Chapter 10 RELIGION AND MORALITY [Religion] makes prejudice and it unmakes prejudice. . . . Some people say the only cure for prejudice is more religion; some say the only cure is to abolish religion.1 . . . history, down to the present day, is a melancholy record of the horrors which can attend religion: human sacrifice, and in particular the slaughter of children, cannibalism, sensual orgies, abject superstition, hatred as between races, the maintenance of degrading customs, hysteria, bigotry, can all be laid at its charge. Religion is the last refuge of human savagery.2 . . . being helpful is a scriptural criterion of true religion (James 1:27), and humans will ultimately be judged on their efforts on behalf of those in need of aid or comfort (Matthew 25:31-46).3 At least initially, temperance was part of a new kind of effort to assert the authority of religious ideas in the public sphere, and to regroup religious forces under auspices outside the church.4 NO to condom distribution in the schools, NO to taxpayer funding of abortion, NO to sex-education classes in the public schools that promote promiscuity, NO to homosexual adoptions and government-sanctioned gay marriages.5 DOES RELIGION DICTATE MORALITY? Religion has a lot to say about morality. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus may not agree on the nature of God, or on religious rituals and teachings, but they do tend to agree about moral issues. In fact, when it comes to ethics, major world religionsare amaz-injj^torišlstťřh^n their teachings about right and wrong, especially concerning murder, stealing, and adultery. In Christianity, this distilled essence of morality is captured by the Ten , Commandments. And ^11 major world religions seem to teach some version of "Do unto I others what you would have them do unto you."\ Persons with a proreligious orientation would be inclined to argue that religion has tremendous potential to improve our world by teaching an ethical system that would benefit all of us. In fact, the theologies of such diverse religious bodies as Buddhists, Christians, and Jews have claimed that faith and morality are inseparable.6 And some groups, such as the conservative "Christian Coalition" in the United States, are apparently "eager to impose what it sees as a Bible-backed morality on the American public at large."7 On the other hand, some 338 Religion and Morality 339 people are not convinced that religion holds the key to morality in the world, and they may argue that it can actually cause problems. Religion as "Good" We can all think of examples in which religion apparently served or serves as a source of tolerance, helpfulness, and personal and interpersonal integrity. Mother Teresa spends her life in appalling conditions in order to help the poor, the sick, and the downtrodden, in the cause of Christian charity. Martin Luther King faced considerable danger, and was eventually assassinated, in his religiously based fight for equal rights and self-respect for black Americans. Churches also provide money, housing, and social support for refugees from other lands, and soup kitchens and halfway houses are sponsored by religious organizations. The list could go on and on. Religion as "Bad" On the other hand, many examples can be cited in which religion seemed or seems to have no impact at all, or may even have contributed to dishonesty, intolerance, physical violence, and prejudice. Anti-Semitism is preached openly in some North American pulpits. The Christian-based Ku Klux Klan spreads hatred of blacks, Jews, and Catholics. Many wars and other violent conflicts in today's world are religiously based: Catholics battle Protestants in Northern Ireland; fundamentalist Muslims in the Middle East clash with their nonfunda-mentalist brethren; Muslims and Christians fight in the former Yugoslavia; Sikhs and Hindus die in violent conflicts in India. Some may well wonder whether religion does not directly contribute to violence and injustice. Considering the Evidence Clearly, it would be a mistake to oversimplify these issues and to generalize about "religion" contributing to "morality" or "immorality." Faith is complex, and there are many unigue relido^^joiipST^rientations^and cUmensionslRatmay differentially relate to specific aspects oTMght and wrong." Furthermore, we. should not assume that religion has an impact on ethics through the j process ofj'mpraLdeveJgpment" in childhood and adolescence. We have pointed out in* Chapter 2 that(Kombenj^hought of moral development as quite distinct from its religious h countejpar^anďhe assertecHhat we should not assujne that religionm any way causes orfi eyen„cpntributes to the emergence of morality. Reviews of the literature concerning the acquisition of morality typically make little or no mention of religion in this process.8 Quite apart from formal moral development in Kohlbergian or other terms, it has been claimed that religiousness is associated with being a "better person" in numerous ways. In addition to broad moral imperatives such as "love thy neighbor," many religions have specific things to say about various personal issues: honesty and cheating, substance use and abuse, sexual behavior, criminal behavior and delinquency, helping others, and prejudice and discrimination. After a brief discussion of moral attitudes and religion, we explore each of these areas in turn, attempting to determine whether or not religion and "morality" are associated. In the case of helping behavior and prejudice, relationships with religion are especially complex and have been of considerable interest in the psychology-of-religion lit- 340 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION erature, possibly because the associations are not always what we might expect. Thus, our coverage of these latter topics is more detailed. MORAL ATTITUDES It is not surprising that religion is related to people's attitudes on a host of morality-related issues. Typically, people who arej-eligious (as measured in many different ways) are.'^rnore conservative" in their attiíudesľln ge1néräI,"those who are more religious show more opposition to abortion,9 divorce/0 pornography,11 Communism,12 contraception,13 homosexuality,1* feminism,15 nudityin .advertism^Lsuicide,17 euthanasia,18 amniocentesis,19 women going topless on beaches,20 and so on. The highly religious are also more likely to support marriage,21 capital punishment,22 traditional sex roles,23 conservative political parties,24 more severe criminal sentences,25 censorship of sex and violence in the mass medja>26 and the like. However, it is one thing to oppose premarital sex or alcohol use on the basis of religion, and quite another to act consistently with this attitude when the opportunity presents itself. Furthermore, it is possible that one's personal position on ethical issues may differ from one's "public" stance. For example, it has been found that people who personally oppose abortion on moral or religious grounds may actually favor legal abortion.27 Thus, although associa-tionfiJaeJ^enJaith^nd moral attitudesare informative, they^ono^Vwayš^ell ušmucEjbout religiun,andjnpral behavior. So we now turn to a survey of several atěaš öTBehavior with strong ethical implications, in order to assess the role of religion in people's actions. MORAL BEHAVIOR Honesty and Cheating In light of the emphasis placed on honesty by most religions, we might expect that their adherents would be less likely to lie, cheat, or otherwise deceive others. Of course, this is a difficult issue to study. One can imagine the problems associated with simply asking people how "religious" and how "honest" they are, to see whether the two variables are correlated. For both practical and ethical reasons, it is also not easy to place people in realistic circumstances that provide an opportunity to lie and cheat in order to observe their reactions. First, it is difficult to construct such situations that are realistic and believable to those being studied. Second, to provide an opportunity for people to lie or cheat could violate ethical standards of research, especially since it might be necessary to conceal the true purpose of such research in order to encourage "real-life" responding. In spite of these problems, some studies have attempted to investigate these personal morality issues. And although we might expect religion to have some impact in reducing dishonesty and cheating among religious persons, the