Child Development, xxxx 2014, Volume 00, Number 0, Pages 1–13

Trajectories of Indonesian Adolescents’ Religiosity, Problem Behavior, and Friends’ Religiosity: Covariation and Sequences Doran C. French, Sharon Christ, and Ting Lu

Urip Purwono Padjadjaran University

Purdue University

Changes in religiosity, problem behavior, and their friends’ religiosity over a 2-year period were assessed in a sample of five hundred and fifty-nine 15-year-old Indonesian Muslim adolescents. Adolescents self-reported their religiosity, problem behavior, and friendships; the religiosity of mutual friends came from friends’ self-reports. A parallel process analysis of growth curves showed that adolescents’ religiosity trajectories covaried with both problem behavior and friends’ religiosity. Using a cross-lagged model in which prior levels were controlled, religiosity at 10th and 11th grades predicted friends’ religiosity 1 year later, suggesting that adolescents select friends of similar religiosity. This study provides evidence that religion is intertwined with other aspects of adolescent development and illustrates the importance of contextualizing adolescent religiosity within an ecological framework.

Religion is important in the lives of many adolescents across the world, with more than two thirds of adolescents reporting this in a 1999 Gallup survey (Lippman & Keith, 2006). Adolescence is a time of changing religious commitments (Smith, Denton, Faris, & Regnerus, 2002) and a period during which youth begin a process that will continue into adulthood of consolidating their religious views and integrating these with other aspects of their lives (King, Ramos, & Clardy, 2013). This research builds upon an ecological approach in which religion is viewed in the context of relationships with parents, peer involvement, engagement in prosocial and antisocial activities, and other aspects of adolescents’ lives (King & Roeser, 2009). In this study, we explored the possibility that changes in religiosity over time are interconnected with changes in the religiosity of their friends as well as changes in the exhibition of problem behavior. We assessed Muslim adolescents living in West Java affording us the opportunity to study religiosity in a sample that is very religious, homogeneous with respect to religious beliefs, and in which religion is an important part of daily life. Indonesia Indonesia is the fourth most populous country and is home to the world’s largest Muslim population. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Doran C. French, Human Development and Family Studies, Purdue University, 102 W. State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Electronic mail may be sent to [email protected].

Bandung, located in West Java, is considered one of the most strongly religious regions in Indonesia (Bianchi, 2004; Glicken, 1987); the form of Islam that is prominent there is similar to that practiced in other regions of the world with its focus on the textual foundations of the Koran and its emphasis on the five pillars of Islam (i.e., testimony of faith, performance of the five daily prayers, fasting during Ramadan, almsgiving, and making the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca; Gade & Feener, 2004). The context within which religion is experienced by Muslim adolescents living in West Java differs in multiple ways from that typically experienced by youth in North America and Europe. Adolescents in our sample attended schools in which almost all students and their teachers were Muslim. Furthermore, Islam in Indonesia is interwoven with culture and tied into collectivist patterns of behavior (Cohen, Hall, Koenig, & Meador, 2005; Snibbe & Markus, 2002), there are limited boundaries between secular and religious worlds, and religion permeates daily life. Religious practice is often observable as classmates are aware of mosque attendance, adherence to prayer requirements, and compliance with fasting. Although all the participants in our sample were observant Muslims, there were individual differences in the extent to which they consistently © 2014 The Authors Child Development © 2014 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2014/xxxx-xxxx DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12234

2

French, Christ, Lu, and Purwono

practiced religious behaviors. We expected that adolescents would befriend other adolescents who were similar to themselves in their religious practice and that individual differences in religiosity would be associated with variation in the exhibition of problem behavior. Furthermore, we hypothesized that changes over time in religiosity would be associated with changes in both friend’s religiosity and problem behavior. Religiosity and Friendship Although there has been little research exploring peer involvement and youth religiosity, there are suggestions that peer relationships may be connected with adolescents’ religious behavior and attitudes (Adamczyk, 2012; Regnerus, Smith, & Smith, 2004; Schwartz, 2006). Fowler’s (1981) theoretical model highlights the role of peer relationship in the development of religiousness. At the syntheticconventional stage of faith development that is prominent during adolescence, the formulation of religious views is strongly dependent upon others, including peers. Although there are compelling reasons to believe that peers influence adolescents’ religious practices in a manner similar to the ways that they influence other aspects of adjustment, there has been limited empirical research exploring this question (King & Roeser, 2009). Two complementary processes are likely to be important in understanding the association between adolescent religiosity and friendship (Prinstein & Dodge, 2008). The first, labeled homophily, is that youth develop relationships with others who are similar to themselves in academic success, athletic participation, delinquent activity, and substance use (e.g., Kandel, 1978). Adolescents as well as adults also tend to be similar to their friends in religiosity (Bainbridge & Stark, 1981; Smith & Denton, 2005). Multiple processes may explain why adolescents may increasingly select religious friends. As discussed by Adamczyk (2009), adolescents commonly seek out others who not only share their religious values but also engage in behavior consistent with these views. Thus, adolescents might spend time with religious youth because they are less likely than others to engage in behavior such as delinquency, substance use, or sexual activity whereas those interested in such activities might find companionship with less religious peers more desirable. Friends also influence each other in ways that lead them to become increasingly similar over time (Prinstein & Dodge, 2008), a process that also might be important in explaining why adolescents

