), 281–290. https://doi.org/
10.1089/apc.2011.0317.
272 HARDY, NELSON, MOORE, AND KING
Mason, W. A., & Windle, M. (2001). Family, religious,
school and peer influences on adolescent alcohol use:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62
(1), 44–53. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsa.2001.62.44
McArdle, J. J., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2014). Longitudinal
data analysis using structural equation models. Washing-
ton, DC: American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/14440-000
McCullough, M. E., & Carter, E. C. (2013). Religion, self-
control, and self-regulation: How and why are they
related? In K. I. Pargament, J. J. Exline, & J. W. Jones
(Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spiritu-
ality (Vol 1): Context, theory, and research (pp. 123–138).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/14045-006
McMurdie, C. A., Dollahite, D. C., & Hardy, S. A. (2013).
Adolescent and parent perceptions of the influence of
religious belief and practice. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 32(3), 192–205.
Meier, A. M. (2003). Adolescents’ transition to first inter-
course, religiosity, and attitudes about sex. Social
Forces, 81(3), 1031–1052. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.
2003.0039
Metzger, A., Dawes, N., Mermelstein, R., & Wakschlag,
L. (2011). Longitudinal modeling of adolescents’ activ-
ity involvement, problem peer associations, and youth
smoking. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32
(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.09.005
Nesselroade, J. R., & Molenaar, P. C. M. (2010). Empha-
sizing intraindividual variability in the study of devel-
opment over the life span: Concepts and issues. In W.
F. Overton, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), The handbook of life-
span development, Vol 1: Cognition, biology, and methods
(pp. 30–54). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470880166.hlsd001002
Ng, E. C. W., & Chan, C. C. (2015). The gratitude of
underprivileged young people in Hong Kong: The
potential role of religious mentors. Journal of Psychology
and Theology, 43(2), 140–147.
Ng Tseung-Wong, C., & Verkuyten, M. (2013). Religious
and national group identification in adolescence: A
study among three religious groups in Mauritius. Inter-
national Journal of Psychology, 48, 846–857. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00207594.2012.701748
Nourian, M., Shahbolaghi, F. M., Tabrizi, K. N., Rassouli,
M., & Biglarrian, A. (2016). The lived experiences of resi-
lience in Iranian adolescents living in residential care
facilities: A hermeneutic phenomenological study. Inter-
national Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-
Being, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.3402/qhw.v11.30485
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). Life-
span development of self-esteem and its effects on
important life outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 102, 1271–1288. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0025558
Overton, W. F. (2015). Processes, relations, and relational-
developmental-systems. In W. F. Overton, P. C. M.
Molenaar, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology and developmental science: Theory and method
(pp. 9–62). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Page, M. J. L., Lindahl, K. M., & Malik, N. M. (2013). The
role of religion and stress in sexual identity and men-
tal health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 665–677.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12025.
Pakpahan, E., Hoffmann, R., & Kr€ oger, H. (2017). Statisti-
cal methods for causal analysis in life course research:
An illustration of a cross-lagged structural equa-
tion model, a latent growth model, and an autoregres-
sive latent trajectories model. International Journal of
Social Research Methodology: Theory & Practice, 20(1), 1–
19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1091641
Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000).
The many methods of religious coping: Development
and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 56, 519–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)
1097-4679(200004)56:4<519:AID-JCLP6>3.0.CO;2-1
Pearce, L. D., Hayward, G. M., & Pearlman, J. A. (2017).
Measuring five dimensions of religiosity across adoles-
cence. Review of Religious Research, 59(3), 367. https://d
oi.org/10.1007/s13644-017-0291-8
Pearce, M. J., Jones, S. M., Schwab-stone, M. E., & Ruch-
kin, V. (2003). The protective effects of religiousness
and parent involvement on the development of con-
duct problems among youth exposed to violence. Child
Development, 74, 1682–1696. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.
1467-8624.2003.00631.x
P
erez, J. E., Little, T. D., & Henrich, C. C. (2009). Spiritu-
ality and depressive symptoms in a school-based sam-
ple of adolescents: A longitudinal examination of
mediated and moderated effects. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 44, 380–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohea
lth.2008.08.022
Petts, R. J. (2009). Family and religious characteristics’
influence on delinquency trajectories from adolescence
to young adulthood. American Sociological Review, 74(3),
465–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400307.