evidence in general suggests that it has little or no impact in this regard. Early Research^ Hartshorne and May investigated a possible link between religiousness and cheating in their massive studies involving some 11,000 school children in the 1920s.28 They devised ingenious Religion and Morality 341 tests for cheating—for example, by measuring peeking during "eyes-closed" tests, and by checkingto see whether students changed their joriginal answers when they were allowejto grade tjejr own exams. In the end, they found essentially no relationship between religion and honesty QXcHěáting. In fact, there was even some tendency for children who attended Sunday-school to be less cooperative and helpful. Other early studies, such as that by Hightower, similarly found no relationship between Biblical knowledge on the one hand, and lying and cheating on the other.29 More Recent Studies A il960*investigation byGoldsen and colleagues^even found that 92% of religious college students affirmed that it was morally wrong to cheat, but that 87% of them agreed with the statement "If everyone else cheats, why shouldn't I?"30 Consistent with this, a 1980s investigation by Spilka and Loffredo reported that 72% ôTa group of highly religious college students admittedtHat they had cheated on examinations.31 And even among Mormons, a group known for its conservative and strict approach to moral issues, 70% of a sample of more than 2,000 adolescents admitted that they had cheated on tests at school.32 Other research, involving behavioral measures and diverse samples, has also confirmed that religion does not decrease cheating behavior. Guttman investigated sixth-graders from religious schools in Israel and discovered that religious children indicated some resistance to temptation on a paper-and-pencil test, but were actually more inclined to cheat on a behavioral measure.33 Smith, Wheeler, and Diener studied undergraduate college students, categorizing them as involved in the "Jesus movement" or as being otherwise religious, nonreligious, or atheistic; no differences emerged among the groups with respect to their tendency to cheat on a class examination when the opportunity was available.34 Some studies have found a negative link between religiousness and cheating, but these involved self-reports rather than actual behavioral measures. For example, Grasmick and his colleagues have carried out investigations of the relationship between religion and self-reported admission of the likelihood respondents would cheat on their income taxes (and in one study, commit theft and engage in littering) in the future.35 There was some tendency for more religious persons to indicate they were less likely to cheat on their taxes (and less likely to litter, but there was no significant relationship for theft). Similarly, in a recent nationwide Dutch survey, ter Voert, Felling, and Peters found that "strong Christian believers" reported holding a stricter moral code with respect to self-interest morality (different forms of cheating).36 We must be careful in interpreting such findings, however, since they represent self-reports only; as indicated above, what people say they will do is not always consonant with their actual behavior. Conclusion In summary, the available research spans a considerable time period (from the 1920s to the present), and has involved many diverse samples and measures. In the end, there is not much evidence from studies of actual behavior to support the position that religious people are somehow more honest, or less likely to lie or cheat, than are their less religious or nonreligious peers. In view of the clear teachings of most faiths on such issues, we are left to ponder why religion does not have a significant impact in reducing cheating behavior. 342 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION Drug and Alcohol Use/Abuse Religious teachings typically oppose the use and abuse of such substances as alcohol and illicit drugs. One might expect, therefore, that faith would be associated with decreased substance use/abuse. And in fact, the related literature generally does confirm this. Gorsuch and Butler noted "this in their survey of studies prior to the mid-1970s,37 and more recent reviews by Benson and Gorsuch concluded that research since the mid-1970s has quite consistently confirmed the tendency for more religious persons (as defined in many different ways) to be less liEelyjq use and abuse alcohol and drugs.38 The range of studies in this area is impressive, focusing variously on alcohol, tobacco, and illicit drugs used for nonmedical purposes (such as cocaine, heroin, amphetamines, barbiturates, and psychedelic substances). Some studies focus on either alcohol or "drugs," but many investigate the impact of religion on both. Here we consider the findings of the various studies together, because their results are so similar. The Negative Relationship between Religion and Substance Use/Abuse In the early 1980s, Khavari and Harmon analyzed data from almost 5,000-people between the ages of |2 am^SS, and concluded that there was a "powerful" negative relationship between religiousness and both alcohol consumption and the use of psychoactive drugs.39 People who reported that they were "not religious at all" tended to use more tobacco products, marijuana, hashish, and amphetaminesTcômjpáŕéd witfrpeóplě who conŠTcTered them-selves to be religious. Results such as these seem to suggest that religion somehow contributes to decreased use of a variety of products that have possible negative implications for health.40 Similarly, a massive study of over 10,000 youths in Minnesota by Benson and his colleagues found that many indices of religious belief and behavior were negatively related to the use of such drugs as marijuana, LSD, PCP, Quaaludes, and amphetamines.4' Congruent results were obtained by Perkins in a study of several thousand New York college students between 1982 and 1991.42 The Magnitude and Generality of the Relationship. The size of the relationships noted above varies from study to study, but Benson concluded that on average, correlations with alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use are roughly -.20} and that the corresponding relationships for other illicit drugs are lower.43 Donahue noted some tendency for the strength of the associations to decline in the 1980s, at least among high school seniors.44 Although the obtained relationships are fairly weak, they typically remain significant even after the effects of age, gender, race, region, education, income, and other variables are controlled for (see, e.g., studies by Cochran, Beeghley, 8c Bock45 and by Benson 8c Donahue46). Benson has further pointed out that the negative relationship between religion and substance use/abuse has been found in multiple studies of adolescents, college students, and adults, and that it seems to hold for both males and females.47 With few exceptions, consistent findings have been obtained in diverse parts of the United States,48 as well as in countries such as Canada,49 Nigeria,50 England,51 Sweden,52 Israel,53 Kuwait,54 and Australia.55 New Religions. The negative association between religion and substance use/abuse is not limited to traditional religious groups, as discussed in Chapter 8. Although there is evi- Religion and Morality 343 dence that individuals who become members of cults often have a history of greater drug and alcohol useBefore joining^56 research suggests that their subsequent use of these substances often declines, sometimes dramatically (see, e.g., Richardson57; Galanter & Buckley58). In fact, these sorts of findings led Latkin to suggest that "The study of new religions may provide insights into methods of improving drug treatment programs."59 [Why Does This Relationship Exist? It is one thing to find an association between variables, and quite another to explain why that relationship exists. There are probably many factors involved in the inverse correlation between religion and substance use/abuse, and various theories have been proposed to explain the association.60 Benson's review of the related empirical literature led him to infer: Nearly all of these efforts appeal to the social control function of religion, in which religious institutions and traditions maintain the social order by discouraging deviance, delinquency, and self-destructive behavior. Religion, then, prevents use through a system of norms and values