Religiosity and Bullying in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Sociology Theses, Dissertations, & Student Research Sociology, Department of

Spring 5-21-2020

‘Do Unto Others’: Religiosity and Bullying in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood

Joseph Jochman University of Nebraska - Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologydiss

Part of the Sociology Commons

Jochman, Joseph, "‘Do Unto Others’: Religiosity and Bullying in Adolescence and Emerging Adulthood" (2020). Sociology Theses, Dissertations, & Student Research. 64. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologydiss/64

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Theses, Dissertations, & Student Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. ‘DO UNTO OTHERS’: RELIGIOSITY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE AND

EMERGING ADULTHOOD

Joseph C. Jochman

A DISSERTATION

Presented to the Faculty of

The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska

In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements

For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: Sociology

Under the Supervision of Professors Philip Schwadel and Jacob E. Cheadle

Lincoln, Nebraska

May, 2020 ‘DO UNTO OTHERS’: RELIGIOSITY AND BULLYING IN ADOLESCENCE AND

EMERGING ADULTHOOD

Joseph Charles Jochman, Ph.D.

University of Nebraska, 2020

Advisors: Philip Schwadel and Jacob E. Cheadle

This dissertation examines associations between religiosity and bullying in adolescence and emerging adulthood across three empirical chapters. The first empirical chapter uses data from the National Study of Youth and Religion Wave 1 (N=3,137) to assess the likelihood of bullying and religious victimization by key religious factors in youth. Results show that religious affiliation, religious practices, and religious views and beliefs are all associated with differential likelihoods of bullying. Mainline Protestants and youth with higher religious salience and scripture reading had lower likelihoods of bullying perpetration. Higher service attendance and religious youth group participation, however, were associated with increased likelihood of religious victimization. This study shows that religiosity can have both a protective and exacerbating association with the emergence of bullying.

The second empirical chapter uses the Health Behavior in School-Aged Children

2009-2010 dataset (N=11,444) to examines differences in religious victimization and subsequent mental health consequences by race/ethnicity among elementary to high school students in the United States. Results show that Black youth reported higher religious victimization as compared to White youth. In addition, religious victimization had unique mental health consequences. Although the association between religious victimization and mental health outcomes did not differ by race/ethnicity, Black youth were more likely to be religious victims, and thus there remains a greater mental health burden associated with religious victimization for Black youth. This study points to the importance of religious victimization in youth and implications for the mental health and wellbeing of adolescents of different race/ethnic backgrounds.

The third empirical chapter uses Waves 1-3 of the National Study of Youth and

Religion (N=2,454) to test whether the association between bullying and poorer mental health is mediated by religiosity over time. Results show that bullying is linked to poorer mental health (i.e., feelings of sadness and alienation) over time, although these associations were not mediated by religiosity. Increasing service attendance and feelings of closeness to God however were beneficial for mental health over the study period.

This study points to the importance of examining multiple social factors in adolescence that have potential to alleviate the mental health consequences of bullying.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to acknowledge and thank a number of people who have had a collective impact on this dissertation as well as on me personally over the past years. I am grateful for the people that they are! First, I want to acknowledge and thank my parents, Barb and

Dennis, who have been there through this entire process, as well as many others. Also, to my brother John who well understands a process too. I love you all!

To the Gerke relatives, Grandma and Grandpa Gerke, Ann and Dave Wieman,

Jennifer Wieman, Diana and Matt Brown and family, Deb and Joe Gerke, Joel and Emily

Gerke, Mary Beth and Jim Anderson, Joanna and Jack Anderson, Carolyn and Dennis

Wilde, Aliya and Richard Wilde and family, thank you for all your love and support!

To the Jochman relatives, Grandma and Grandpa Jochman, Sue and Jim Kroohn,

Jeff, Brian, and Jenny Rosenberg and families, Sara and Jason Ruppert and family, Judy and Mike Van Ryzin, Mark, Paul, and Kurt Van Ryzin and families, Jim Jochman, Dan,

Kelly, and Sam Jochman, Jodie, and Lee and Chelsea Jochman and families, thank you too for all your love and support!

To friends and others who been various sources of inspiration, insight, creativity, and energy: CN KOR RODGERS, Gene and Dean Ween (and Dave Dreiwitz, Claude

Coleman Jr., and Glenn McClelland), Anandi Ma, Dileepji, and Guruji, Joel Goldsmith,

Hawayo Takata, Eric Gavronski, Wendy and Steve Walter, Katy, Peter, and family,

Diane Duncan, George Gurdjieff, Fong Chan, Carol Miller, Vicki, Andy, and Sam

Gaertner, Kyle Hoyt, Al Gedicks, Naoki Yoshida, Mitch Irvin, Debra Klebesadel, Molly

Murphy, Patty Kroulik, Mary Schneider, KC Hall, Carol and John Chilson, and last but not least Chris Sarbacker and Joanna Perry!

