Is the Religiosity-Delinquency Relationship Spurious? A Test of Arousal and Social Control Theories

Abstract

Criminologists have long observed an inverse relationship between personal religiosity and self-reported delinquency. However, some scholars would argue that the observed relationship is spurious. Two claims of spuriousness dominate. First, arousal theory argues that individuals vary in their demand for arousal. Those requiring high levels of stimulation are said to be bored with church but aroused by delinquency. Likewise, those who require less stimulation will find comfort in church and exhibit little delinquency. Second, it is charged that the negative effect of religiosity on delinquency is simply the by-product of general social control. Should other more proximate measures of social control be included, the impact of religiosity would wash out. The authors examine these two claims using self-report data from a sample of approximately 1,600 high school students in Oklahoma. OLS and LISREL analyses produce findings which reveal strong support for both claims of spuriousness. When controlling for both arousal theory and social control indicators, the effect of religiosity is reduced to insignificance in the case of assault, theft, vandalism, illicit drug use, and truancy, although it remains significant regarding the use of legalized substances (i.e., tobacco and alcohol). In addition to supporting claims of spuriousness in the religion-delinquency relationship, the authors' work demonstrates: (a) the primacy of self- and social controls, and (b) the utility of an arousal/thrill-seeking perspective in understanding causes and motivations for juvenile delinquency.

Adolescent risk behaviors and religion: Findings from a national study

“…Another reasonable argument is that when youth's time is filled with pro-social, usually supervised, activities with peers, the time available to explore other risk behaviors is minimized. However, it is equally plausible that risk-averse youth seek religious settings while risk seekers avoid religious involvement (Cochran, Wood, Arneklev, 1994). A final possible explanation is that youth who value religion as important and are active with religious congregations have parents who supervise them more closely and encourage them to get involved with organized religion and thus contribute to their decreased risk activity (Cnaan, Gelles, & Sinha, 2004).…”

The moderating effects of religiosity on the relationship between stressful life events and delinquent behavior

“…Religiosity-Overall, research has shown that religiosity is negatively related to delinquency (Baier & Wright, 2001;Benda & Toombs, 2000;Johnson et al, 2001;Pearce & Haynie, 2004;Regnerus & Elder, 2003;Stark, 1996), although this finding is not universal (Cochran et al, 1994;Cretacci, 2003;Elifson, Petersen, & Hadaway, 1983;Hirschi & Stark, 1969). In general, studies have shown that individuals who are more religious commit fewer offenses.…”

“…In contrast, a smaller number of studies have found that the relationship between religiosity and delinquency is spurious when controlling for other factors (e.g., Cochran, Wood, & Arneklev, 1994;Cretacci, 2003).…”

Risk and Punishment Revisited. Errors in Variables and in the Lab

“…It has been claimed theoretically that criminals must in equilibrium be risk-seeking (Becker, 1968). Empirical evidence is only correlational, but supports the point (Cochran, Wood and Arneklev, 1994;De Li, 2004;LaGrange and Silverman, 1999). Hence those individuals whose behavior society is most interested to change by the experience of punishment are actually most sensitive to this experience.…”