that favor personal restraint.61 The impact of reference groups has further been isolated as one means by which religion can influence substance use.62 It has also been argued that religion has its strongest influence when there is no general social consensus on the acceptability of alcohol and drugs. Thatjs,reh-gious norms may be particularly powerful referents when there is "soda].disjřensus," concerning substance use, since people will then be most likely to look to their religion for guidance.63 Benson has argued that in addition to social control mechanisms, religion also decreases alcohol and drug use/abuse indirectly by "promoting environmental and psychological assets that constrain risk-taking."64 He is referring here to religion's attempts to encourage positive behaviors through family harmony and parental support, by sponsoring prosocial values and Social competence. Research is needed to assess the extent to which such indirect mechanisms are effective deterrents to drug and alcohol use/abuse. There are interesting variations in the relationship between religion and substance use/ abuse across faith groups. Cochran, for example, found that for alcohol consumption, this association was strongest for religious bodies that condemn alcohol; faiths that were silent regarding alcohol revealed little influence of religiosity.65 (See Research Box 10.1 for further details.) In another study, Beeghley, Bock, and Cochran found that when people changed religions, the effects of faith on alcohol consumption were strongest when their new religious group banned the use of alcohol.66 These findings confirm the importance of religion in the context of reference groups, and also mesh neatly with the important distinction between religiously proscribed and nonproscribed behavior, as conceptualized by Saison, Schoenrade, ančTVentis67 and described in more detail in our discussion of religion and prejudice later in this chapter. The Role of Religion in Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse The many studies that show religion and substance use/abuse to be negatively related might suggest that religion could be incorporated into treatment programs to combat substance abuse. Of course, the studies illustrating this association are correlational in nature, and we cannot assume a cause-and-effect relationship. It is likely that some prevention, treatment, and support programs could benefit from the aspects of religion that combat substance abuse, 344 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION ----------------------------------------------------^---------------------------------------------------- Research Box 10.1. Effects of Religiosity and Denomination on Adolescent Self-Reported Alcohol Use (Cochran, 1993) In this investigation, Cochran sought to assess the possibility that religious proscriptions might vary for different types of alcoholic beverages, and that this might be related to the frequency of use of these beverages. The data base came from an extensive anonymous questionnaire study of 3,065 high school students in three Midwestern states. Personal religiousness was measured by three items that asked how religious respondents were, how important church activities were to them, and what their attitudes were toward alcohol use. They were also asked about the extent to which adults and peers close to them approved or disapproved of alcohol use. Finally, Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecostals were grouped together and contrasted with Catholics, Jews, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and "nones," under the assumption that the former grouping would be more proscriptive than the latter. Controls were included for age, race, gender, and socioeconomic status. On the basis of sophisticated regression analyses, Cochran suggested that his findings, combined with those of previous work, led to two important conclusions: First, the effects of religiosity vary across faith groups. Where official doctrine proscribes use, the effects are strongest; where doctrine stands mute with regard to use (i.e., the nonproscriptive faith groups), the effects of personal religiosity are attenuated. Second, the effects of religiosity on use vary by beverage type. For alcoholic beverages such as beer and liquor, whose consumption is restricted largely to recreational use, the effects are strongest; for wine, an alcoholic beverage consumed for functional and ceremonial purposes, as well as recreational purposes, the effects of personal religiosity are less evident, (p. 488) though research is needed to clarify what those specific elements are. Gorsuch has suggested that religion may be especially effective for religious people who want their beliefs to be considered in treatment for substance abuse, if it is within a nurturing, supportive faith context.68 As Benson laments, the potential of religion has not been recognized in the general prevention and treatment literature on alcohol and drug abuse.69 This is not to say that prevention and treatment approaches do not include religious elements. So^ne_prograrns_sponsoredJby churches rely heavily on a religious perspective. Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) is an organization thathas had some success in treating alco-holismjwerjtheyears;70 although AA is essentially a secular organization, it has incorporated aspects ofreligious experience and practices in its treatment program, especially a reliance on a higher power (God) as the source of rehabilitation.71 However, the specific contribution of religion to such programs, as compared to the contribution of their other features, is difficult to assess. Research is needed that attempts to isolate the extent to which religion actually contributes to the success of prevention and treatment programs, and to show how it might better be incorporated into such attempts to better people's lives. Caveats One drawback of the many studies on religion and substance use/abuse is that they typically rely on self-reports of the latter. If, as Batson et al. have suggested, religious persons (espe- Religion and Morality 345 dally the intrinsically oriented) have an inclination toward socially desiráWe responses,72 it is possible that they are reporting a kind oFideal image of themselves, rather than an accurate assessment of their actual substance use and abuse. Apparently, few investigators have considered this possibility. In addition, most of the studies in this area examined religiousness in a very general sense, relying on measures such as church attendance and affiliation. There is evidence that in some specific contexts, the usual negative relationship between religion and substance use/ abuse may disappear, or even be reversed. For example, after an extensive survey of more than 18,000 children and parents, Forliti and Benson concluded that a "restrictive" religious ořiénfafíbn was in fact associated with increased alcohol use.73 Makela has claimed that the liberalization of alcohol policies (both religious and other) would result in increases in moderate alcohol consumption, but would decrease heavy drinking.74 In spite of repeated findings of low negative correlations between religion and substance use/abuse, there are exceptions. Some "failures" to find the expected association may reflect unique cultural or religious situations. For example, studies carried out in Iran,75 in Colombia,76 and among Chinese students in Singapore77 have shown no link between religion and alcoholordruguse. ~~ Finally, we must remember that thej^sj^sta^^s" considered in this section sometimes play a j)art in religious ceremonies or rituals for specific faith groups, and that within this context their use may actually be increased by religious involvement. For example, religious ceremonial use was one justification for drinking alcohol in Nigerian78 and Mexican and Honduran79 samples. In the 1960s some new religious groups encouraged the use of LSD, and Clark80 and Siegel81 have argued that psychedelic drugs may contribute to religious experiences and behaviors. In a different vein, Westermeyer and Walzer have even suggested that drug use among young people may occur in part because it generates personal and social benefits that would formerly have derived from religious practice.82 Summary The vast majority of studies in this area reveal a negative link between religion and substance use and abuse. The relationship is typically