resemble their friends in religiosity. Evidence from two longitudinal studies (French, Purwono, & Triwahyuni, 2011; Regnerus et al., 2004) suggests that religiosity of friends predicts changes in religiosity at a later point in time. These studies provide some evidence, although inconclusive, that friends may impact adolescents’ religiosity. Religiosity and Problem Behavior In a number of studies conducted in the United States, religiosity has been found to be negatively associated with adolescent’s exhibition of problem behavior that includes alcohol, tobacco and drug use, delinquent behavior, and minor problem behavior such as lying to teachers, truancy, and shoplifting (King & Roeser, 2009; Wallace & Williams, 1997). The empirical findings of negative relation between religion and rule breaking have often been explained using social control theory, which posits that religious influences serve to inhibit deviant activities (Hirschi, 1969). Most researchers have concluded that a small to moderate negative relation exists between religious involvement and delinquency in U.S. youth (Blakeney & Blakeney, 2006; Elifson, Petersen, & Hadaway, 1983). Benda and Corwyn (1997) concluded that religious involvement is more strongly related to the commission of substance use and status offenses than to other criminal activity such as violence. Donahue and Benson (1995) reported weak negative correlations between violence and both church attendance and the importance of religion. Using data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Adamczyk (2012) showed that the strength of adolescent’s religious beliefs was negatively associated with stealing but not violence. In an effort to explain the low and sometimes nonexistent relation that researchers have found between religiosity and delinquency, Stark (1996) argued that it is necessary to understand the extent to which individuals’ religious views are supported by those with whom they interact. Thus, if religious adolescents interact with other religious adolescents, religious values may be considered during discussions about whether or not to break rules. In contrast, if religious individuals interact with nonreligious peers, it is less likely that this will occur. Thus, we might expect stronger relations between religiosity and antisocial behavior in Indonesia than in other locales as most of the individuals with whom adolescents interact are likely to be practicing Muslims.

Covariation of Trajectories

Religious peers may be less likely than other potential friends to introduce adolescents to problem behavior and facilitate engagement in such behavior (Adamczyk & Palmer, 2008). In a series of studies analyzing data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, it was shown that personal religious commitment of friends was independently associated with reduced stealing and marijuana use as well as a delay of sexual intercourse (Adamczyk, 2009, 2012; Adamczyk & Palmer, 2008). We hypothesized that changes in religiosity during adolescence would be negatively associated with changes in problem behavior. We specifically focused on problem behavior that included alcohol and tobacco use, minor stealing (e.g., shoplifting and taking food without paying), and nondelinquent behavior (e.g., lying to teachers and parents, truancy, and leaving the house without permission). On the basis of research conducted in the United States (Benda & Corwyn, 1997), we expected these behaviors to be more strongly associated with religious beliefs than would more serious delinquency and violence. The Present Study This longitudinal study followed 10th-grade Indonesian adolescents as they moved into 11th and 12th grades to explore the trajectories of religiosity, friends’ religiosity, and problem behavior. Several features of this research are noteworthy. First, there is a major need for longitudinal studies to assess youth and religion (Bridges & Moore, 2002; Mattis & Jagers, 2001). Second, few studies have focused on religion and Muslim adolescents despite the clear need for such research. Third, because we measured religiosity, friend religiosity, and problem behavior at three time points, we were able to use growth model analyses and a parallel process model to explore how these were dynamically interrelated. Finally, we used cross-lagged models to assess the sequence of effects that emerged in the parallel process model. Because almost all adolescents in the selected grades participated in our assessment, it was possible to identify friendships based on mutual best friend nominations. This approach is optimal for identifying strong friendships (Berndt & McCandless, 2009). Religiosity and problem behavior were obtained from adolescents’ self-reports and friends’ religiosity was obtained from friends’ self-report. Because this measure was not derived from adolescent

3

self-reports, the covariance of friends’ religiosity with adolescents’ problem behavior and religiosity cannot be explained by shared measurement error. In addition, because we evaluated relations between changes, stable reporter bias was relegated to residual error.

Method Participants A total of 559 adolescents (277 boys and 282 girls) who participated in at least two of three waves of longitudinal study were included in these analyses. The sample included 442 participants (Mage = 15.35, SD = 0.53) who began in the 10th grade. Of this group, 374 participated at both 11th and 12th grades, 27 participated at 11th but not 12th grade, and 41 participated at the 12th but not 11th grades. At the 11th grade, an additional 117 classmates of students in the original sample were recruited and followed into 12th grade. The sample in this study came from a longitudinal study of 8th- and 10th-grade Indonesian adolescents. Further details about the larger study can be found in reports analyzing both age cohorts from Year 1 (French, Purwono, & Rodkin, 2012) and Years 1 and 2 (French et al., 2011). We utilized three waves of the data for the 10th-grade cohort. Data from 8th-grade cohort could not be used in this study because the change from middle to high school made it impossible to follow these students as they moved into the 10th grade. An additional 92 adolescents participated in the larger study but were not included in these analyses because they completed only 1 year of data collection (56 at 10th grade and 36 at 11th grade). Within the analyzed sample, 10.7% of mothers and 4.4% of fathers had a junior high school education, 50.6% of mothers and 40.4% of fathers had a senior high school education, and 38.1% of mothers and 55.2% of fathers had a post high school education including technical education or college. Almost all participants were either Sundanese (82%) or Javanese (12%) with the remainder from other Indonesian ethic groups.

Measures Religiosity The religiosity of adolescents and their friends was assessed using a rating scale developed by Purwono (2010) with which adolescents engaged