Phan, D. L., & Kingree, J. B. (2001). Sexual abuse victim-
ization and psychological distress among adolescent
offenders. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse: Research, Treat-
ment, & Program Innovations for Victims, Survivors, &
Offenders, 10, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J070v10n04_05
Pirutinsky, S. (2014). Does religiousness increase self-con-
trol and reduce criminal behavior?: A longitudinal
analysis of adolescent offenders. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 41, 1290–1307. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0093854814531962
Pitel, L., Geckova, A. M., Kolarcik, P., Halama, P., Reijn-
eveld, S. A., & van Dijk, J. P. (2012). Gender differ-
ences in the relationship between religiosity and
health-related behaviour among adolescents. Journal of
Epidemiology and Community Health, 66, 1122–1128.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2011-200914
Rasic, D., Asbridge, M., Kisely, S., & Langille, D. (2013).
Longitudinal associations of importance of religion

and frequency of service attendance with depression
risk among adolescents in Nova Scotia. The Canadian
Journal of Psychiatry, 58, 291–299. https://doi.org/10.
1177/070674371305800507.
Ream, G. L. (2006). Reciprocal effects between the per-
ceived environment and heterosexual intercourse
among adolescents. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 35,
771–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-006-9076-z
Rechter, E., & Sverdlik, N. (2016). Adolescents’ and
teachers’ outlook on leisure activities: Personal values
as a unifying framework. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 99, 358–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.
2016.04.095
Regnerus, M. D. (2003). Linked lives, faith, and behavior:
Intergenerational religious influence on adolescent
delinquency. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
42, 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5906.00172
Regnerus, M. D., & Elder, G. H. (2003). Religion and vul-
nerability among low-risk adolescents. Social Science
Research, 32, 633–658. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0049-
089x(03),00027-9
Rew, L., & Wong, Y. J. (2006). A systematic review of
associations among religiosity/spirituality and adoles-
cent health attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Adoles-
cent Health, 38, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad
ohealth.2005.02.004
Reynolds, N., Mrug, S., & Guion, K. (2013). Spiritual
coping and psychosocial adjustment of adolescents
with chronic illness: The role of cognitive attribu-
tions, age, and disease group. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 52, 559–565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohea
lth.2012.09.007
Reynolds, N., Mrug, S., Hensler, M., Guion, K., &
Madan-Swain, A. (2014). Spiritual coping and adjust-
ment in adolescents with chronic illness: A 2-year
prospective study. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 39,
542–551. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsu011
Richert, R. A., Boyatzis, C. J., & King, P. E. (2017). Intro-
duction to the British Journal of Developmental Psy-
chology special issue on religion, culture, and
development. British Journal of Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 35(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12179
Roesch, S. C., Vaughn, A. A., Aldridge, A. A., & Villodas,
F. (2009). Daily diaries and minority adolescents: Ran-
dom coefficient regression modeling of attributional
style, coping, and affect. International Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 44, 393–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020759080
2644758
Roesch, S. C., Duangado, K. M., Vaughn, A. A., Aldridge,
A. A., & Villodas, F. (2010). Dispositional hope and the
propensity to cope: A daily diary assessment of minority
adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychol-
ogy, 16(2), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016114
Rose, T., Shields, J., Tueller, S., & Larson, S. (2015). Reli-
giosity and behavioral health outcomes of adolescents
living in disaster-vulnerable areas. Journal of Religion
and Health, 54(2), 480–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10943-014-9828-0
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 273
Rostosky, S. S., Wilcox, B. L., Wright, M. L. C., & Ran-
dall, B. A. (2004). The impact of religiosity on adoles-
cent sexual behavior: A review of the evidence. Journal
of Adolescent Research, 19, 677–697. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0743558403260019
Rostosky, S. S., Regnerus, M. D., & Wright, M. L. C. (2003).
Coital debut: The role of religiosity and sex attitudes in
the add health survey. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 358–
367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552202
Rouholamini, M., Kalantarkousheh, S. M., & Sharifi, E.