rather weak; there are confounds to consider, and also occasional failures to replicate the effect, but all in all, it is impressive how general and consistent the association is across diverse samples and studies. In light of this, it is somewhat surprising that the overall literature on substance use/abuse makes only token acknowledgment of religion as an important explanatory variable, and then only as one of many possible cultural influences.83 Sexual Behavior Religious institutions have made considerable attempts to con trot sHuaIT>£ftavior over the years, and one might agree with Shea that these attempts have historically resulted in a great amount of human distress and misery: ~" If we consider those people prosecuted and punished for sexual sins or crimes in Christian communities, we might conservatively estimate the number of castrations, whippings, incarcerations, burnings, beheadings, hangings, and other executions attributable directly to Christian teaching to be in the millions.84 346 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION Shea points out that such treatment has (to some extent) continued to the present time, but suggests that religion's active attempts to control personal sexuality go far beyond such blatant physical punishments. Religion has engendered shame, guilt, fear, and anxiety for a wide variety of sexual "sins."85 The psychological effects of religiously based conflict over sexuality are considered in Chapter 12. Here, however, we evaluate the evidence that religion does indeed influence the perceived morality of human sexuality, as well as sexual behavior itself. Traditionally, religion has acknowledged the proper role of sexuality as being for pro-creative purposes within the marital relationship (see Chapter 4). Consequently, virtually any sort of sexual expression outside of heterosexual marriage was considered to be inappropriate and sinful. These norms have been both strong and stable across the centuries, but recent changes in these standards have occurred, particularly in Europe and North America. The population at large and some religious groups are currently showing an increased tolerance of masturbation, premarital sex, and even some extramarital sexual behavior. As Cochran and Beeghley have poiriteďôut, some churches have addressed the problem by adjusting and softening their stand, while others have steadfastly avoided such secularization. As a result, there are significant differences in the official stands taken toward nonmarital, particularly premarital sex, among mainstream religious bodies in America.86 Is There a Negative Relationship between Religion and Nonmarital Sex? In spite of these denominational differences, research has generally found that stronger religious sellers and involvement are associated with decreased premarital sexual activity in a broad sense. For example, a recent textbook on lifespan development concluded: One of the clearest cultural influences on adolescent sexual behavior is religious participation. Adolescents who attend religious services frequently and who value religion as an important aspect of their lives have less permissive attitudes toward premarital sex. This finding applies equally to Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish young people. The relationship is accentuated in adolescents who describe themselves as Fundamentalist Protestant or Baptist.87 The reader will recognize that cause and effect are not entirely clear in such correlational relationships. It is tempting to infer that religiousness is influencing sexual beliefs and practices. However, it is also possible that sexual beliefs and practices are affecting religious commitment. Most probablyTyoung people are making their own decisions about both religion and sexuality at approximately the same time. But decisions to have more permissive attitudes concerning sexuality could influence people to be less frequent church attenders, possibly because religious participation is less satisfying to them.88 Of course, the bulk of the literature assumes that the causal direction is from religion to sexuality; given religious teachings about sexual morality, this is certainly a reasonable position. Recent work has typically found this negative association between religiousness and nonmarital sexuality, but has also tried to further specify and explain the relationship. For example, Cochran and Beeghley examined cumulative data from the National Opinion Research Center's General Social Surveys conducted in the United States between 1972 and 1989, involving almost 15,000 people.89 They did find an overall tendency for religious per- Religion and Morality 347 sons to disapprove more strongly of premarital sexuality, extramarital sexuality, and homosexuality than their less religious fellpws. However, there were notable variations across different religious groups (£ee Table 10.1), apparently indicative of the official doctrines of U.S. churches. The more strongly one's (religious) reference group condemns and prohibits various sexual acts, the more likely one is to agree. "That is, as religious proscriptiveness increases, the effect of religiosity on nonmarital sexual permissiveness increases."90 Qualifications It is surprising that there has not been more interest in the relationship between specific religious orientations and nonmarital sexual attitudes and behavior^flaerích recently investigated the role of intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness, in the sexual attitudes of about 200 undergraduate psychology students.91 Consistent with other research, Haerich found that lower church attendance and religiousness (by self-report) were weakly but significantly associated with more permissive attitudes toward nonmarital sexuality, as measured by a sexual permissiveness scale. Furthermore, permissive attitudes wer^inversely linked to intrinsiggSCQr.es andjpositively associated with intrinsic scores, usually in the .20 to .30 range. This is consistent with Woodroof's finding that extrinsics were more likely to be nonvirgins and to have had more sexual experience than intrinsics.92 Haerich interprets these findings as indicating that greater commitment to religious institutions (intrinsic scores) is associated with decreasing permissiveness, whereas people with a religious orientation that focuses on personal comfort and security (extrinsic scores) will, in a similar manner, use sexual intimacy to contribute to their personal comfort and security. However, this interpretation must be considered speculative, pending further research. The many studies that simply look for relationships between general measures of religiousness and sexual attitudes and behaviors neglect potentially important factors. For example, Reynolds has pointed out that the research investigating premarital sexual experience typically assumes that early sexual activity is consensual, when in many cases it is not, especially for females.93 Cases of nonconsensual sex should not be included in studies of the ..<"• TABLE 10.1. Attitudes toward Nonmarital Sexuality: Percentage Saying Specific Behaviors Are "Almost Always Wrong" or "Always Wrong" among Different Religious Groups Attitude toward Premarital Extramarital Religious group sexuality sexuality Homosexuality Nonaffiliated 10 66 49 Jewish 18 75 43 Catholic 36 87 77" Episcopalian 25 85 66 Presbyterian 36 89 76 Lutheran 40 90 81 Methodist 43 91 84 Baptist 49 90 89 Other Protestant 55 93 8fr' Total sample 40 88 79 Note. Adapted from Cochran and Beeghley (1991, pp. 54-55). Copyright 1991 by the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. Adapted by permission. 