4

French, Christ, Lu, and Purwono

reported their engagement in required and recommended religious practices. The scale assessed only adolescents’ religious behavior and did not assess either spirituality or strength of religious beliefs. Required practices included performing the five daily prayers, attending the Friday prayers in the mosque (for boys and men), and fasting during Ramadan. Recommended practices included performing daily additional prayers, fasting 6 days during the month following Ramadan, and memorizing the Qur’an. The scale consisted of two sections that were combined to produce a total score. In the first, 18 items were rated using a 7-point scale requiring participants to indicate the frequency (never to always) with which they performed listed behaviors. In the second, they reported their engagement in four behaviors during the preceding 7 days, for example, “During the past 7 days did you miss the five daily prayers?” using a 5-point scale (1 = never to 5 = three or more times each day). Two of the items were omitted for girls because they typically pray at home rather than at the mosque on Friday afternoon and are not expected to fast during menstruation. Thus, the scale for boys and girls, respectively, consisted of 22 and 20 items; following transformation to a common 7-point scale, mean scores were computed. The internal consistencies of this scale were between 0.86 and 0.90 for boys and girls at the three assessment periods. Inspection of reports of religiosity revealed that all participants engaged in fasting, daily prayers, and attendance at the mosque (boys) at least intermittently. Mutual Friendships Participants nominated their three closest friends in their grade. At Year 1, they had a mean of 1.63 mutual friendships (SD = .95); girls had more mutual friends than boys, t(496) = 4.72, p < .001, m = 1.83 versus 1.44, d = 0.42; 94% of the boys and 96% of the girls reported friendship with members of the same sex. Friends’ religiosity was the mean of the mutual friends’ self-reported religiosity scores. The correlations between friends’ religiosity ranged between 0.18 and 0.39. There was greater continuity in the identity of mutual friends from Grades 11 to 12 than from Grades 10 to 11. Limiting the analysis to adolescents who had reciprocal friends in the two time periods, we found that 26% of mutual friends at Grade 10 were also identified as mutual friends at Grade 11. In contrast, 67% of the friends identified at 11th grade were also identified at 12th grade.

Problem Behavior Adolescents reported their engagement in 20 problem behaviors during the prior year using an approach developed by Elliot, Huizinga, and Ageton (1985). In addition to using tobacco and alcohol, these included behaviors that were minor but illegal (e.g., shoplifting, taking food without permission) as well as behaviors that were considered problematic by adults but not illegal (e.g., lying to parents, fighting, using tobacco, consuming alcohol). These behaviors were selected for inclusion based on the judgments of Indonesian faculty and graduate students that Indonesian adolescents typically exhibit these behaviors and would likely report this. Consequently, behavior such as sexual activity and drug use were not included whereas viewing of pornography, considered a common youth problem behavior in Indonesia, was included. Adolescents used a 7-point scale (never to almost every day) to indicate their frequency of engaging in these behaviors; as = 0.82–0.88 over the three time points. Procedure Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the local government and participating schools. Recruitment began with a letter to parents from the school principal accompanied by detailed information about the study. Signed parental consent and adolescents’ assent to participate were obtained with a recruitment rate of 96%. Indonesian faculty members and student assistants fluent in English converted the measures to Indonesian using forward and backward translation and evaluated the comprehensibility and cultural appropriateness of items. Indonesian college students administered the instruments to participants in classroom groups. Students were provided with snacks and school materials. Analysis We employed growth curve modeling to determine the developmental trajectories of religiosity, friends’ religiosity, and problem behavior over the three measurement periods (Bollen & Curran, 2006; Little, Card, Preacher, & McConnell, 2009). We first estimated the linear trajectories of religiosity, friends’ religiosity, and problem behavior using models that estimated both fixed (i.e., average trajectories) and random (i.e., individual variation around the averages) effects. The trajectories were

Covariation of Trajectories

modeled using observations at three time points approximately 1 year apart and provided maximum likelihood estimates of the intercepts (baseline values) and slopes (change over time). Sex moderation was tested for each trajectory. The associations between the linear trajectories were tested using a parallel process model (Cheong, MacKinnon, & Khoo, 2003). Using this procedure, the three growth curves were estimated simultaneously allowing for correlated intercepts and slopes. We hypothesized that at 10th grade, consistent with our earlier analyses of these data (French et al., 2011), there would be a strong relation between religiosity and friends’ religiosity and that both would be inversely associated with problem behavior. We further hypothesized that the changes from the 10th to the 12th grades in religiosity and friends’ religiosity would be positively associated, and that both would be inversely associated with changes in problem behavior. In the final analysis, three cross-lagged models (Kenny, 1975; Selig & Little, 2012) were used to estimate the reciprocal relations between adolescents’ religiosity and problem behavior, adolescents’ religiosity and friend religiosity, and friends’ religiosity and problem behaviors. The cross-lagged models provided estimates of the relations between each time point separately after controlling for prior levels. The cross-lagged models were simplified by equating pathway parameters to be the same over time in those cases where the hypotheses of parameter equality were not rejected. These were also estimated allowing for those sex differences that were shown to be necessary based on the sex moderation testing. Unlike the parallel process model, the crosslagged models allowed us to evaluate the direction of the effect between the three processes. For all analyses, individuals who did not participate at one of the three assessment points were retained in the analysis using the full-information maximum likelihood method of dealing with missing data (Arbuckle, 1989). The Amos 19.0 and Mplus 6.0 software packages were used for modeling.

Results Table 1 includes the descriptive statistics for religiosity, friend’s religiosity, and problem behavior at the three points in the study. The presence of missing data for friends’ religiosity is partially explained by the absence of data for adolescents who did not have a mutual friend at a given assessment period. Most adolescents (90%) had friend reports for two

5

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Measures Across Three Time Periods

Y1 Y2 Y3 Y1 Y2 Y3 Y1 Y2 Y3

religiosity religiosity religiosity friend religiosity friend religiosity friend religiosity problem behavior problem behavior problem behavior

n

Min

Max

M

SD

442 532 518 388 472 478 442 532 518

1.27 1.70 1.55 1.27 1.87 1.55 0.00 0.00 0.00

5.45 5.91 6.09 5.45 4.96 6.09 4.17 4.80 3.95

3.41 3.41 3.51 3.40 3.42 3.50 0.84 1.00 0.84

0.60 0.63 0.68 0.53 0.46 0.56 0.68 0.73 0.68

Note. Y1 = Year 1; Y2 = Year 2; Y3 = Year 3.

