1. Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
Religiosity, Marijuana Use, and Binge Drinking: The Role of Dimensions of Faith
Craig Rivera, PhD
Niagara University
Society for the Scientific Study of Religion
November 8, 2013
Boston, MA

2. Background (Continued)
Empirical support for direct effects of religiosity on substance use (e.g., Bahr & Hoffman, 2008; Ulmer et al., 2012; Wallace et al., 2007)
Empirical support for indirect effects of religiosity, such as through peer selection or social bonds (e.g., Bahr et al., 1998; Ulmer et al., 2012)
Baier & Wright (2001), Chitwood et al. (2008), and Johnson et al. (2000) have thorough reviews of the impact of religiosity on deviance in general and substance use in particular

3. Background (Continued)
Religiosity has been operationalized both as a single global scale (e.g., Barr & Hoffmann, 2008; Ulmer et al., 2012) and as separate dimensions (e.g., Benda & Corwyn, 1997; Nonnemaker et al., 2003)
Common dimensions examined are public vs. private expressions (e.g., Nonnemaker et al., 2003), as well as organizational religiosity, subjective religiosity, and religious affiliation (see Chitwood et al., 2008 for a review)
Evidence exists that different dimensions may have different effects on outcomes (e.g., Chitwood et al., 2008; Nonnemaker et al., 2003)

4. Background (continued)
To build upon this research, the current study first examines the effects of religiosity operationalized as a single global scale, and then examines the effects of religiosity operationalized as separate dimensions
Specifically, the current study utilizes factor analysis to identify two dimensions of religiosity – public and private
Similar to Nonnemaker et al. (2003), but adds measures to each dimension
Public dimension consists of behaviors engaged in around others, such as attending religious services
Private dimension consists of behaviors and expressions made alone, such as frequency of praying alone and closeness to God

5. Research Questions
Is there an association between a youth’s overall religiosity and his or her use of marijuana and binge drinking?
Do different dimensions of religious faith, specifically public vs. private dimensions, have different effects on marijuana use and binge drinking?

6. Methods – Sample
National Study of Youth and Religion (Smith and Pearce)
Three wave, nationally representative study of adolescents and emerging adults (n=3,290)
Wave 1: ages 13-17; Wave 2: ages 16-20; Wave 3: ages 18-23
Data collection involved telephone interviews with youth on topics ranging from religious faith, to family and school life, to a range of developmental issues
Current analyses use Waves 2 and 3 (n=2,532)
Data were made available through the Association of Religion Data Archives

7. Methods – Measurement Marijuana Use – measured at Wave 3
Original survey question: “How often, if ever, do you use marijuana?”
Seven category response set ranging from “Never” to “Once a Day or More”
Highly skewed distribution – more than 80% answered “Never” or “A Few Times A Year”
Variable recoded into a dichotomy reflecting whether or not the youth has ever used marijuana:
1=No (69.2%); 2=Yes (30.8%)

8. Methods -- Measurement
Binge Drinking – measured at Wave 3
Original survey question: “How many times, if at all, over the past two weeks have you drunk at least 5 drinks [4 for females] in the same night?”
Four category response set ranging from “Never” to “Five or More Times”
Highly skewed distribution – more than 82% answered “Never” or “Once or Twice”
Variable recoded into a dichotomy reflecting whether or not the youth has drunk at least 5 (or 4) drinks in one night at all in the past two weeks:
1=No (52.1%); 2=Yes (47.9%)

9. Methods – Measurement Religiosity – seven items, measured at Wave 2:
How often do you attend religious services?
(Six categories: “Never” to “Once a week or more”)
How often do you attend Sunday School or other religious education classes?
(Seven categories: “Never” to “More than once a week”)
How often do you attend any organized religious groups such as Bible study, prayer group, or religious group?

10. Methods – Measurement Religiosity -- continued
How often, if ever, do you pray by yourself?
(Six categories: “Never” to “Once a day or more”)
How often, if ever, do you read from the sacred scriptures of your particular religious tradition by yourself?
How distant or close do you feel to God most of the time?
(Four categories: “Very distant” to “Very close”)
How important or unimportant is religious faith in shaping how you live your daily life?
(Four categories: “Not important at all” to “Extremely important”)

11. Methods – Measurement Religiosity – continued
Overall Religiosity Scale (α = .872)
Standardized and computed mean for all seven items
Public Dimension (α = .807)
Frequency of attending religious services
Frequency of attending Sunday School
Frequency of attending organized religious groups
Private Dimension (α = .835)
Frequency of solitary prayer
Frequency of reading sacred scriptures
How close you feel to God
Importance of religious faith

12. Methods – Measurement
Overall scale and both subscales each recoded into three categories:
Lowest quartile = Low Religiosity
Middle quartiles = Medium Religiosity
Upper quartile = High Religiosity
Draws on Smith and Denton (2005) and logic of risk and protective factor research (e.g., Farrington and Loeber, 2000)

13. Methods – Measurement Control Variables – measured at Wave 2
All models control for the following variables:
age
gender
# of friends who drink or use drugs
closeness to mother
how often they feel sad
how much they like to take risks
dichotomous measure of previous marijuana use or binge drinking

14. Methods – Analysis Plan
Logistic regression models, run separately for marijuana use and binge drinking:
Overall scale of religiosity
Public dimension of religiosity
Private dimension of religiosity
Public and private dimensions of religiosity

15. Model 4: Public and Private
Results – Logistic Regression Wave 2 Religiosity Predicting Wave 3 Marijuana Use
Model 1: Overall
(n=1,964)
Model 2: Public
(n=2,071)
Model 3: Private
(n=2,002)
Model 4: Public and Private β
High Overall Religiosity
High Public Religiosity
High Private Religiosity
-.778*** --
-.533***
-.476***
-.384**
-.319*
*p < .10; ** p < .05; ***p < .01
Note: Combined low and medium religiosity is the comparison group

16. Model 4: Public and Private
Results – Logistic Regression Wave 2 Religiosity Predicting Wave 3 Binge Drinking
Model 1: Overall
(n=1,971)
Model 2: Public
(n=2,078)
Model 3: Private
(n=2,010)
Model 4: Public and Private β
High Overall Religiosity
High Public Religiosity
High Private Religiosity
-.563*** --
-.369***
-.525***
-.223*
-.431***
*p < .10; ** p < .05; ***p < .01
Note: Combined low and medium religiosity is the comparison group

17. Summary and Conclusions
When measured as a single, global scale, youth with high levels of religiosity have significantly lower odds of using marijuana and engaging in binge drinking, controlling for several relevant factors
Findings are similar when religiosity is divided into public and private dimensions; however…
Public religiosity may have a stronger impact on marijuana use compared to private religiosity
Private religiosity may have a stronger impact on binge drinking compared to public religiosity

18. Directions for Future Research
Examine additional outcomes such as hard drug use and serious delinquency
Examine other dimensions of religiosity
Examine denomination-specific effects (e.g., building on Regnerus, 2003)