Wednesday, April 25, 2007 | Reason : Science of Religion | print version

Study: Religion is Good for Kids

by Melinda Wenner, Yahoo

Thanks to Mark for the link.

Reposted from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070424/sc_livescience/studyreligionisgoodforkids;_ylt=Aszio4rLqOb2.agNKDg3C_sDW7oF

Kids with religious parents are better behaved and adjusted than other children, according to a new study that is the first to look at the effects of religion on young child development.

The conflict that arises when parents regularly argue over their faith at home, however, has the opposite effect.

John Bartkowski, a Mississippi State University sociologist and his colleagues asked the parents and teachers of more than 16,000 kids, most of them first-graders, to rate how much self control they believed the kids had, how often they exhibited poor or unhappy behavior and how well they respected and worked with their peers.

The researchers compared these scores to how frequently the children's parents said they attended worship services, talked about religion with their child and argued abut religion in the home.

The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services—especially when both parents did so frequently—and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents.

But when parents argued frequently about religion, the children were more likely to have problems. "Religion can hurt if faith is a source of conflict or tension in the family," Bartkowski noted.

Why so good?

Bartkowski thinks religion can be good for kids for three reasons. First, religious networks provide social support to parents, he said, and this can improve their parenting skills. Children who are brought into such networks and hear parental messages reinforced by other adults may also "take more to heart the messages that they get in the home," he said.

Secondly, the types of values and norms that circulate in religious congregations tend to be self-sacrificing and pro-family, Bartkowski told LiveScience. These "could be very, very important in shaping how parents relate to their kids, and then how children develop in response," he said.

Finally, religious organizations imbue parenting with sacred meaning and significance, he said.

University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox, who was not involved in the study, agrees. At least for the most religious parents, "getting their kids into heaven is more important than getting their kids into Harvard," Wilcox said.

But as for why religious organizations might provide more of a boost to family life than secular organizations designed to do the same thing, that's still somewhat of a mystery, said Annette Mahoney, a psychologist at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, also not involved in the research. Mahoney wondered: "Is there anything about religion and spirituality that sets it apart?"

Unanswered questions

Bartkowski points out that one limitation of his study, to be published in the journal Social Science Research, is that it did not compare how denominations differed with regards to their effects on kids.

"We really don't know if conservative Protestant kids are behaving better than Catholic kids or behaving better than mainline Protestant kids or Jewish kids," he said.

It's also possible that the correlation between religion and child development is the other way around, he said. In other words, instead of religion having a positive effect on youth, maybe the parents of only the best behaved children feel comfortable in a religious congregation.

"There are certain expectations about children's behavior within a religious context, particularly within religious worship services," he said. These expectations might frustrate parents, he said, and make congregational worship "a less viable option if they feel their kids are really poorly behaved."

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Wednesday, April 25, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 79 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #34854 by Rtambree on April 25, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Bollocks

Other Comments by Rtambree

2. Comment #34856 by mortiz on April 25, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Quite humorous when you consider the make-up of the prison populations, that is disproportionately religious.

Other Comments by mortiz

3. Comment #34857 by DrShell on April 25, 2007 at 1:14 pm

I suppose I could buy their children's being more obedient in general. The Santa Claus myth causes some children to behave differently around Xmastime too. That doesn't make Santa real.

Other Comments by DrShell

4. Comment #34858 by CaptainShiny on April 25, 2007 at 1:15 pm

And so what if they're well-behaved? I'd rather have a kid think for himself and be a handful rather than a mindless, obedient, boring little slave.

Other Comments by CaptainShiny

5. Comment #34859 by jrizziii on April 25, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Of course religious children would do better under those criteria. It amounted to what children stay quiet and do what they are told. Shocking that religious kids would make better robots!

That is not my definition of good.

Other Comments by jrizziii

6. Comment #34861 by mr harry on April 25, 2007 at 1:18 pm

While the findings may be correct, they haven't really demonstrated a causal relationship between behavior and religion. Moreover, I would also be wary of the study's use of the self-reporting data by parents on their children's activities; the religious parents may be as delusional when it comes to their kids as they are with their religion.