or more assessment periods; only one adolescent had no mutual friends at any time. Although reports of problem behavior were low as expected in this population, youth nevertheless reported occasional misbehavior. At 10th grade, 91% lied to parents, 71% lied to teachers, 41% were truant, 64% left the house without parent permission, and 61% viewed pornography. The use of tobacco, although discouraged in Islam, was common, with 65% of boys and 15% of girls reporting some use. Alcohol use was less common with 36% of boys and 8% of girls reporting use. Other behaviors were reported infrequently: shoplifting (2%), carrying a weapon (8%), and physical fighting with a schoolmate (22%). Linear Growth Models Linear growth models were estimated separately for adolescent religiosity, friends’ religiosity, and problem behavior. Sex moderation of intercepts and slopes were tested. The model for religiosity was invariant across boys and girls and had a good fit, v2(5) = 13.67, p < .05, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.98, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.06. Trajectory mean and variance estimates for adolescents’ religiosity are presented in Table 2 and were derived from the parallel process model; these model estimates were nearly identical to those obtained from the separate trajectory models. Adolescents’ religiosity increased by an average 0.07 points annually (p < .001), which is a 0.27 SD yearly increase. There was a statistically significant individual variation in both baseline religiosity and changes in religiosity over time (p < .001). The friends’ religiosity trajectory model was also sex invariant and fit the data very well, v2(5) = 3.90, ns, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00. Friends’

6

French, Christ, Lu, and Purwono

Table 2 Unstandardized Intercept and Slope Estimates for the Trajectories of Adolescent Religiosity, Friends’ Religiosity, and Adolescent Problem Behavior From the Parallel Process Model Problem behavior Religiosity Indices

Estimate

Averages Intercept 3.38*** Slope 0.07*** Individual differences (variance) Intercept 0.28*** Slope 0.06*** Covariance Intercept–slope 0.03* †

Friends’ religiosity

Boys

Girls

SE

Estimate

SE

Estimate

SE

0.02 0.02

3.37*** 0.06***

0.02 0.02

1.24*** 0.01

0.04 0.02

0.58*** 0.03*

0.03 .01

0.03 0.01

0.06* 0.03†

0.03 0.01

0.34*** 0.06**

0.04 0.02

0.16*** 0.01

0.02 0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

Estimate

SE

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

religiosity increased by 0.12 on average from Grades 10 to 12, with an annual increase of 0.06 units (SD = 0.37, p < .001). There were statistically significant individual differences in baseline friend religiosity (p < .001); individual differences in changes over time only approached significance (p < .10). Finally, there was sex invariance in both the intercept and the slope of the problem behavior linear trajectory. The fit of the final model that allowed for sex differences was not ideal, v2(2) = 55.55, p < .001, CFI = 0.90, RMSEA = 0.22, but the fit of nonlinear models that used a freely estimated slope factor loading was even poorer. Changes over time in problem behavior emerged only for girls (p < .05); their problem behavior scores declined by 0.03 points (SD = 0.29) on average each year during the study. Heterogeneity in baseline levels of problem behaviors was present for both boys and girls, p < .001, but individual differences in rate of change emerged only for boys, p < .01. Although girls exhibited declines in problem behavior, boys differed in the degree and direction of change. Parallel Process Model A parallel process model in which problem behavior trajectories were allowed to differ for boys and girls adequately fit the data, v2(51) = 163.7, p < .001, CFI = 0.91, RMSEA = 0.09. Tests for sex moderation revealed significant differences only for the correlations between problem behavior and the other two trajectories. Because of this, separate correlations for boys and girls are provided for

problem behavior in the correlation estimates provided in Table 3. Positive associations for adolescent religiosity and friend religiosity emerged for both intercepts, r = 0.62, p < .00, and slopes, r = 0.49, p < .01. Religiosity at Grade 10 was related to lower problem behavior for both boys and girls, but this relation was stronger for boys, r = 0.45, p < .00, than for girls, r = 0.19, p < .05. Problem behavior was negatively associated with friends’ religiosity at baseline for both boys, r = 0.74, p < .0, and girls, r = 0.33, p < .05. Negative associations between slopes for adolescent religiosity and problem behaviors were estimated for boys, r = 0.57, p < .01, whereas this was only marginal for girls, r = 0.37, p < .10. There was no association between changes in problem behaviors and changes in friends’ religiosity during this time period for either sex. To illustrate how changes in adolescent religiosity were associated with changes in friend religiosity and problem behavior, we plotted trajectories for these variables at three different levels of change in religiosity (i.e., decrease, stable, and increase). Adolescents with religiosity slope estimates greater than 0.05 were grouped into the increase group (n = 288), between 0.05 and 0.05 were grouped into the stable group (n = 130), and below 0.05 were grouped into the decrease group (n = 141). Figure 1 illustrates that when adolescent religiosity increased from Grades 10 to 12, their friend religiosity also increased (slope estimate = 0.11, p < .001). For those whose religiosity decreased, friend religiosity decreased (slope estimate = 0.02, p < .01), and for those whose religiosity was stable, friend religiosity increased slightly (slope

Covariation of Trajectories

7

Table 3 Correlations Between Intercepts and Slopes for the Three Variables Religiosity Intercept Religiosity intercept Religiosity slope Friend religiosity intercept Friend religiosity slope Boys problem behavior intercept Boys problem behavior slope Girls problem behavior intercept Girls problem behavior slope

— 0.26** 0.62*** 0.32* 0.45*** 0.20† 0.19* 0.04

Friends’ religiosity Slope

— 0.28* 0.49** 0.24* 0.57** 0.04 0.37†

Intercept

— 0.40 0.74** 0.23 0.33* 0.05

Slope

— 0.58* 0.48 0.11 0.19

Problem behavior Intercept

— 0.10 — 0.40†

Slope

— —

Note. Because of significant sex differences for problem behavior, correlations for boys and girls are presented separately. † p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Figure 1. Friends’ religiosity slopes as a function of decreasing, stable, and increasing adolescent religiosity slopes.