348 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION influence of religion on sexuality, she argues, since this could distort the nature and strength of the overall relationship. Finally, Hammond, Cole, and Beck have noted another complicating factor in the relationship between religion and nonmarital sexuality.94 Their investigation indicates that at least among white Americans, ypungoeople from fundamentalist and sect-like religions are more likely to marry ^efore^the age of :j|ufoan are mainline Protestants, even when vari-ouToltfier factors are controlled for. They argue that this tendency may result from generally stronger pressures to avoid premarital sexual intercourse. In one sense, this is important because it emphasizes another way in which a person's religious background may influence an aspect of the transition to adulthood—namely, marriage. In another sense, this tendency could also unfairly contribute to the "religion deters premarital sexual activity" finding in many studies, because early marriages in fundamentalist groups will reduce the "opportunity" for premarital sexual interaction between highly religious young people. By definition, one obviously cannot engage in premarital sex after marriage. Summary There is little dispute about the typically weak but consistent tendency for religion to be negatively related to nonmarital sexual attitudes and behaviors. However, it is also evident that the relationship is not as simple as was once thought. Again, we look to future research to specify these relationships further. Criminal Behavior and Delinquency We are all familiar with the statistics on rising crime rates, and recent projections suggest that crime and delinquency will continue to increase, possibly to "epidemic" proportions.95 As is the case for alcohol and drug use/abuse, and to some extent nonmarital sexuality, churches and synagogues typically take strong stands against criminal or delinquent behavior. One might hope that religion could act as a powerful deterrent to such acts. Of course, the phrase "criminal and delinquent behavior" covers considerable territory. Furthermore, crime statistics themselves may be unreliable: Definitions may vary from one jurisdiction to the next; some governments and police agencies may be more zealous in enforcing laws; and much crime undoubtedly goes unreported. Also, the methodological and statistical challenges in teasing out religion-delinquency relationships are considerable. The Historical Context Historically, the theoretical underpinnings of the expectation that low religious involvement may be associated with higher crime rates can be traced to the early years of this century— particularly Durkheim's emphasis on the social roots of religion, and his social integration theory of deviance and religion's place in society.96 Durkheirjifelt that religion is integrally tied to the social order, playing an important role in regitimizing and reinforcing society's values and norms. Deviance may then stem from a breakdown in the church's role in this regard. Consistent with what many people ^ /ould consider "common-sense" reasoning, the Üurkheimian tradition links strong religious ties with decreased crime rates. In fact, many of the relevant data available to us today come from sociologists who have carefully scrutinized crime and deviance statistics and their relationship to church attendance, denomina- Religion and Morality 349 tional affiliation, religious commitment, and so on. The majority of this work focuses on adolescent delinquency, with fewer investigations of adult crime. Contradictory Findings Some early research did indeed show the expected negative religion-delinquency correlations.97 However, a widely cited paper with the provocative title "Hellfire and Delinquency," published in the late 1960s by Hirschi and Stark, reported that there was little or no association between religiousness and delinquency amon&seyeral thousand^Califprnia adolescents.98 The authors suggested that earlier findings of a negative relationship had been weak and were probably spurious. Possibly because this finding was unexpected, it stimulated numerous subsequent investigations of this topic. Some of this follow-up research seemed to replicate Hirschi and Stark's original finding.99 However, other investigators have challenged this con-clusionj^jinding that religion was indeed negatively correlated with some Kinds of delinquency.100 In a notable study, Jensen and ÉričT&pn reanalyzedHirschi and Stark's data, and concluded that the original authors had reached erroneous conclusions because of their methodology.101 There was actually a negative relationship between religion and delinquency, they claiměčTTwhich had remained hidden because of the statistical analyses carried out by Hirschi and Stark. Their own findings, based on several thousand-Arizona high1 school students, confirmed the general inverse religion-delinquencyrelätioŕisKrp, though specific comparisons were often Weak and did not always achieve statistical significance. Furthermore, Jensen and Erickson noted that the importance of religious variables in "explaining" crime statistics was greater for Mormons than it was for Catholics and Protestants. This tendency for correlations to be stronger, relatively speaking, within samples of Mormon adolescents has recently been replicated by Chadwick and Top.102 That is, denominational variations may affect the results obtained. The general tendency toward relatively weak and not always consistent findings has continued in more recent research. Some studies find low but significant relationships; others generate few if any statistically reliable results. In an extensive investigation, Rainbridg^ examined data from 75 U.S. metropolitan areas and, after taking into account some possible intervening variables (e.g., social mobility, poverty), claimed that larceny, burglary, and assault were apparently deterred by religion, but murder, rape, and possibly robbery were not.103 ^Petterssoh investigated the relationship between religion and a variety of criminal behaviors rjy analyzing data from almost a thousand Swedes.104 He noted that relationships varied, depending on the type of crime at issue, but the pattern differed somewhat from that found bjy Bainbridge in the United States. Ajiegative association was found between church involvement and crimes associated with violence, violations of public order and safety, and alcohol abuse; however, there was^^ubstaritial relationship for property, narcotic, or moral offenses. Shaffer and colleagues investigated narcotic addicts and found that a variety of their criminal activity was linked with lack of early religious training, among other things.105 To complicate things even more^CocKniS^rid colleagues recently studied more than 1,500 Oklahoma high school students.106 They observed, similar to Hirschi and Stark 25 years earlier,107 that for most categories of delinquency the effect of religiosity was reduced to nonsignificant levels when ňoňreUgiouscontř^n^aBles were also considered. This leoTCochŕan etal. to assumetnaTm mostcases,thereíigiorřcTéiinquencyrelatíônsTiipisgjJuriouSí 350 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION Making Sense of the Contradictions It is difficult to draw general conclusions from these efforts^jgiyerithe differences in samples, findings and interpretations of various authors. Recently, é^^rM^oťfered several important conclusions, based on his review of the relevant research. 10^^S*, there Imbeeiijome^ tendejKyjor studies carried out in areas where organized religion is weak to show no reľa-tlÖnsEip. Buf wóŕlTčondúcféd Iri areas where organized religion is relatively strong usually generate the negative religion-delinquency findings. Thus, consistent with previous inferences by Stark,109 Bainbridge suggests that the religious community context is critical in explaining the contradictory findings in this area. Religion is more likely to act as a deterrent to delinquency irreligious social support exists (e.g., are one's friends also religious?). Bainbridge also drawsan important distinction between "hedonistic"or "antiascetic" . acts and other forms of deviance. His own research (as well as that of others) suggests that rrÜ£Kffl js negatively associated with drug and alcohol use, promiscuous sexuality, and similar "hedonistic" acts, regardless of the religious community context. It is when deviant acts such as theft, assault, ana* murder are examined that the religious social context apparently becomes important in qualifying the religion-delinquency relationship. Finally, it is clear that zero-order correlations between gross measures of religion and j delinquency can be quite misleading, since the removal of the effects of other social and cul--—' tural variables often reduces these associations considerably. Partner and Child Abuse SomgLStudies have focused on family violence, such as partner or child abuse. Capps110 and Greven111 have suggested that religion maybe seen by some people as "justifying" child abuse, in the sense that it may encourage physical punishment alchildren. These authors point to numerous Biblical passages, as well as books and articles written by Christian authors, that