Other Comments by mr harry

7. Comment #34862 by epeeist on April 25, 2007 at 1:18 pm

It is difficult without actually having the paper to read, but it sounds as though the study was actually looking to confirm an already taken position. There don't appear to be any questions as to whether the family were agnostic or atheist in outlook.

There are other reasons why the result could be as outlined, children of religious parents are much more frightend of the consequences of their actions both now and in the putative hell that they will get if they misbehave.

Religious parents may be much more controlling, or more inclined to make their children kowtow to authority.

And of course teachers may have a preference for children who are submissive and don't ask awkward questions.

Other Comments by epeeist

8. Comment #34866 by willerror on April 25, 2007 at 1:28 pm

Yes, because religion *is* for children. Put away childish things, etc.

Other Comments by willerror

9. Comment #34868 by locri on April 25, 2007 at 1:30 pm

"But when parents argued frequently about religion, the children were more likely to have problems."

I think this is the primary issue with the study. I'd imagine if a lot of arguing was done in front of small children regardless of what it's about, it could cause issues.

This, however, wouldn't be an issue in a household with two atheist or agnostic parents. As Rtambree said, "Rubbish"

Other Comments by locri

10. Comment #34870 by thompjs on April 25, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Interesting that it contradicts the saying in the southern US about the behavior of the "Preacher's children"

I'm sure this needs some more study, I'm wondering about other cause and effect issues to children's behavior.

Other Comments by thompjs

11. Comment #34871 by Phaderus on April 25, 2007 at 1:37 pm

It appeared to me that the impact of religion was that the parents did a better job of raising their children, they had a larger support group and could learn to be better parents with feedback and help from the social group provided by church. That doesn't mean that religion has anything to do with it. I would like to see a comparison with parents who are not religious, but who have other large social groups to provide that support. They will probably have the same result.

This is a case of the benefits of having a large group of friends and family to help raise children is being confused with brainwashing children into believing fairy tales are real.

Other Comments by Phaderus

12. Comment #34872 by rydrum2112 on April 25, 2007 at 1:37 pm

not to mention the size of the sample, being that large its easy to get statistical significance i wonder what the actual correlation was and the adjusted Rsquared was.

Other Comments by rydrum2112

13. Comment #34874 by military_atheist on April 25, 2007 at 1:38 pm

I would agree with locri. The study mentions nothing about other arguments that occur in the home such as over money, politics, or inlaws. Any of these could cause distress to children. Also, the study fails to take into account the benefits of social interaction in kids at an early age. Unfortunately, it is sometimes difficult for atheists to get their kids involved with social groups and this can cause problems in school later on. I think that the reason this study showed an improvement in religious kids was because of the social development not necessarily the religious aspect to it. I would be curious to see a study done on kids of atheist or agnostics that have a weekly social event with other children

Other Comments by military_atheist

14. Comment #34879 by Hugo on April 25, 2007 at 1:47 pm

Some of the things like social support hold true as long as there are many believers.
Do the same study in a country with a minority "active" believers and I'm sure the results will be the other way around, perhaps the difference would be even greater as it is in general the less educated that have it more difficult to release religion (and are targeted by the church).

Other Comments by Hugo

15. Comment #34883 by Nails on April 25, 2007 at 1:59 pm

I beleive every word of this.
This is the key paragraph:

The kids whose parents regularly attended religious services�especially when both parents did so frequently�and talked with their kids about religion were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with non-religious parents.

But when parents argued frequently about religion, the children were more likely to have problems. "Religion can hurt if faith is a source of conflict or tension in the family," Bartkowski noted.

now re-summarise without the religious twist:

The kids whose parents regularly talked with their kids were rated by both parents and teachers as having better self-control, social skills and approaches to learning than kids with other parents.

But when parents argued frequently, the children were more likely to have problems.

Make sense now?