I would also like to acknowledge and thank my advisors Phil Schwadel and Jacob

Cheadle. Their support and feedback helped make this dissertation a done reality. I would too like to thank other Departmental faculty who I had the good fortune of working with during graduate school and who helped shape my understanding of research, teaching, and service: Julia McQuillan, Bridget Goosby, Tara Warner, Christina Falci, Lory Dance,

Regina Werum, Jeffrey Smith, and my dissertation committee member Sue Swearer.

Lastly, I would like to acknowledge and thank Deborah Schaben and Lori

Ratzlaff who have been so helpful over the years and who I appreciate being there when taking my few minute chat solaces in the office!

Again, thank you to all you (and others) who have been there throughout this process and to help make this goal of mine a reality. I am grateful for you all!

TABLE OF CONTENTS Pg.

CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1

CHAPTER 2: Religious Predictors of Bullying in Youth: An Analysis using the 21

National Study of Youth and Religion

CHAPTER 3: Religious Victimization in Youth: Differences by Race/Ethnicity 56

and Implications for Mental Health

CHAPTER 4: Mediating Pathways Linking Religiosity to Bullying and Mental 85

Health: A Longitudinal Study

CHAPTER 5: Conclusion 113

REFERENCES 122

APPENDICES 146

APPENDIX A: Ordinary least squares regression results for potential sources 146

of youth strain on prayer frequency

APPENDIX B: Descriptive statistics – stratified by race/ethnicity 148

APPENDIX C: School-level fixed effects maximum likelihood estimation 149

predicting feeling low by religious victimization – stratified

by race/ethnicity (Model 2B) (standardized)

APPENDIX D: School-level fixed effects maximum likelihood estimation 150

predicting nervousness by religious victimization – stratified

by race/ethnicity (Model 2C) (standardized)

APPENDIX E: Random intercept ordered logistic regression predicting 151

vii

religious victimization by race/ethnicity (Model A)

APPENDIX F: Random intercept ordered logistic regression predicting 152

feeling low by religious victimization and race/ethnicity

(Model B)

APPENDIX G: Random intercept ordered logistic regression predicting 153

nervousness by religious victimization and race/ethnicity

(Model C)

APPENDIX H: Random intercept ordered logistic regression predicting 154

feeling low by religious victimization and race/ethnicity –

stratified by race/ethnicity (Model 2B)

APPENDIX I: Random intercept ordered logistic regression predicting 155

nervousness by religious victimization and race/ethnicity –

stratified by race/ethnicity (Model 2C)

APPENDIX J: Random intercept tobit regression predicting religious 156

victimization by race/ethnicity (standardized) (Model A)

APPENDIX K: Random intercept tobit regression predicting feeling low by 157

religious victimization and race/ethnicity (standardized)

(Model B)

APPENDIX L: Random intercept tobit regression predicting nervousness by 158

religious victimization and race/ethnicity (standardized)

(Model C)

APPENDIX M: Random intercept tobit regression predicting feeling low by 159

religious victimization and race/ethnicity – stratified by

viii

race/ethnicity (Model 2B) (standardized)

APPENDIX N: Random intercept tobit regression predicting nervousness by 160

religious victimization and race/ethnicity – stratified by

race/ethnicity (Model 2C) (standardized)

LIST OF TABLES Pg.

TABLE 1.1: Descriptive statistics 38

TABLE 1.2: Multinomial relative risk of general bullying involvement (i.e., 40

victims, bullies, bully-victims) by religious and social-ecological

factors

TABLE 1.3: Logistic odds ratios of religious victimization by religious and 45

social-ecological factors

TABLE 2.1: Descriptives statistics 70

TABLE 2.2: School-level fixed effects maximum likelihood estimation predicting 72

religious victimization by race/ethnicity (standardized) (Model A)

TABLE 2.3: School-level fixed effects maximum likelihood estimation predicting 74

feeling low by religious victimization and race/ethnicity

(standardized) (Model B)

TABLE 2.4: School-level fixed effects maximum likelihood estimation predicting 76

nervousness by religious victimization and race/ethnicity

(standardized) (Model C)

TABLE 3.1: Descriptive statistics 98

TABLE 3.2: Multilevel random intercept regression models for sadness by 99

bullying and religiosity over time

TABLE 3.3: Multilevel random intercept regression models for alienation by 102

bullying and religiosity over time

TABLE 3.4: Bullying categories on within- and between-level religiosity 103

mediators (models including controls)

