ارتباط زمینه های اجتماعی و فرهنگی: دینداری، فرهنگ و بزهکاری در میان نوجوانان کاتولیک کره ای در جنوب کالیفرنیا

Abstract Although research shows an inverse relationship between religiosity and delinquency, this association is not well understood. Scholars have attempted to explicate these findings in a number of ways, including arguments that: (1) the religiosity–delinquency relationship is limited to certain types of delinquency, (2) other theoretical variables explain or interpret the relationship, and (3) the relationship is stronger in the context of what are termed moral communities. We address these issues using a sample of Korean-American adolescents attending Catholic Sunday school. Within this relatively homogeneous moral community, one religiosity measure demonstrates an initial inverse association with three different delinquency measures, but the inclusion of control variables renders this relationship spurious. Additional results show that acculturation increases delinquency as well as interacts with religiosity to influence delinquency.

. Introduction Classical social theory often highlights the importance of religion, pointing to its role in shaping society and controlling human behavior. For example, Durkheim (1951) asserts that religion is a basic integrative mechanism for maintaining social order and fostering common beliefs and values. More specifically, religion may promote conformity and restrain deviance in a variety of ways, such as encouraging the internalization of moral values and the acceptance of social norms, participating in religious activities, developing a stake in conformity, and fearing supernatural sanctions (Tittle & Welch, 1983). However, Hirschi and Stark (1969, p. 212) declare that religion is largely unrelated to delinquent behavior and that “the church is irrelevant to delinquency,” a view that echoes those of some other early scholars (Bonger, 1916 and Lombroso, 1918). In contrast, a growing body of recent research, mainly focusing on adolescents, tends to show that measures of religion are associated with reduced levels of delinquency. A systematic review of the literature by Johnson, Jang, Larson, and Li (2000) shows that 30 of 40 studies reviewed find the expected inverse association between measures of religion and delinquency, and that multidimensional measures are more likely to show this association (Baier and Wright, 2001 and Rostosky et al., 2004). The precise nature of this relationship is, however, complex and continues to be explored, and some studies find mixed or unsupportive results (Benda & Corwyn, 1997). The present study addresses several key conditions under which religiosity may be more likely to influence delinquency (Jensen & Erickson, 1979). First, we test whether regarding the religiosity–delinquency association certain types of delinquency and whether this relationship is explained or interpreted by secular factors, such as social bonds and peer influence. Next, through the use of from a sample of Korean adolescents who attend Catholic Sunday school, we also contribute to knowledge regarding what Stark, Kent, and Doyle (1982) term a moral community, where religiosity effects may be more likely and, most importantly, we advance the issue of cultural context by testing the influence of acculturation upon the religiosity–delinquency relationship