Other Comments by Nails

16. Comment #34885 by vertigo25 on April 25, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Did the study even consider non-religious and atheist families? The assumption here seems to be that those families would argue about religion more, and so on.

My five year old daughter is constantly rewarded at school for being the most attentive in class, the most "helpful," the most well behaved, and she is regarded by her teachers and peers as "the happiest kid in class."

I'm not making this up, either. Barely a day goes by where her teachers don't sing her praises to me.

I never go to church, am a vocal atheist, do not spank my child, do not talk to her about religion, tell her that Santa is fun make-believe just like elves and fairies, and very rarely ever feel the need to "punish" her. Instead I've chosen the *crazy* method of loving support, respect, and mentoring.

Does she act up and and act out? You betcha. She can be a "brat" just like the kids who are told they are going to hell if they lie or cheat or touch themselves... only she does it far less often.

Other Comments by vertigo25

17. Comment #34892 by JemyM on April 25, 2007 at 2:12 pm

Links from the same page:

Churchgoers Live Longer
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/060403_church_good.html

Online Prayer Helps Cancer Patients
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/070104_cancer_prayer.html

Other Comments by JemyM

18. Comment #34893 by rmonsees on April 25, 2007 at 2:12 pm

There won't be any critiques of this study until it is published (in Social Science Research), and I'll bet anyone here my left pinky that there will be no coverage of any of the critiques in the popular media.

Other Comments by rmonsees

19. Comment #34894 by Spinoza on April 25, 2007 at 2:13 pm

This type of comparison is silly for various reasons.

Not the least of which is that SUGAR and TELEVISION have more to do with kids attention and behaviour than anything else does.

If it contingently happens that more religious families' children are more attentive, then fine, you have a correlation... but you CERTAINLY don't have causality...

And it's pretty obvious that this is a ridiculous study.

Other Comments by Spinoza

20. Comment #34896 by Mr. Mark on April 25, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Pretty lame.

Unless the study compared "religious parents" to atheistic parents, the result says nothing.

It's entirely possible that children with parents who say they are religious "AND EXHIBIT THEIR RELIGIOUSITY* by attending church services have kids who are better behaved than are children whose parents say they are religious BUT SHOW NO OUTWARD SIGNS OF THEIR RELIGIOSITY.

The results cited could be a simple matter of "my parents don't practice what they preach."

Other Comments by Mr. Mark

21. Comment #34898 by AnatheistinNigeria on April 25, 2007 at 2:17 pm

As in the USA the large majority of families are religious, the non-religious families would have been statistically insignificant.

Therefore the study did not compare religious and non-religious families.

Instead the study compared (religious) families going to some kind of religious service and talked to their kids to (also religious) families that don't attend and talked less to their kids.

Then, there may indeed be real difference in behavior between these two groups.

Other Comments by AnatheistinNigeria

22. Comment #34904 by Fouad Boussetta on April 25, 2007 at 2:23 pm

Whether the findings of the study are correct or not, the most important thing to consider is the net effect of religion on our lives.

Sure, religion has advantages and benefits (like community, consolation, etc...). Still, its disadvantadges and risks outnumber and outweigh those.

We're still better off without religion in any case.

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

23. Comment #34905 by Planeswalker on April 25, 2007 at 2:27 pm

At least for the most religious parents, "getting their kids into heaven is more important than getting their kids into Harvard," Wilcox said.

You got to be kidding, right?

Other Comments by Planeswalker

24. Comment #34910 by ligfietser on April 25, 2007 at 2:46 pm

Notice it's the parents themselves and the teachers who rate the kids behaviour. The church-going kids will have religious parents, and, big chance, religious teachers. They will rate the kids behaviour from a religious perspective, like "he might be a wild one, but he is always listening in the church and talks about it with his peers". Also, 'self control' is a key positive feature, and it isn't a hard guess what that means in a religious context.

'Pope discovers: Catholic church probably the One True Faith' 'Microsoft study: Windows better than Linux' 'White House official confirms: Bush intelligent man'

Other Comments by ligfietser

25. Comment #34914 by Dreamer's Dilemma on April 25, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Nails, well stated and right to the point.