TABLE 3.5: Sobel indirect effects of religiosity on bullying and mental health 104

(models including controls)

TABLE 3.6: Total and partial mediation of religiosity on bullying and mental 105

health

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Adolescence and emerging adulthood are important and transformative stages of the life course. During this time, many personal and social factors including school transitions, changing relationships with peers and families, emerging career goals and life aspirations, and increased identity exploration can influence life course trajectories well into adulthood (e.g., Crosnoe and Kirkpatrick Johnson 2011; Furstenberg 2000). Religion and bullying in youth are two important social factors involved in shaping life course outcomes during this developmental stage. Both religiosity and bullying have potential to influence a variety of life course outcomes including health, happiness, educational outcomes and economic attainment, engagement in risk behaviors, and quality of interpersonal relationships (e.g., Chen and VanderWeele 2018; Cotton et al. 2006;

O’Brennan, Bradshaw, and Sawyer 2009; Takizawa, Maughan, and Arseneault 2014). As such, religion and bullying are critical dimensions of social and personal development for youth and emerging adults today in the United States (Kroger 2007; Smith with Denton

2005).

Many youth today report religious involvement as well as experiences with bullying. A majority of US youth claims religious affiliation (i.e., mainly Christian faiths) and a majority consider religion to be at least somewhat important in their lives (e.g., Pew

Research Center 2014). On the other hand, about 20% of youth report bullying involvement (National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 2019), although estimates vary greatly across studies (Modecki et al. 2014). Despite the importance of religion for many youth, as well as the prevalence and consequences of bullying, research has not

2 adequately addressed how religiosity is related to bullying. For example, although religion is a powerful socializing force influencing moral development, behavior, lifestyle choices, and establishing social contacts (e.g., Ebstyne King and Furrow 2004; Wagener et al. 2003), it is not clear whether these aspects of religious involvement prevent (or perhaps exacerbate) youth bullying. This lack of research is noteworthy because religion and bullying have notable influences on development, social experiences, and life course implications for health, wellbeing, self-concept, and many other outcomes (e.g., Bogart et al. 2015; Kaltiala-Heino et al. 2000; Wong, Rew, and Slaikeu 2006).

This dissertation thus examines associations between religion and bullying, and implications for mental health among youth and emerging adults. Guided by theories of religious socialization (e.g., Cornwall 1988; Erickson 1992; Sherkat 2003), general strain

(e.g., Agnew 2001; 1992; Moon and Jang 2014), stress process (e.g., Pearlin 1989); moral disengagement (e.g., Bandura 1990; Hymel and Bonanno 2014), and peer dynamics (e.g.,

Brechwald and Prinstein 2011; Salmivalli 2010), I explore themes linking religion, bullying, and mental health across three empirical chapters. Broadly, Chapters 1 and 2 focus on short-term associations using cross-sectional data. In particular, Chapter 1 explores links between religiosity and bullying among youth using Wave 1 of the

National Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR). Chapter 2 explores associations between religious victimization (i.e., being made fun of because of one’s religion), race/ethnicity, and mental health among youth using the Health Behavior in School-Aged Children

(HBSC) 2009-2010 dataset. Lastly, Chapter 3 focuses on long-term associations between bullying and religiosity into emerging adulthood. Specifically, Chapter 3 tests mediating pathways linking religiosity to bullying and mental health using Waves 1-3 of the NSYR.

In this introduction, I first provide an overview of research on youth bullying, followed by an overview of research on youth religiosity. I then explore possible theoretical and empirical links between religion and bullying, and conclude with a summary of the three empirical chapters.

Bullying in Adolescence

Youth bullying is a considerable problem in the United States and globally today.

Bullying is a critical social stressor with implications for a number of life domains such as physical and mental health, social relationships, engagement in risk behaviors, school achievement, and future life course outcomes including economic attainment and life satisfaction (e.g., Bogart et al. 2015; Brown and Taylor 2008; Gini and Pozzoli 2009;

Strom et al. 2013; Wolke et al. 2013). In addition, bullying can occur in many social contexts including schools, neighborhoods, families, through online interactions, and in other social situations and groups. Due to the frequency and consequences of bullying for health and wellbeing trajectories, it is imperative that research addresses the causes, the consequences, and prevention strategies for youth bullying.