encourage the use of physical force in disciplining children; it is argued that these could serve as a justification for various forms of abuse (e.g., "It is for the child's own good"). Furthermore, Bottoms ánď colleagij&s have suggested that religious beliefs can threaten the welfare of children in various ways, including the withholding of medical care and attempts to rid children of evil, as well as direct physical and psychological abuse that adults see as religiously justified.'12 There is apparently little research to assess religion's possible role in exacerbating or inhibiting abuse of children. Neufeld113 and Steele and Pollock114 have suggested that fundamentalist religious parents may be especially prone to punish their children physically, and also possibly to^ahuse them; Hull and Burke have proposed that members of the "religious right" may be more likely to tolerate family abuse in general.''5 However, these possibilities must be considered conjectural, pending thorough empirical assessment. These issues are further discussed in Chapter 4. Recently, Elliott investigated childhood sexual abuse among almost 3,000 professional women.116 She could find no evidence that its prevalence was related to family religious affiliation, but there was a tendency for adult religious practices to mediate the severity of symptoms for those victimized as children. Studies such as this underline the potential of religion to help some adult survivors to cope with their earlier abuse. There have been suggestions that family abuse, generally .speaking, has roots in the strongs patriarchal family structure espoused by^some^rehgions. This patriarchal systemTssometimes Religion and Morality 351 interpreted as justifying the subordination of women, particularly in terms of their subjection to powerful male authority,117 though some women may turn to religion as a source of empowerment in other ways.118 The problem may be confounded by some clergy, who counsel women to remain with abusive husbands because it is their religious duty and responsibility to stay with and obey their spouses J19 Work on courtship and spousal violence has sometimes found links with religion, though few studies have focused on this issue. The findings of Makepeace seem to contradict the line of thinking described above, since religion was found to be negatively associated with courtship violence among college students.120 Brinkerhoff, Grandin, andtxrpri investigated possible religious involvement in spousal violence in a Canadian sample of more than a thousand adults.121 Their hypothesis that the more fundamentalist, conservative Protestants would be more abusive "because of the stereotypes surrounding their value of patriarchy"122 received mixed support. Conservative Protestant women (but notrnen123) reported the highest rates of violence (37.8%), compared to mainline Protestants (28.1%), Catholics (23.9%), and the nonaffiliated (30.8%). Furthermore, church attendance was related to spousal violence in a curvilinear manner, with frequent attenders being the least violent. These findings are potentially important, but await corroboration from further research with different samples and measures. Does Religion Sometimes Contribute to Crime? Although some studies show that religion and crime are negatively (albeit weakly) associated, we must consider the possibility that religion may also contribute to criminal behavior, at least in some situations. Some religions may emphasize the importance of standing up for one's rights ("an eye for an eye"), or a particular religious group may stress that members of this group are superior to various others; either of these factors could potentially ; incline individuals to act aggressively in some situations. In a study of regional differences in crimes against persons in the United States,(Ellisoni concluded that there was some evidence that "the public religious culture" of the South played a role in legitimizing this kind of violence^124 That is, an emphasis on the "an eye for an eye" approach to the world, instead of "turn the other cheek," may have contributed both to greater tolerance of physical force and to personal justification for retaliatory violent acts. There have been few investigations of this issue, however, and research is needed to clarify the specific contexts (if any) in which religion might actually exacerbate such acts. In recent years, there has beenmuch publicity concerningj^hysical and sexual abuse of children, adolescents, and sometimes adults^by members of the clergy. It has been suggested that religion may be a contributing factor to such abuse because of celibacy requirements, rigid rules and expectations concerning sexuality, and so on. This issue is discussed further in Chapter 12. Summary The literature on religion and crime or delinquency is somewhat contradictory and ambiguous. Although some studies do show a negative relationship, it tends to be weak and inconsistent. As in some other areas, there has been a tendency to use very general measures of religion (e.g., church attendance, denominational affiliation), and to ignorgjthe important but subtle differences that may be based on religious orientation, rather than simple atten- 352 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION dance or affiliation. When this deficiency is combined with the unreliability of crime statistics and with other problems, it becomes almost impossible to reach firm conclusions. Benson, Donahue, and Erickson's survey of the literature on adolescence and religion led them to conclude that the weight of the evidence supports the existence of a weak to moderate negative relationship between religion and delinquency.125 But» along with others,126 they point out that much of this association may be attributable to social environment factors other than to religion itself: "After accounting for whether they have friends who engage in deviant behaviors, the adolescents' closeness to their parents, and how important it is for them to do what their parents say, religion contributes little independent constraining effect."127 In general, the negative relationship seems most likely to appear for "victimless activities" (e.g., use/abuse of alcohol and drugs, consensual premarital sexual activity), rather than other delinquent behavior.128 It is important to go beyond simple correlational relationships, as indicated in research carried out by Peek, Curry, and Chalfant.129 They found evidence that over time, higher delinquency rates appeared among students who declined in religiousness, compared to those who were low in religiousness throughout the same period. Such longitudinal trends may provide the basis for future investigations of adolescent delinquency. Helping Behavior "Help those in need." "Love one another." "Treat others as you would have them treat you." These are simple yet powerful imperatives, and similar themes are espoused by all of the world's major religions, as Coward has pointed out.130 Religion has been identified with humanity and community through terms such as "love," "justice," "compassion," "mercy," "grace," "charity," and so on. The scriptural writings of most religions provide many examples of religious persons being kind to and helping others in need. And even in contemporary society, religious organizations and individuals sometimes stand out in their efforts to assist others, as noted at the beginning of this chapter. Churches become involved in relief efforts to ease the effects of famines, earthquakes, and other disasters. Religious organizations organize and fund soup kitchens in cities large and small; they help refugees to escape from unbelievable horrors and to become established in a new land; they become actively involved as peacemakers in the world's "hot spots." oliner and Oliner's interviews with hundreds of people who rescued Jews in Nazi Europe revealed some who attributed their behavior to their religious values.131 The list of religiously sponsored or promoted helping efforts is a long one. Yet many nonreligious and even antireligious persons assist others as well. Present-day society offers unlimited opportunities to aid others in a secular context, and many people accept this challenge; "religion" apparently has little or nothing to do with their good will. Of course, tins is why anecdotes are of little use in clarifying our understanding of the relationship between religion and helping behavior. Examples