It would be interesting to follow up with these little sheltered naive youths when they leave for college (assuming their religous parents allow them to attend secular schools) and they find out there is a real world outside the protective cocoon of lies in which they've lived. I wonder how well-adjusted they will seem then?

Other Comments by Dreamer's Dilemma

26. Comment #34918 by iwentdowntotheriver on April 25, 2007 at 3:07 pm

I think many of the comments so far have been missing the point. Of course religion is good for kids in certain ways. I don't see why one has to disagree with this in order to be an atheist. What this study shows is a challenge to all of us atheists. And its a pretty big challenge so we would do well to concentrate on it. How do we fullfil the social and moral aspects of religion (the strong sense of community, the easily understood moral rules) in our children when we are atheists? I do not think it is as easy as it sounds; there is not going to be any sense of atheist 'community' accessible to our children. So we have to look at the ritualisation that above and beyond religion seems essential to our culture and come up with new ways of giving our children a sense of belonging in the world. Secular-humanism for Kids in other words. Pure atheism, the simple disbelief in something, will not do it for the very young.

Other Comments by iwentdowntotheriver

27. Comment #34923 by MIND_REBEL on April 25, 2007 at 3:16 pm

John Bartkowski is probally a theist, and i don't trust "Christian Science". This just proves that the media is trying to reenforce the memesphere of religion by promoting false data.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

28. Comment #34927 by jonecc on April 25, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Whilst I agree with iwentdowntotheriver that we need to come up with ways to fill the gap that some people currently fill with God, I don't think we've been given enough information to draw any conclusions.

In particular, the non-churchgoers include the children of people like us, but also children who don't go because their parents' lives are too chaotic to take them, perhaps because they have adult size problems like drug/alcohol abuse or mental illness, or because they work such long hours. You would expect those children to function worse.

If the survey differentiated between religions, if 'religion' in this instance had a definition like 'ethical value system' and if secular humanism was included as an option, it would be interesting to see the results.

Other Comments by jonecc

29. Comment #34928 by Freelance Scientist on April 25, 2007 at 3:30 pm

I can't help but have this image of poor kids cowering in corners, having had the "fear of god" put into them, terrified that one step away from the path of righteousness would see them thrown into the fires of hell.

Maybe these kids are just biding their time until that period when they can leave home and find that freedom from their parents religion suddenly reveals the world to them as it really is.

Then they can book some time in therapy to undo their psychological hangups that have been ritually implanted by their misguided but well-meaning parents.

Other Comments by Freelance Scientist

30. Comment #34931 by Zappi on April 25, 2007 at 3:39 pm

I don't think science is hard to teach because humans aren't ready for it, or because it arose only through a fluke, or because, by and large, we don't have the brainpower to grepple with it. Instead, the enormous zest for science that I see in first-graders and the lesson from the remnant hunter-gatherers both speak eloquently: A proclivity for science is embedded deeply within us, in all times, places and cultures. It has been the means for our survival. It is our birthright. When, through indifference, inattention, incompetence or fear of skepticism, we discourage children from science, we are disenfranchising them, taking from them the tools needed to manage their future.

Carl Sagan in "The Demon-Haunted World"

A child raised in a religious environment with fear of daemons and despising critical thinking had his/her tools taken already. Behaviour is so important? What about lobotomizing children?

Long live Carl Sagan!

Other Comments by Zappi

31. Comment #34932 by Freelance Scientist on April 25, 2007 at 3:46 pm

YES of course, lobomized children ! Why didn't I think of that ? It's all so clear now, behavioural problems swept aside with a simple master stroke :)

Other Comments by Freelance Scientist

32. Comment #34935 by Bonzai on April 25, 2007 at 3:51 pm

How about children raised in this religious family?
I am sure they are well behaved with a mother like that. I would too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCODIhAXbQM&mode=related&search=

Other Comments by Bonzai

33. Comment #34936 by shmooth on April 25, 2007 at 3:54 pm

i'm open to the possibility that this study is legit, but a few things spring to mind:

1) is child obedience a good thing? is any type of obedience a good thing?