4. Results Bivariate correlations (not shown) indicate that the three delinquency measures are all negatively but weakly associated with the measure of religious activity (r = −.13 to −.17, p < .05). However, delinquency measures are not significantly related to religious salience or the hellfire measure. Associations appear for school delinquency and attachment to friends (r = .20), serious delinquency and commitment to school (r = −.13, p < .05), and acculturation and serious delinquency (r = .20, p < .05). Overall, the bivariate correlations show that Korean American adolescents who are less religious, male, older, with few family members, more attached friends, less committed to school, and more acculturated to American culture are more likely to engage in delinquent activities. Table 1 shows the results of the three measures of delinquency regressed on religiosity, demographics, and secular variables. The results show no relationships between any of the religiosity measures and any of the different types of delinquency. The bivariate associations between religious activity and the delinquency measures disappear in the multivariate models, which suggest that the effects of religiosity are spurious in these data. The models explain 13% of the variance in the measure of serious delinquency, 25% of the variance in substance use behaviors, and 31% of the variance in school delinquent behaviors. The strongest predictor of serious delinquency is size of family (β = −.19, p < 01), but age is the strongest predictor of substance use (β = .44, p < .01), and of school delinquency (β = .47, p < .01). The effects of being female on substance use is negative and significant (β = −.13, p < .05). Among the social constraints variables, attachment to friends (β = .18, p < .01) and commitment to school (β = −.14, p < .05) have significant effects on school delinquency. Table 1. OLS regression of delinquency on religiosity, demographics and secular factors. Serious delinquency (N = 222) Substance use (N = 221) School delinquency (N = 227) B S.E. β T-value B S.E. β T-value B S.E. β T-value Female −.28 .12 −.16 −2.36 −.33 .16 −.13* −2.07 .05 .18 .02 .28 Age .06 .04 .13 1.82 .33 .05 .44** 6.89 .41 .05 .47** 7.69 Number of family −.22 .08 −.19* −2.90 −.17 .10 −.10 −1.70 .14 .12 .07 1.19 Parent education −.01 .04 −.02 −.33 .08 .06 .09 1.42 .12 .07 .10 1.74 Attachment to parents .03 .02 .10 1.45 .01 .03 .02 .34 −.07 .03 −.13 −2.08 Attachment to friends .06 .05 .08 1.18 .06 .07 .05 .87 .23 .07 .18** 3.10 Commitment to school −.04 .04 −.09 −1.22 .01 .05 .01 .13 −.12 .06 −.14* −2.22 Religious activity −.09 .07 −.08 −1.25 −.12 .10 −.08 −1.24 −.12 .11 −.06 −1.06 Religious salience −.03 .03 −.07 −.99 −.03 .05 −.05 −.69 .01 .05 .01 .13 Hellfire −.02 .02 −.05 −.78 −.02 .03 −.06 −.89 −.02 .03 −.05 −.74 Constant 2.94 .87 3.37 −.78 1.17 −.66 −2.23 1.34 −1.67 R2 .13 .25 .31 * p < .05. ** p < .01. Table options Table 2 includes the measure of acculturation and interaction terms of religiosity and acculturation. In the first models, the results show that acculturation is related to serious delinquency (β = .19, p < 01), but not to substance use or school delinquency. In the second models, the interaction terms are entered into the equations. For serious delinquency, significant interactions appear for religious activity and acculturation (β = −.35, p < 01), religious salience and acculturation (β = .08, p < .05), and hellfire and acculturation (β = .08, p < .01). However, the substance use model only has an interaction effect between hellfire and acculturation (β = −.12, p < .01). The school delinquency model does not produce significant interaction effects. The negative interaction terms indicate that the positive effect acculturation on delinquency weakens at higher levels of religiosity and that the effect of religiosity on delinquency is weaker at higher levels of acculturation. These results show that the least acculturated and most religious Korean youth have the lowest levels of serious delinquency and, to a lesser extent, substance use. Partial support thus emerges for the hypotheses that identification with a culture that strongly discourages delinquency augments or enhances the inhibitory effect of religiosity on delinquency. The R2 (.27) for the serious delinquency model with the interaction term (Model 2) also increases by 56% in comparison to the R2 (.16) for the model with only the additive variable effects (Model 1). Table 2. OLS regression of delinquency on religiosity, demographics, secular factors and acculturation. Serious delinquency (N = 220) Substance use (N = 219) School delinquency (N = 220) Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 B S.E. β S.E. B S.E. β S.E. B S.E. β S.E. Female −.32** .12 −.25* .11 −.37* .16 −.34* .16 .02 .18 .05 .19 Age .06 .03 .08* .03 .33** .05 .33** .05 .41** .05 .43** .05 Number of family −.21** .08 −.16* .07 −.18 .10 −.14 .10 .14 .12 .16 .12 Parent education −.01 .04 .01 .04 .09 .06 .09 .06 .12 .07 .13 .07 Attachment to parents .03 .02 .03 .02 .01 .03 .00 .03 −.07* .03 −.06 .03 Attachment to friends .05 .05 .04 .05 .05 .07 .06 .07 .22** .08 .21** .08 Commitment to school −.03 .04 .02 .03 .01 .05 .05 .05 −.11 .06 −.09 .06 Religious activity −.08 .07 .55** .15 −.09 .10 .07 .22 −.10 .12 .30 .26 Religious salience −.02 .04 −.18* .07 −.02 .05 −.16 .11 .02 .06 −.05 .12 Hellfire −.01 .02 .12** .04 −.02 .03 .16* .06 −.02 .03 .01 .07 Acculturation .19** .07 2.13** .58 .11 .09 1.64* .83 .12 .11 .93 .97 Relig. Activ.* Accul. −.35* .08 −.09 .11 −.22 .13 Relig. Sal.* Accul. .08 .04 .09 .06 .03 .07 Hellfire* Accul. −.08* .02 −.12** .04 −.02 .04 Constant 2.31 .88 −1.48 1.41 −1.26 1.21 −4.11 2.01 −2.77* 1.38 −4.42 2.35 R2 .16 .27 .26 .30 .31 .32 * p < .05. ** p < .01.