estimate = 0.03, p < .001). In Figure 2, it is illustrated that girls who increased their religiosity exhibited significant decreases in problem behavior (slope estimate = 0.06, p < .001). Problem behavior increased for boys whose religiosity decreased (slope estimate = 0.17, p < .001), decreased for those whose religiosity increased (slope estimate = 0.09, p < .001), and was stable for those whose religiosity was stable (slope estimate = 0.02, ns). Cross-Lagged Models We constructed three models to evaluate the pairwise lagged effects of religiosity, friend religiosity, and problem behavior. Model 1 is presented in Figure 3 and displays the cross-lagged model for the relation between adolescent religiosity and friend religiosity. The model fit was excellent, v2(19)= 30.54, p = 0.05, CFI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.047. Inspection of this figure reveals significant pathways for both boys and girls from religiosity at 10th and 11th grades, respectively, to friend religiosity at 11th and 12th

Figure 2. Problem behavior slopes as a function of decreasing, stable, and increasing adolescent religiosity slopes.

grades. The pathway from 11th-grade friend religiosity to adolescent religiosity at 12th grade was significant only for girls. Thus, there appears to be consistent evidence of the impact of adolescent religiosity to friend religiosity 1 year later, with inconsistent findings for the alternative pathway. Note that in the cross-lagged models, pathways over time were constrained to be equal in the absence of a statistically significant difference between them. The pathway for girls from 10th-grade friend religiosity to 11th-grade religiosity significantly differed from this pathways from 11th to 12th grade. In addition, the pathway from 10th- to 11th-grade friend religiosity differed from the pathway from 11th- to 12th-grade friend religiosity. Consequently, these were not equated in the model. The cross-lagged model testing the relation between religiosity and problem behavior is depicted in Figure 4. Model fit to the data was good, v2(21) = 68.71, p < .001, CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, and model parameters were invariant across

8

French, Christ, Lu, and Purwono

e1 Religiosity Grade 10

0.71*** 0.0

e2

Religiosity Grade 11

0.0

6*

6*

*/ 16*

. 3/0

2

0.0

0.16**

1

0.0

01

Friend Religiosity Grade 10

Religiosity Grade 12

0.71***

0.2

Friend Religiosity Grade 11

0.33***

Friend Religiosity Grade 12 e4

e3

Figure 3. Cross-lag model connecting religiosity and friend religiosity over time. Separate parameter estimates from friend religiosity to religiosity are provided, respectively, for boys/girls; otherwise, the estimates are the same for boys and girls. Unstandardized and standardized estimates are similar, within .01. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

e1 Religiosity Grade 10

0.72*** -0. 04 †

e2

Religiosity Grade 11

0.72*** -0.

04

Problem Behavior Grade 10

0.63***

†

7†

†

07

-0.

Religiosity Grade 12

0.0

Problem Behavior Grade 11

0.63***

e3

Problem Behavior Grade 12 e4

Figure 4. Cross-lag model connecting religiosity and problem behavior over time. Estimates shown are the same for boys and girls. Unstandardized and standardized estimates are similar, within .01. † p < .10. ***p < .001.

sex with the exception of the correlations within time depicted by the two-headed arrows in the figure as well as the variances (error variances) and mean levels for the variables. Inspection of this figure reveals that there were consistent pathways from religiosity to problem behavior 1 year later, although these were only close to statistically significant. Interpreting the pathways from problem behavior to religiosity is problematic because the direction of pathways was inconsistent. Although there was a close to significant negative pathway from 10th-grade problem behavior to 11th-grade religiosity, this was in the opposite direction from the pathway from 11th-grade problem behavior to 12th-grade religiosity.

Finally, we computed a cross-lag model (not presented) that included friend religiosity and problem behavior. The model fit was marginal, v2(19)= 61.69, p = 0.00, CFI = 0.930, RMSEA = 0.064. The only significant pathway was from 11th-grade friend religiosity to 12th-grade problem behavior (r = 0.09, p < .05).

Discussion This study was conducted to assess the longitudinal relations between religiosity, friend religiosity, and problem behavior from 10th to 12th grades. We first examined the individual trajectories of each of

Covariation of Trajectories

the variables. We then looked at correspondence between the intercepts, that is, the Grade 10 values and the changes from Grades 10 to 12. Our major focus was to assess the extent to which the trajectories of these three variables covaried and the sequence of these associations. We were somewhat surprised to find a significant increase in religiosity during the final years of high school because this is inconsistent with findings from both the United States (Smith et al., 2002) and the recent longitudinal study of Indonesian adolescents (Sallquist, Eisenberg, French, Purwono, & Suryanti, 2010) of decreased religiosity during this period. Because of the paucity of longitudinal research and the absence of representative sample survey data on Indonesian Muslim youth, it cannot be determined whether our findings are generalizable or instead are attributable to our particular sample. The findings that 10th-grade levels of religiosity were associated with friends’ religiosity was expected based on earlier analyses of this data set in which the adolescents’ religiosity at 7th and 10th grades was significantly correlated with their friends’ religiosity (French et al., 2012). These results are also consistent with findings from the United States that the church attendance of adolescents is associated with the church attendance of their friends (Regnerus et al., 2004). The large effect size of the relations between these growth curves is noteworthy and provides much stronger evidence of the interconnection between religiousness and the religiousness of friends than is shown by correlations between the religiousness of adolescents and their friends at a single point in time. The finding that changes in adolescents’ religiosity are mirrored by changes in the religiosity of their friends is likely explained by both selection and influence processes. Evidence supporting selection came from the cross-lagged model in which significant pathways from adolescent religiosity to friend religiosity 1 year later emerged. Supporting the hypothesis that selection effects occurred is the limited stability of friendships, particularly from 10th to 11th grade. The associations between adolescents of similar religiosity are likely partially explained by commonality of activities and interests. In Indonesia as well as the United States, religious groups provide opportunities for youth to come together in a shared community that provides religious, recreational and civic activities (Smith & Faris, 2002). Furthermore, the distinction between religiously appropriate and inappropriate behavior is likely more pronounced in Indonesia than in the