(2017). Effectiveness of spiritual components training
on life satisfaction of Persian orphan adolescents. Jour-
nal of Religion and Health, 56, 1895–1902. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10943-016-0256-1
Salas-Wright, C. P., Vaughn, M. G., Hodge, D. R., & Per-
ron, B. E. (2012). Religiosity profiles of American youth
in relation to substance use, violence, and delinquency.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 1560–1575.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9761-z
Salas-Wright, C. P., Vaughn, M. G., Maynard, B. R.,
Clark, T. T., & Snyder, S. (2017). Public or private reli-
giosity: Which is protective for adolescent substance
use and by what pathways? Youth & Society, 49(2),
228–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X14531603
Sanchez, Z. M., Opaleye, E. S., Chaves, T. V., Noto, A. R.,
& Nappo, S. A. (2011). God forbids or mom disap-
proves? Religious beliefs that prevent drug use among
youth. Journal of Adolescent Research, 26, 591–616.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558411402337
Saroglou, V. (2011). Believing, bonding, behaving, and
belonging: The Big Four religious dimensions and cul-
tural variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42,
1320–1340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111412267
Sawatzky, R., Gadermann, A., & Pesut, B. (2009). An
investigation of the relationships between spirituality,
health status and quality of life in adolescents. Applied
Research in Quality of Life, 4(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11482-009-9065-y
Schnitker, S. A., Felke, T. J., Barrett, J. L., & Emmons, R.
A. (2014a). Longitudinal study of religious and spiri-
tual transformation in adolescents attending young life
summer camp: Assessing the epistemic, intrapsychic,
and moral sociability functions of conversion. Psychol-
ogy of Religion and Spirituality, 6(2), 83–93. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0035359
Schnitker, S. A., Felke, T. J., Barrett, J. L., & Emmons, R.
A. (2014b). Virtue development following spiritual
transformation in adolescents attending evangelistic
summer camp. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 33
(1), 22–35.
Schnitker, S. A., Houltberg, B., Dyrness, W., & Redmond,
N. (2017). The virtue of patience, spirituality, and suf-
fering: Integrating lessons from positive psychology,
psychology of religion, and Christian theology. Psy-
chology of Religion and Spirituality, 9(3), 264–275.
https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000099
Schnitker, S. A., King, P. E., & Houltberg, B. (2019). Reli-
gion, spirituality, and thriving: Transcendent narrative,
274 HARDY, NELSON, MOORE, AND KING
virtue, and telos. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29,
276–290.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (2001). Value hierarchies
across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Jour-
nal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268–290.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032003002
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Posi-
tive psychology: An introduction. American Psycholo-
gist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.
55.1.5
Shannon, D. K., Oakes, K. E., Scheers, N. J., Richardson,
F. J., & Stills, A. B. (2013). Religious beliefs as modera-
tor of exposure to violence in African American ado-
lescents. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 5(3),
172–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030879.
Sharma, V., & Kaur, S. (2017). Spiritual wellness among
aggressive adolescents: Efficacy of Raga Bhairavi. Psy-
chomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain, 27(4), 350–354.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pmu0000200
Shepperd, J. A., Miller, W. A., & Smith, C. T. (2015). Reli-
giousness and aggression in adolescents: The mediat-
ing roles of self-control and compassion. Aggressive
Behavior, 41, 608–621. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.
21600
Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (2004). Identi-
fying the mechanisms whereby family religiosity influ-
ences the probability of adolescent antisocial behavior.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 547–563.
Sirin, S. R., & Fine, M. (2007). Hyphenated selves: Mus-
lim American youth negotiating identities on the fault
lines of global conflict. Applied Developmental Science, 11
(3), 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/1088869070145
4658
Slife, B. D., & Reber, J. S. (2009). Is there a pervasive
implicit bias against theism in psychology? Journal of
Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 29(2), 63–79.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016985
Smith, C. (2017). Religion: What it is, how it works, and why
it matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400887989
Steinman, K. J., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2004). Religious
activity and risk behavior among African American
adolescents: Concurrent and developmental effects.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 33(3–4), 151–
161. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AJCP.0000027002.
93526.bb
Terreri, C. J., & Glenwick, D. S. (2013). The relationship
of religious and general coping to psychological
adjustment and distress in urban adolescents. Journal
of Religion and Health, 52(4), 1188–1202. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10943-011-9555-8.
Tirrell, J. M., Geldhof, G. J., King, P. E., Dowling, E., Sim,
A., Iraheta, G., . . . Lerner, R. M. (2018). Spirituality,
hope, and thriving among El Salvadoran youth: Initial
findings from the Compassion International Study of
Positive Youth Development. Child & Youth Care Forum.
Thananart, M., Tori, C. D., & Emavardhana, T. (2000). A
longitudinal study of psychosocial changes among
Thai adolescents participating in a Buddhist ordination
program for novices. Adolescence, 35, 285–293.