can be marshaled to show that both religious and nonreligious individuals and organizations assist others, and that both religious and non-religious persons and organizations can act with callous neglect when other people cry out for assistance. Our challenge is to move beyond rhetoric and anecdotal material—to examine more general links between religion and helping, as revealed in the empirical literature. Measurement and Definitional Problems As in many areas of the psychology of religion, psychometric and methodological issues are important in the study of helping behavior. In keeping with many psychological studies of Religion and Morality 353 religion, much research in this area relies on questionnaires, asking for^sejfj^poitf of religiousness and helping behavior. This raises concerns about "self-presentation" issues. For example, it can be argued that religiou^ersons may,be concerned about-appearing to be ^ood representatives of their faitii» and therefore would be inclined to exaggerate the extent to which they help others. Fortunately, there are also some studies in this area that have utilized-he^yioraljneasures, as described below, and these serve as an important counterbalance to the many questionnaire studies on helping. In this section we purposely use the term "helping" rather than "altruisrSi" in order to avoid the thorny issue of whether all helping behavior is egoistically motivated, or whether at least some helping behavior is motivated purely by the ultimate goal of benefiting someone else (i.e., altruistic behavior). The reader interested in this issue might consult Batson's book on altruism, which addresses philosophical, theoretical, and empirical aspects of this distinction.132 Early Questionnaire Studies Early survey studies in this area tended to rely on measures of frequency of church attendance as the primary measure of religiousness, with occasional forays into measures of such factors as belief in God, affiliation, or religious involvement. Assessment of "helping" typically involved self-reports (and occasionally others' reports) of one's inclination to assist others. These studies were fairly "primitive" in the sense that the measures of both religion and helping were quite simple and basic, and investigators merely looked for correlations between such general measures. These studies typically reported low to moderate correlations between religiousness and helping,133 with some investigations reporting mixed or qualified associations.134 Most of these studies failed to take other factors into account. They didof holding religious beliefs than with the beliefs themselves. It is disconcerting to some that those who make the strongest claims to being "true believers" of religious traditions, and who reportedly follow religious teachings most scrupulously, are also those who tend to be the most intolerant of others. That is, prejudice seems relatively unrelated to the content of people's beliefs, but it is associated with the ways in which people hold their religious beliefs, possibly through the influence of right-wing authoritarianism. These conclusions need further investigation, but findings from the past decade suggest considerable promise for this approach to the religion-prejudice relationship. OVERVIEW We have taken something of a roller-coaster ride in this chapter. Religion does indeed seem to be related to some aspects of moral attitudes and behaviors. We have seen that in the areas of substance use/abuse, nonmarital sexual behavior, and (to a lesser extent) crime and delinquency, more religious persons generally report that they have stricter moral attitudes and are less likely to engage in behaviors that contravene societal and especially religious norms. However, faith is surprisingly unrelated to some other behaviors, such as cheating/dishonesty and helping behavior. There are indications that religious people say they are more honest and helpful, but the data do not bear this out for actual behavior in a secular setting. Within a religious context, the more faithful do indeed help more by giving money, time, and talent to religiously based causes. However, outside such a context, it becomes very difficult to distinguish helpers from nonhelpers on the basis of their religion. Batson and his coresearchers have tried to build a case for the argument that intrinsic religiousness is only related to the appearance of helpfulness, not to actual behavior; however, some studies fail to find any association between intrinsicness and self-reported helping. Also, the quest orientation is positively associated with behavioral measures of giving assistance to others. Furthermore, when people do help others, there is some evidence that intrinsic persons may offer a kind of preprogrammed, self-serving aid, whereas individuals scoring high on quest offer a more flexible and victim-focused assistance. Still, there are arguments against this interpretation. These findings deserve a moment of reflection. Religious persons may derive some consolation from studies showing that personal faith is negatively associated with substance use/ abuse, nonmarital sexual behavior, and some criminal and delinquent acts. However, these associations tend to be relatively weak when found. We might wonder why the correlations are not much larger, given the strength and consistency of religious teachings on these moral issues. In addition, there is the failure of religion to relate consistently to honesty versus cheating and to helping behavior. And the tendency for questers to be more apt to help is even more perplexing, in the sense that the quest orientation bears little similarity to what most people think of as religion in a traditional sense. Moreover, high questers tend to score low on measures of religious orthodoxy.246 Even more troubling than this, however, is what we find in the area of prejudice. Here, we go beyond the mere absence of a relationship to discover that in some ways, religion is 372 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION positively related to prejudice. This association has been researched and debated over the years, but in the end it seems that it is not religion per se that is linked to prejudice, but rather the ways in which one holds one's faith. Thus, religious fundamentalism is positively, and quest negatively, associated with various measures of prejudice. One drawback to most of the research discussed in this chapter is that it relies very heavily on self-reports of moral attitudes and behaviors. We have already warned that such self-reports may be inaccurate and unreliable. However, in most cases it is very difficult to measure actual moral behavior, and few studies have attempted to do so, especially in highly sensitive domains such as prejudice. In consequence, we must rely on self-reports as "the next best thing," which in many cases probably gives us a reasonable impression of people's attitudes and behaviors. However, we must recognize the weakness inherent in this approach, and strive wherever possible to supplement these measures with convergent reports (e.g., from parents, friends, teachers) and especially with actual behavioral measures. In the end, we are left to puzzle over many things. Why do the obtained relationships vary so much for different moral behaviors? Why doesn't religion have a stronger impact in all of these areas? How do we explain the "no relationship" findings? Why do some highly religious persons show considerable intolerance of others? We would suggest that styles of being religious (i.e., fundamentalism and quest) must be taken more seriously in research on religion and morality. We must also consider the potential impact of an associated personality variable, right-wing authoritarianism, especially with respect to the religion-prejudice link. NOTES 1. Allport (1954, p. 444). 2. Whitehead (1926, p. 37). 3. Ritzema(1979,p. 105). 4. Schmidt (1995, p. 111). 5. Excerpt from a fund-raising letter distributed in March 1995 by the Christian Coalition, as quoted in Birnbaum (1995, p. 22). 6. Spilka, Hood, and Gorsuch (1985). 7. Birnbaum (1995, p. 22). 8. See, e.g., Darley and Shultz (1990). 9. Bryan and Freed (1993). 10. Hayes and Hornsby-Smith (1994). 11. Lottes, Weinberg, and Weiler (1993). 12. Bibby(1987). 13. Krishnan(1993). 14. Marsiglio(1993). 15. Wilcox and Jelen (1991). 16. Alexander and Judd (1986). 17. Domino and Miller (1992). 18. Shuman, Fournet, Zelhart, Roland, and Estes (1992). 