9

United States. Thus, religious adolescents who refrain from alcohol use and sexual activity may find themselves increasingly seeking out like minded peers. Efforts to further untangle selection and influence processes will require researchers to frequently track the development and dissolution of friendships because of the rapidity with which these change (Mercken, Snijders, Steglich, Vartiainen, & deVries, 2009; Poulin, Kiesner, Pedersen, & Dishion, 2011). The structures of these networks could be assessed using SIENA that provides statistical tests of the relative influence of selection and influence processes (e.g., Veenstra, Dijkstra, Steglich, & Van Zalk, 2013). The cross-lagged model yielded only limited evidence that friend religiosity influenced adolescents’ subsequent religiosity. The only significant effect emerged for the pathway from friend religiosity at 11th grade to adolescent religiosity at 12th grade. Other evidence, however, suggests that this influence process likely occurs. Gunnoe and Moore (2002) found that the religiosity of U.S. early adults was predicted by their peers’ high school church attendance. Also, French et al. (2011) found using Year 1 and Year 2 of this data set with both 8thand 10th-grade samples, that friendship with religious peers was associated with increased religiosity the next year. Findings from ethnographic studies in which U.S. Muslim adolescents and young adults described the central role of peers in helping them to refine their religious identities illustrate the dynamics of this process (Chaudhury & Miller, 2008). It is likely that friends facilitate each other’s religious observance by attending the mosque together, encouraging each other to follow religious rules, and jointly participating in religious activities. The converse, whereby friends encourage each other not to engage in religious activities undoubtedly also occurs. The finding that changes in religiosity were negatively associated with changes in problem behavior provides further evidence that these two aspects of adolescent development are intertwined. Studies conducted in the United States have found that religiosity is negatively associated with delinquency, alcohol and drug use, and rule breaking (King & Roeser, 2009; Thomas & Carver, 1990). This relation is likely to be particularly strong in Indonesia with respect to alcohol use and engaging in sexual behavior because these behaviors are strongly prohibited in Islam. Indonesian adolescents, however, are regularly exposed to domestic and international media that tout the attractiveness of these behaviors.

10

French, Christ, Lu, and Purwono

The relation between religiosity and deviancy might also reflect the possibility that within the Indonesian Muslim community the failure to follow religious rules is considered deviant. In West Java, religious rules are intertwined with other rules about acceptable conduct, making it difficult to separate behavior that is religiously prohibited from behavior that violates community standards, a comment that likely also extends to other societies that are religiously homogeneous (Adamczyk & Hayes, 2012). It should be noted, however, that the problem behavior measure did not include any items specifically pertaining to the failure to follow religious rules relevant to praying, fasting, or observing dietary rules. Nevertheless, performance of any of the problem behavior assessed in this study, for example, lying to parents, would be considered a violation, although perhaps minor, of a religious rule. It is likely that peers are central to the process linking religiosity with problem behavior and there are undoubtedly multiple mechanisms that might account for this. The association between religious peers and low levels of problem behavior was suggested by the findings from the cross-lagged model in which 11th-grade friend religiosity predicted lower 12th-grade problem behavior. One possibility is that friendship with religious peers is associated with lower levels of engagement with deviant peers, the latter being instrumental in the exhibition of delinquency and problem behavior (Patterson, Reid, & Dishion, 1992). Through involvement with deviant peers, adolescents acquire companions to engage in deviant activities, as well as models and perhaps instruction in such behavior. Deviant youth congregate and tend to engage in activities that are unsupervised by adults (Stoolmiller, 1994). Through shared activities and associations, it is likely that youth seek out others similar to them and engage in activities in which they are likely to expand their associations with others similar to themselves (Roehlkepartain & Patel, 2006). Individuals who are involved in deviant peer groups, or seek to gain membership in these are likely to escalate their level of problem behavior in a manner consistent with the processes identified by Dishion, Piefhler, and Myers (2008). Further research that directly addresses friend problem behavior in conjunction with friend’s religiosity might shed light on these possible trajectories. We focused in this study on the extent to which adolescents adhere to religious practices of Islam. Others (e.g., Dowling et al., 2004) have argued, however, that it is also important to assess spirituality

(a personal relation with a transcendent entity), which is distinguished from religiosity (engagement in an organized religious tradition; King & Boyatzis, 2004; King et al., 2013). There is increasing recognition that spirituality and religiosity are multidimensional and that there is considerable variability in North American adolescents in the ways that aspects of these religious involvement is manifested over development (Good, Willoughby, & Busseri, 2011). In previous studies of Indonesian adolescents, we found that religiosity and spirituality were highly correlated and that both parent and adolescent reports of these constructs loaded onto a single latent variable (French, Eisenberg, Vaughan, Purwono, & Suryanti, 2008). We considered the possibility that the nature of Indonesian Muslim adolescents’ religious experience is unlikely to promote a separation between religiosity and spirituality. In West Java, as is the case in many collectivist cultures, being a Muslim may be more commonly a function of family, community, and ethnic membership than a reflection of a personal decision. Nevertheless, a comprehensive study of religion in Indonesian adolescents may need to include measures of spirituality. It is also important to recognize that our religiosity measure tapped religious behavior rather than private beliefs about Islam. Adamczyk (2012) suggested that private religious beliefs might have stronger negative relations than public religiosity (e.g., church attendance) with stealing. Thus, it might be important in future research to assess personal religiousness, particularly, with children and adolescents who do not have control over many aspects of their public religious behavior. This is likely to be particularly the case among Indonesian Muslim adolescents who may be required to perform religious behavior (e.g., praying, fasting) by teachers and parents. Because of the emphasis on public and ritualistic practice of religious behavior in Islam, others are aware of some aspects of religious behavior and consequently the practice of public religious behavior might not reflect private views. In addition to the limitations noted above, two others are worth noting. First, individual adolescents were both primary participants and friends of other primary participants. Although the association between the religiosity of adolescents and their friends cannot be explained by these dependencies, it is important to recognize these. Second, although information on adolescent’s religiosity and friends’ religiosity were independent, ratings of adolescent religiosity and adolescent problem behavior were