Trommsdorff, G. (2015). Cultural roots of values, morals,
and religious orientations in adolescent development. In
L. A. Jensen (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human develop-
ment and culture: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 377–
395). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tuicomepee, A., & Romano, J. L. (2008). Thai adolescent
survivors 1 year after the 2004 tsunami: A mixed
methods study. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3),
308–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.308
Ulmer, J. T., Desmond, S. A., Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R.
(2012). Religious involvement and dynamics of mari-
juana use: Initiation, persistence, and desistence. Devi-
ant Behavior, 33, 448–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01639625.2011.636653
Vaidyanathan, B. (2011). Religious resources or differen-
tial returns? Early religious socialization and declining
attendance in emerging adulthood. Journal for the Scien-
tific Study of Religion, 50(2), 366–387. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-5906.2011.01573.x
van der Jagt-Jelsma, W., de Vries-Schot, M., Scheepers,
P., van Deurzen, P. A. M., Klip, H., & Buitelaar, J. K.
(2017). Longitudinal study of religiosity and mental
health of adolescents with psychiatric problems. The
TRAILS study. European Psychiatry, 45, 65–71.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.05.031
Van der Meer Sanchez, Z., De Oliveira, L. G., & Nappo,
S. A. (2008). Religiosity as a protective factor against
the use of drugs. Substance Use & Misuse, 43, 1476–
1486. https://doi.org/10.1080/10826080802183288
Vaughan, E. L., de Dios, M. A., Steinfeldt, J. A., & Kratz,
L. M. (2011). Religiosity, alcohol use attitudes, and
alcohol use in a national sample of adolescents. Psy-
chology of Addictive Behaviors, 25(3), 547–553. https://
doi.org/10.1037/a0024660
Ward, B. W., Allen, A., & Gryczynski, J. (2014). Racial/
ethnic differences in the relationship among cigarette
use, religiosity, and social norms for U.S. adolescents.
Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 13(4), 337–361.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332640.2014.958636
Weinberger-Litman, S. L., Rabin, L. A., Fogel, J., Men-
singer, J. L., & Litman, L. (2016). Psychosocial media-
tors of the relationship between religious orientation
and eating disorder risk factors in young Jewish
women. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 8, 265–
276. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040293
Wills, T. A., Yaeger, A. M., & Sandy, J. M. (2003). Buffer-
ing effect of religiosity for adolescent substance use.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 17(1), 24–31. https://d
oi.org/10.1037/0893-164X.17.1.24.
Wrzus, C., & Neyer, F. J. (2016). Co-development of per-
sonality and friendships across the lifespan: An empir-
ical review on selection and socialization. European
Psychologist, 21, 254–273. https://doi.org/10.1027/
1016-9040/a000277
Yang, H.-J., Mao, C.-L., Wei, C.-Y., & Huang, S.-S. (2017).
Religious characteristics, spirituality, and depressive

symptoms among 10th- to 12th-graders living in a
Buddhist or Daoist culture: A short-term longitudinal
study. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion,
27(1), 14–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508619.2015.
1097806
Yu, M., & Stiffman, A. R. (2007). Culture and environ-
ment as predictors of alcohol abuse/dependence
symptoms in American Indian youths. Addictive Behav-
iors, 32, 2253–2259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.
2007.01.008
Zimmerman, M. A., & Maton, K. I. (1992). Life-style and
substance use among male African-American urban
adolescents: A cluster analytic approach. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 20(1), 121–138.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00942184.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found
online in the Supporting Information section at the
end of the article.
RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE 275
Appendix S1. PsycInfo search criteria.
Appendix S2. Targeted searches based on study
methodology within the 1,920 records in endnote.
Appendix S3. Filtering within research question
based on primary methodological approaches to
examining religious influence.
Appendix S4. References and coding for all studies
included in the systematic review.
Appendix S5. Dimensions of religiosity and spiri-
tuality (RS).
Appendix S6. RS coding frequencies.
Appendix S7. Outcome coding frequencies.
Appendix S8. Mediator coding frequencies.
Appendix S9. Moderator and predictor coding fre-
quencies for moderation studies
Appendix S10. Processes of influence coding fre-
quencies from qualitative studies
Appendix S11. Descriptions and operationaliza-
tions for coding categories for all variables other
than RS.