19. Seals, Ekwo, Williamson, and Hanson (1985). 20. Herold, Corbesi, and Collins (1994). 21. Hayes and Hornsby-Smith (1994). 22. Bibby(1987). 23. Larsen and Long (1988). 24. Bibby(1987). 25. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992). 26. Fisher, Cook, and Shirkey (1994). Religion and Morality 373 27. Scott (1989). 28. Hartshorne and May (1928,1929); Hartshorne, May, and Shuttleworth (1930). 29. Hightower (1930). 30. Goldsen, Rosenberg, Williams, and Suchman (1960). 31. Spilka and Loffredo (1982). 32. Chadwick and Top (1993). 33. Guttman(1984). 34. Smith, Wheeler, and Diener (1975). 35. Grasmick, Bursik, and Cochran (1991); Grasmick, Kinsey, and Cochran (1991). 36. ter Voert, Felling, and Peters (1994). 37. Gorsuch and Butler (1976). 38. Benson (1992b); Gorsuch (1995). 39. Khavari and Harmon (1982). 40. Khavari and Harmon (1982). 41. Benson, Wood, Johnson, Eklin, and Mills (1983). 42. Perkins (1994). 43. Benson (1992b). 44. Donahue (1987). 45. Cochran, Beeghley, and Bock (1988). 46. Benson and Donahue (1989). 47. Benson (1992b). 48. Donahue (1987). 49. Adlaf and Smart (1985); Hundleby (1987). 50. Adelekan, Abiodun, Imouokhome-Obayan, Oni, and Ogunremi (1993). 51. Francis and Mullen (1993). 52. Pettersson (1991). 53. Kandel and Sudit (1982). 54. Demerdash, Mizaal, el Farouki, and El Mossalem (1981). 55. Engs (1982); Najman, Williams, Keeping, Morrison, and Anderson (1988). 56. Rochford, Purvis, and NeMar (1989). 57. Richardson (1995). 58. Galanter and Buckley (1978). 59. Latkin(1995, p. 179). 60. See, e.g., Cochran (1992). 61. Benson (1992b, p. 216). 62. See, e.g., Cochran et al. (1988); Cochran, Beeghley, and Bock (1992). 63. See, e.g., Hadaway, Elifson, and Petersen (1984). 64. Benson (1992b, p. 218). 65. Cochran (1993). 66. Beeghley, Bock, and Cochran (1990). 67. Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis (1993). 68. Gorsuch (1995). 69. Benson (1992b). 70. Some authors have argued that AA's success, especially as portrayed in the mass media, is overrated. See, e.g., Bufe (1991). 71. Maxwell (1984); Morreim (1991). 72. Batson et al. (1993). 73. Forliti and Benson (1986). 74. Makela(1975). 75. Spencer and Agahi (1982). 76. Marin (1976). 77. Isralowitz and Ong (1990). 78. Oshodin (1983). 79. Nateraetal. (1983). 80. Clark (1969). 81. Siegel (1977). 82. Westermeyer and Walzer (1975). 83. See, e.g., Gorsuch (1995); Petraitis, Flay, and Miller (1995). 374 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION 84. Shea (1992, p. 70). 85. See, e.g., Patton (1988). 86. Cochran and Beeghley (1991, p. 46). 87. Newman and Newman (1995, p. 439). 88. Thornton and Camburn (1989). 89. Cochran and Beeghley (1991). 90. Cochran and Beeghley (1991, p. 46). 91. Haerich(1992). 92. Woodroof(1985). 93. Reynolds (1994). 94. Hammond, Cole, and Beck (1993). 95. Walinsky(1995). 96. Durkheim(1915). 97. Jensen and Erickson (1979). 98. Hirschi and Stark (1969). 99. See, e.g., Burkett and White (1974). 100. See, e.g., Elifson, Petersen, and Hadaway (1983); Peek, Curry, and Chalfant (1985). 101. Jensen and Erickson (1979). 102. Chadwick and Top (1993). 103. Bainbridge(1989). 104. Pettersson(1991). 105. Shaffer et al. (1987). 106. Cochran, Wood, and Arneklev (1994). 107. Hirschi and Stark (1969). 108. Bainbridge(1992). 109. Stark (1984). 110. Capps(1992). 111. Greven (1991). 112. Bottoms, Shaver, Goodman, and Qin (1995). 113. Neufeld (1979). 114. Steele and Pollock (1968). 115. Hull and Burke (1991). 116. Elliott (1994). 117. Clarke (1986); Pagelow and Johnson (1988). 118. Ozorak(1996). 119. Alsdurf and Alsdurf( 1988). 120. Makepeace (1987). 121. Brinkerhoff, Grandin, and Lupri (1992). 122. Brinkerhoff et al. (1992, p. 28). 123. We must consider the possibility that this male-female difference could represent a self-serving bias on the part of the men. 124. Ellison (1991a). 125. Benson, Donahue, and Erickson (1989). 126. Burkett and Warren (1987); Cochran et al. (1994); Elifson et al. (1983); Welch, Tittle, and Petee (1991). 127. Benson et al. (1989, p. 172). 128. Chadwick and Top (1993). 129. Peek et al. (1985). 130. Coward (1986). 131. Oliner and Oliner (1988). 132. Batson (1991). 133. See, e.g., Langford and Langford (1974); Nelson and Dynes (1976); Rokeach (1969). 134. See, e.g., Friedrichs (1960); Cline and Richards (1965). 135. Nelson and Dynes (1976). 136. Hunsberger and Platonow (1986). 137. Batson et al. (1993). 138. Forbes, TeVault, and Gromoll (1971). 139. Smith et al. (1975). 140. Annis(1975, 1976). Religion and Morality 375 141. McKenna(1976). 142. Yinon and Sharon (1985). 143. Batson et al. (1993, p. 342). 144. Batson (1976, 1990); Batson, Schoenrade, and Pych (1985); Batson et al. (1993). 145. Bernt (1989); Chau, Johnson, Bowers, Darvill, and Danko (1990); Johnson et al. (1989); Tate and Miller (1971); Watson, Hood, Morris, and Hall (1984); Watson, Hood, and Morris (1985). 146. Batson et al. (1993). 147. Benson et al. (1980). 148. Hunsberger and Platonow (1986). 149. Darley and Batson (1973). 150. Gorsuch (1988); Watson et al. (1985). 151. Batson and Gray (1981). 152. Batson et al. (1989). 153. Batson and Flory (1990). 154. Batson et al. (1989). 155. See, e.g., Gorsuch (1988); Watson et al. (1984). 156. Ritzema(1979). 157. Glockand Stark (1966). 158. Eisinga, König, and Scheepers (1995). 159. Allport (1954, p. 444). 160. Gorsuch and Aleshire (1974). 161. Batson et al. (1993). 162. Spilka, Hood, and Gorsuch (1985). 163. Wulff (1991, pp. 219-220). 164. Batson et al. (1993). 165. Dittes(1969). 166. Gorsuch and Aleshire (1974). 167. Meadow and Kahoe (1984). 168. Myers (1987). 169. Paloutzian (1996). 170. Spilka, Hood, and Gorsuch (1985). 171. Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950). 172. Batson et al. (1993). 173. Gorsuch (1993); Gorsuch and Aleshire (1974). 174. Wulff (1991). 175. Gorsuch (1988, p. 212). 176. Spilka, Hood, and Gorsuch (1985, p. 271). 177. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1993). 178. Struening(1963). 179. Hunsberger (1995). 180. See, e.g., Eisinga, Felling, and Peters (1990). 181. Adorno et al. (1950). 182. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992). 183. Struening{1963). 184. Friedrichs (1959). 185. Wulff(1991). 186. Struening{1963). 187. Allport and Ross (1967). 188. See, e.g., Gorsuch (1988). 189. Spilka, Hood, and Gorsuch (1985, p. 273). 190. Kirkpatrick (1989); Kirkpatrick and Hood (1990). 191. Hunsberger (1995, p. 117). 192. Donahue (1985b, p. 405). 193. Hoge and Carroll (1973, p. 189). Emphasis added. 194. Batson et al. (1993). 195. Batson, Flink, Schoenrade, Fultz, and Pych (1986). 196. Batson, Naifeh, and Pate (1978). 197. Donahue (1985b). 376 THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION 198. Batson et al. (1978). 199. Hunsberger and Platonow (1986). 200. Spilka, Kojetín, and Mcintosh (1985). 201. Morris, Hood, and Watson (1989). 202. Watson, Morris, Foster, and Hood (1986). 203. Crowne and Marlowe (1964). 204. Batson et al. (1978). 205. Watson et al. (1986, p. 230). 206. Leak and Fish (1989). 207. Batson et al. (1993). 208. Griffin, Gorsuch, and Davis (1987). 209. McFarland(1989). 210. See, e.g., Gentry (1987); Herek (1988); Kunkel and Temple (1992); Marsiglio (1993); VanderStoep and Green (1988). 211. James (1902/1985). 212. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992, p. 118). 213. Kirkpatrick, Hood, and Hartz (1991). 214. Batson et al. (1993). 215. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992). 216. Batson and Schoenrade (1991a, 1991b). 217. Batson et al. (1993). 218. Batson et al. (1978, 1986). 219. McFarland (1989, 1990). 220. Snook and Gorsuch (1985). 221. Griffin et al. (1987). 222. Ponton and Gorsuch (1988). 223. Batson and Ventis (1982). 224. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992). 225. Kirkpatrick (1993). 226. McFarland (1989). 227. Billiet (1995, p. 231). 228. Billiet(1995,p.231). 229. Billiet(1995,p.232). 230. Adorno et al. (1950). 231. Altemeyer (1981). 232. Altemeyer (1981, 1988). 233. Duckitt(1992,p.209). 234. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992). 235. Altemeyer (1988). 236. Hunsberger (1995, p. 121). 237. Hunsberger (1996). 238. Gorsuch (1993). 239. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1993). 240. Leak and Randall (1995). 241. Leakand Randall (1995, p. 248). 242. Eisingaetal. (1995). 243. Billiet (1995). 244. Gorsuch and Aleshire (1974). 245. Spilka, Hood, and Gorsuch (1985, p. 274). 246. Altemeyer and Hunsberger (1992); Batson et al. (1993).