Covariation of Trajectories

both derived from self-reports. Consequently, the relations between these variables may be compromised by shared measurement error. The participants in this study were Muslim youth enrolled in public schools in West Java Indonesia and consequently generalizations to other populations should be made cautiously. Participants in this study were at least moderately religious and lived in neighborhoods and attended schools in which most others were also Muslim. There is an extreme contrast between the contexts within which youth in this study and those in many Western cultures experience religiosity as the interconnection between religion and daily life is typically less pronounced in Indonesia than the United States. (French et al., 2008; Snibbe & Markus, 2002). There are nevertheless compelling reasons to believe, however, that we would find similar results were we to conduct a parallel study in the United States. As noted earlier, North American youth also develop friendships with others who are similar to themselves in religiosity (Gunnoe & Moore, 2002; Regnerus et al., 2004). Religiously devoted youth tend to participate in organized clubs and activities (Smith & Denton, 2005) and it is likely that friendships and social networks evolve from such involvement. Furthermore, the diversity of religious involvement and religious affiliation that is present in the United States might result in greater rather than less concordance between individuals and their friends. The restriction of variability present in our sample (all participants were Muslim and engaged at least to some extent in religious activities) is not present in most U.S. populations. Our findings that adolescents befriend peers who are similar to themselves in religiosity and that these have parallel trajectories over time may provide important additions to models explaining how adolescent religiosity is connected with multiple aspects of social competence (e.g., King & Roeser, 2009; Oser, Scarlett, & Bucher, 2006; Thomas & Carver, 1990). Further exploration of these mechanisms not only will contribute to recent attempts to integrate the study of adolescent religious development within the corpus of empirical and theoretical work on adolescent development (King & Roeser, 2009; Oser et al., 2006; Roehlkepartain & Patel, 2006) but also is likely to enrich our understanding of the role of peer relationships in adolescent development (Prinstein & Dodge, 2008). Our results illustrate the intertwining of religion with other aspects of adolescent development, in the present case with involvement with religious friends and exhibition

11

of problem behavior. No doubt religion is also connected with other features of adolescents’ lives including time use, prosocial behavior, and academic adjustment. This study illustrates that relations between religion and other features of adolescent’s lives must be looked at as a dynamic process such that changes in one aspect are likely associated with changes in another.

References Adamczyk, A. (2009). Socialization and selection in the link between friends’ religiosity and the transition to sexual intercourse. Sociology of Religion, 70, 5–27. doi:10. 1093/socrel/srp010 Adamczyk, A. (2012). Understanding delinquency with friendship group religious context. Social Science Quarterly, 93, 482–505. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2012.00839.x Adamczyk, A., & Hayes, B. E. (2012). Religion and sexual behaviors: Understanding the influence of Islamic cultures and religious affiliation for explaining sex outside of marriage. American Sociological Review, 77, 723–746. doi:10.1177/0003122412458672 Adamczyk, A., & Palmer, I. (2008). Religion and the initiation into marijuana use: The deterring role of religious friends. Journal of Drug Issues, 38, 717–742. doi:10.1177/ 002204260803800304 Amos (1983–2007). Amos software progam (version 18). Crawfordville, FL: SPSS. Arbuckle, J. L. (1989). Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 243–277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bainbridge, W. S., & Stark, R. (1981). Friendship, religion, and the occult: A network study. Review of Religious Research, 22, 313–327. doi:10.2307/3509765 Benda, B. B., & Corwyn, R. F. (1997). Religion and delinquency: The relationship after considering family and peer influences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 81–92. doi:10.2307/1387884 Berndt, T. J., & McCandless, M. A. (2009). Methods for investigating children’s relationships with friends. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 63–81). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Bianchi, R. R. (2004). Guests of god: Pilgrimage and politics in the Islamic world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Blakeney, R. F., & Blakeney, C. D. (2006). Delinquency: A quest for moral and spiritual integrity. In E. C. Roehlkepartain, P. L. Benson, P. E. King, & L. M. Wagener (Eds.), The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 371–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

12

French, Christ, Lu, and Purwono

Bridges, L. J., & Moore, K. A. (2002). Religious involvement and children’s well-being: What research tells us (and what it doesn’t). Washington, DC: Child Trends. Chaudhury, S. Z. R., & Miller, L. (2008). Religious identity formation among Bangladeshi American Muslim adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23, 383–410. doi:10.1177/0743558407309277 Cheong, J. W., MacKinnon, D. P., & Khoo, S. T. (2003). Investigation of mediational processes using parallel process latent growth curve modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 238. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1002_5 Cohen, A. B., Hall, D. E., Koenig, H. G., & Meador, K. G. (2005). Social versus individual motivation: Implications for normative definitions of religious orientation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 48–61. doi:10. 1207/s15327957pspr0901_4 Dishion, T. J., Piefhler, T., & Myers, M. W. (2008). Dynamics and ecology of adolescent peer influence. In M. J. Prinstein & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents (pp. 72–93). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Donahue, M. J., & Benson, P. L. (1995). Religion and the well-being of adolescents. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 145–160. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01328.x 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, 7–16. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0801_2 Elifson, K. W., Petersen, D. M., & Hadaway, C. K. (1983). Religion and delinquency: A contextual analysis. Criminology, 21, 505–527. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1983.tb00277.x Elliot, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Fowler, J. W. (1981). Stages of faith: The psychology of human developmental quest for meaning. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. French, D. C., Eisenberg, N., Vaughan, J., Purwono, U., & Suryanti, T. A. (2008). Religious involvement and social competence and adjustment of Indonesian Muslim adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 44, 597–611. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.597 French, D. C., Purwono, U., & Rodkin, P. C. (2012). Religiosity of adolescents and their friends and network associates: Homophily and associations with antisocial behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 326–332. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2012.00778.x French, D. C., Purwono, U., & Triwahyuni, A. (2011). Friendship and religiosity of Indonesian Muslim adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 1623–1633. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9645-7 Gade, A., & Feener, R. M. (2004). Muslim thought and practice in contemporary Indonesia. In R. M. Feener (Ed.), Islam in world cultures: Comparative perspectives (pp. 183–215). Santa Barbara, CA: ABCCLIO. Glicken, J. (1987). Sundanese Islam and the value of hormot: Control, obedience, and socialization in West Java. In R. S. Kipp & S. Rogers (Eds.), Indonesian religions in