2) do negative effects of teaching religion outweigh the positive effects (assuming you think obedience is a positive thing)? Totalitarianism produces/enforces obedience, but not too many folks outside of Republican circles would argue that Totalitarianism is a good thing.

3) how much have the parents deceived themselves, and is it a roughly equal amount of deception from the non-religious parents as the religious parents (a canceling effect)?

Other Comments by shmooth

34. Comment #34940 by shadower on April 25, 2007 at 4:11 pm

a big thank you for the religion for making the kids to be nice so that i can easily control their mind and will.

Thank you jesus.

Other Comments by shadower

35. Comment #34945 by phasmagigas on April 25, 2007 at 4:21 pm

cause and effect?? this is a seriously complex issue. There are so many possibilities for the childs behaviour which may or may not be tied to religion.

In the UK you could put the religious in a few groups eg those who go to church (for eg) quite likely have 'well behaved' kids and this is more likely a result of activities and time with the kids (like going to church or flying kites). Those who got to mosque: as i have previously posted, what happens in a mosque and church are not equivalant but aside from any militant individuals again its a social structure for the kids and they have to behave within that framework and so learn to behave generally.

In the UK what is labelled as an 'underclass' are individuals who generally dont perform well socially and these people are unlikely to go to church or teach their kids religion, they are for all intents and purposes unknowing atheists but a better word would be nihilists, and of course its the children of these individuals who behave worst, the type who will smash your car windscreen if they can get away with it. OK, im typing randomly here but i suspect its less religion per se and more to do with the fact that it means parents are constructing activities with the kids (one of them being religion) and these involve learning to interact socially at many levels.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

36. Comment #34958 by Circumspect on April 25, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Well, of course they are likely to be WELL BEHAVED. They've been well trained to yield to authority by this age, and are already well aware of their religious identity. They also have by this time, thanks to their ever-instructive parents, a good sense of their "separate and superior" status in the world which makes for a feeling of self satisfaction and contentment. But well adjusted? Maybe they appear to be now, but check back in 10 or 15 years. I've known a great many kids like this who are utterly warped by the time they reach adulthood.

Other Comments by Circumspect

37. Comment #34959 by donaldito on April 25, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Of course I haven't read the paper, but it would seem to me a big problem with the study is that all they did, according to this article, is just ask the parents. Seems like an immediately and obviously weighted "study." Seems we need to round up some reputable economists for such a study that doesn't leave so much room for all the ifs, buts, and maybes mentioned at the end of the article.

Other Comments by donaldito

38. Comment #34960 by IanErikSmith on April 25, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Here is another recent study from 2005 which suggests a correlation between religiosity and societal dysfunction.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Note that the United States does not fare well.

Other Comments by IanErikSmith

39. Comment #34961 by Russell Blackford on April 25, 2007 at 6:08 pm

I don't doubt that there's something in this. The kind of folks who are regular church-goers may well make better parents, and have better behaved kids, than the kind of folks who make up the majority, i.e. people who probably believe in God, blah, blah, but don't have lives that are structured around any kind of belief system or community activity or whatever.

It would be interesting to compare the experience of parents who belong to neither group but are devoted to the life of reason.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

40. Comment #34962 by IanErikSmith on April 25, 2007 at 6:11 pm

For those who do not care to read the whole study...

Here is an article from the Los Angeles Times describing the results of the above mentioned study which correlates religiosity and societal dysfunction:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1001-06.htm

Other Comments by IanErikSmith

41. Comment #34963 by M31 on April 25, 2007 at 6:11 pm

It's hard to tell how much stock to put in the result without seeing the paper and numbers for the correlation. Nonetheless, I don't think it's good practice to go about distrusting correlations simply because we don't like them - if the correlation is signficant, then I think the relation is a fact, and we shouldn't just simply deny it. It's hard to say though whether religion is causing the good behavior or whether parents with good behaving kids are more likely to go to church regularly...