transitions (pp. 238–252). Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Good, M., Willoughby, T., & Busseri, M. A. (2011). Stability and change in adolescent spirituality/religiosity: A person-centered approach. Developmental Psychology, 47, 538–550. doi:10.10.1037/a0021270 Gunnoe, M. L., & Moore, K. A. (2002). Predictors of religiosity among youth aged 12-22. A longitudinal study of the National Survey of Children. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 613–622. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kandel, D. B. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 306–312. Kenny, D. A. (1975). Cross-lagged panel correlation: A test for spuriousness. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 887–903. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.82.6.887 King, P. E., & Boyatzis, C. J. (2004). Exploring adolescent spiritual and religious development: Current and future theoretical and empirical perspectives. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 2–6. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0801_1 King, P. E., Ramos, J. S., & Clardy, C. E. (2013). Searching for the sacred: Religion, spirituality, and adolescent development. In K. I. Pargament, J. W. Exline, J. Julie, & J. W. Jones (Eds.), APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality; Vol. 1, Context, theory, and research (pp. 513–528). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. King, P. E., & Roeser, R. W. (2009). Religion and spirituality in adolescent development. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (3rd ed., pp. 435–478). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Lippman, L. H., & Keith, J. D. (2006). The demographics of spirituality among youth: International perspectives. In E. C. Roehlkepartain, P. L. Benson, P. E. King, & L. M. Wagener (Eds.), The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 109–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Little, T. D., Card, N. A., Preacher, K. J., & McConnell, E. (2009). Modeling longitudinal data from research on adolescence. In R. M. Lerner, & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology: Vol. 1. Individual bases of adolescent development (3rd ed., pp. 15–54). New York, NY: Wiley. Mattis, J. S., & Jagers, R. J. (2001). A relational framework for the study of religiosity and spirituality in the lives of African Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 519–539. doi:10.1002/jcop.1034 Mercken, L., Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C., Vartiainen, E., & deVries, H. (2009). Dynamics of adolescent friendship networks and smoking behavior: Social network analyses in six European countries. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 1506–1514. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02. 005 Muthen, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2007). Mplus software and user’s guide (Version 6). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.

Covariation of Trajectories Oser, F. K., Scarlett, W. G., & Bucher, A. (2006). Religious and spiritual development throughout the life span. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) & R. M. Lerner (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 942–998). New York: Wiley. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia. Poulin, F., Kiesner, J., Pedersen, S., & Dishion, T. J. (2011). A short-term longitudinal analysis of friendship selection on early adolescent substance use. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 249–256. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2010. 05.006 Prinstein, M. J., & Dodge, K. A. (Eds.) (2008). Understanding peer influence in children and adolescents. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Purwono, U. (2010). Assessment of religiosity of Indonesian Muslim adolescents. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Padjadjaran University, Bandung, Indonesia. Regnerus, M. D., Smith, C., & Smith, B. (2004). Social context in the development of adolescent religiosity. Applied Developmental Science, 8, 27–38. doi:10.1207/ S1532480XADS0801_4 Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Patel, E. (2006). Congregations: Unexamined crucibles for spiritual development. In E. C. Roehlkepartain, P. L. Benson, P. E. King, & L. M. Wagener (Eds.), The handbook of spiritual development in childhood and adolescence (pp. 324–336). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sallquist, J., Eisenberg, N., French, D. C., Purwono, U., & Suryanti, T. A. (2010). Indonesian adolescents’ religious involvement: The longitudinal relations of religiousness with socioemotional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 46, 699–716. doi:10.1037/a0018879 Schwartz, K. D. (2006). Transformations in parent and friend faith support predicting adolescents’ religious faith. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 16, 311–326. doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1604_5 Selig, J. P., & Little, T. D. (2012). Autoregressive and cross-lagged panel analysis for longitudinal data. In B.

13

Laursen, T. D. Little, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 265–278). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Smith, C., & Denton, M. L. (2005). Soul searching: The religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Smith, C., Denton, M. L., Faris, M. L. F., & Regnerus, M. (2002). Mapping American adolescent religious participation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 597–612. doi:10.1111/1468-5906.00148 Smith, C., & Faris, R. (2002). Religion and American adolescent delinquency, risk behaviors and constructive social activities. National Study of Youth and Religion, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved from http//www.youthandreligion.org/ sites/youthandreligion…/RiskReport1 Snibbe, A. C., & Markus, H. R. (2002). The psychology of religion and the religion of psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 229–234. Stark, R. (1996). Religion as context: Hellfire and delinquency one more time. Sociology of Religion, 57, 163–173. Stoolmiller, M. (1994). Antisocial behavior, delinquent peer association, and unsupervised wandering for boys: Growth and change from childhood to early adolescence. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 29, 263–288. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2903_4 Thomas, D. L., & Carver, C. (1990). Religion and adolescent social competence. In T. P. Gullotta & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Developing competence in adolescence: Advances in adolescent development (pp. 195–219). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., Steglich, C., & Van Zalk, M. (2013). Network-behavior dynamics. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 23, 399–412. doi:10.1111/jora.12070 Wallace, J. M., & Williams, D. R. (1997). Religion and adolescent health-compromising behavior. In J. Schulenberg, J. Maggs, & K. Hurrelmann (Eds.), Health risks and developmental transitions during adolescence (pp. 444–468). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.