Taking it at face value, and supposing that religion is the cause of the good behavior. I think there are a number of reasons why that might be the case. First of all note that presumably a child is being rated as well behaved if s/he listens to the adults and obeys their instructions. That is a big emphasis of religion, especially for kids - listening to authority. So it's not surprising to me that kids who are religious are better at listening to authorities. If they're in family's like mine, they'd get taken out and spanked if they don't sit still in church. And of course, instilling the fear of hell is a good way to motivate a kid to sit still and listen to the adults. What this doesn't address though is how good the kids will be at thinking for themselves and solving problems and so on once they grow up. I'd bet that kids who are not raised with religion will tend to be better at thinking for themselves when they grow up, but there's no way to know without doing the experiment, and it'd be an interesting puzzle if the opposite were true.

Other Comments by M31

42. Comment #34964 by krogercomplete on April 25, 2007 at 6:19 pm

M31 said:

"First of all note that presumably a child is being rated as well behaved if s/he listens to the adults and obeys their instructions."

Maybe a better title to the article would be "Study: Religion is Good for Childrens' Parents and Teachers."

Other Comments by krogercomplete

43. Comment #34971 by GodlessHeathen on April 25, 2007 at 7:15 pm

I work with teens who are "at risk" (a silly term as the reason they are in a treatment program is they've already run afoul of the law).

Every last parent is religious, and I don't mean ticks a religion on the submittal form.

The basic assumption of this article is that quiet obedience is "good". What an assumption! What use is an adult who never questions authority? (Oh, wait...)

Other Comments by GodlessHeathen

44. Comment #34975 by InManhattan on April 25, 2007 at 7:47 pm

To understand this study, substitute "subservient to authority" for "better behaved and adjusted".

Some drugs can also put the user in a state of Nirvana, pure 'holiness' if ever there was one.

Other Comments by InManhattan

45. Comment #34979 by phasmagigas on April 25, 2007 at 8:05 pm

it would probably be easier to study kids who arent considered 'well behaved'. For the most part children behave sufficient to get through school and make a life of their own. Again a difficult one, how to define well behaved as a starter.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

46. Comment #34986 by TheCelestialTeapot on April 25, 2007 at 8:41 pm

Correlation does not necessitate causation, although until I see the research data it's difficult to draw any solid conclusions. It's not surprising to me that young children are well-behaved while in church. I find myself in agreement with many of the posts for many different reasons. It would be interesting to see the results of a similar experiment if it were conducted among religious teenagers. By that age you have a natural distaste for authority, if you have any curiosity left it manifests itself into a number of doubts and questions, and sexual repression becomes extremely difficult to deal with.

Other Comments by TheCelestialTeapot

47. Comment #34992 by davyB on April 25, 2007 at 9:04 pm

I haven't read all the comments. Maybe someone has already pointed out that asking parents to describe their kids' behavior as good or bad is hardly an objective way to go about it.

Other Comments by davyB

48. Comment #34993 by Dutch_labrat on April 25, 2007 at 9:11 pm

Even if this study and its conclusion were 100% correct that still would not make religion true.

Other Comments by Dutch_labrat

49. Comment #35000 by Steven Mading on April 25, 2007 at 10:33 pm

Notice the very important change between the article title and the article content? It's rather deceptive:

The Title says religion is better for kids.

The Article says religion makes kids more well-behaved - in other words, it makes things easier for the parents.

That's an entirely different claim.

For an extreme example of the difference between those two claims, consider the practice (now thankfully abandoned) of lobotomizing mental patients. It's not better for them, but man did it ever make them more well-behaved.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

50. Comment #35002 by mdowe on April 25, 2007 at 10:49 pm

Google for John Bartkowski. Look at what he publishes and the organisations with which he is involved. Looks like an evangelical pushing a religious agenda to me. It doesn't immediately follow that his research is garbage, but I certainly wouldn't trust his work in this area without confirmation of his findings from a disinterested researcher or two.

Other Comments by mdowe

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last