Bullying has been a subject of research for decades. Trends reveal declining rates of bullying over the past several years (NCES 2018), with current estimates showing approximately 20% of school-aged youth being involved in bullying. This percentage, however, is notably higher among middle school youth (26.7%) (NCES 2019). Although some evidence shows declining rates of bullying, other evidence shows bullying estimates to be highly variable and dependent upon a number of factors such as demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, age) (Hong and Espelage 2012;

Murray-Close and Ostrov 2009; Seals and Young 2003), school, classroom, and teacher

4 characteristics, (Garandeau, Lee, and Salmivalli 2014; Gendron, Williams, and Guerra

2011; Kasen et al. 2004), as well as how researchers frame bullying questions in youth surveys (Modecki et al. 2014; Sawyer, Bradshaw, and O’Brennan 2008). In fact, a recent meta-analysis of 80 studies addressing bullying found about 35% of youth reported bullying involvement, although estimates have ranged from as low as 10% to as high as

75% in some studies (Swearer and Cary 2003).

Bullying is traditionally defined as “aggressive behavior or intentional harmdoing, which is carried out repeatedly and over time, and in an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power” (Olweus 1997:496). Following this definition, categories of bullying involvement emerged such as ‘victims,’ ‘bullies,’ and ‘bully- victims.’ Victims signify youth who are bullied and who often tend to be viewed by peers as ‘unpopular,’ ‘odd,’ or lacking in social skills (e.g., Thornberg 2011). Bullies represent youth who tease/bully others, often with lower social/peer status (e.g., Houbre et al.

2006). Bullies may be quite popular with many friends or relatively unpopular with few friends (Houbre et al. 2006; Thunfors and Cornell 2008). Bully-victims represent a third subgroup of youth who are considered both ‘victims’ and ‘bullies,’ with the former usually preceding the latter. In other words, bully-victims are youth who are often thought to tease others (bully) in response to their own victimization (Lereya et al. 2015;

Schwartz 2000). Other ‘participant roles’ of bullying have been discussed in the literature including youth who are considered as ‘bystanders,’ as ‘reinforcers,’ or as ‘defenders’ of victim/bully interactions in youth (e.g., Gini et al. 2008; Salmivalli 2014).

The emergence of bullying involves a number of interrelated factors including physical and social environments (e.g., families, classrooms, schools, neighborhoods)

(e.g., Espelage, Rao, and De La Rue 2013; Swearer and Hymel 2015), peer group dynamics (e.g., Garandeau et al. 2014; Salmivalli 2010), and relationships to teachers and other adults (e.g., Bacchini, Esposito, and Affuso 2009; Kasen et al. 2004). For example, perceptions of having a poor school environment are associated with increased bullying

(Gendron et al. 2011). Difficulty in the household, parental conflict, and authoritarian or punitive parenting styles are also associated with higher bullying likelihood (e.g., Baldry and Farrington 2005; Pepler et al. 2008). Bullying may be particularly prevalent in peer networks where social status is clearly delineated and having status is linked to higher social power and dominance (Garandeau et al. 2014). In addition, bullying may increase within groups consisting of a high degree of peer homophily (Brechwald and Prinstein

2011; Garandeau et al. 2014). Bullying frequency, however, may be lower in settings with higher interpersonal diversity, which may reflect less habitual bullying involvement in more diverse settings (Juvonen, Nishina, and Graham 2006; Ma 2002).

Bullying is increasingly viewed as a social-ecological process involving a number of intersections of peer groups, parents, families, teachers, classroom and school environments, neighborhoods, and individual characteristics (Bronfenbrenner 1979;

Swearer and Hymel 2015). Bullying thus is a dynamic process that a) involves many social and environmental factors, b) that can change over time (i.e., persistent or desistent bullying) (Carlson and Cornell 2008), and c) that can influence the wellbeing of youth as well as witnesses to bullying and others who may be vicariously involved in the event(s)

(e.g., friends, family, other peers) (e.g., Evans et al. 2019; Rivers et al. 2009; Swearer and

Hymel 2015).

Evidence shows bullying tends to peak during middle school and gradually declines with age and over the high school years (Pellegrini and Bartini 2000; Nansel et al. 2001). Moreover, bullying may differ by demographic characteristics. For example, some research shows bullying may be more common among boys than girls (e.g.,

O’Brennan et al. 2009; Pellegrini and Bartini 2000). Other studies, however, find that boys may be more likely to engage in ‘direct’ (i.e., overt) forms of bullying (e.g., name- calling, pushing, hitting) whereas girls may be more likely to engage in ‘relational’ forms of bullying (e.g., rumor spreading, social exclusion) (e.g., Crick 1996; Houbre et al.

2006; Murray-Close and Ostrov 2009). Theory suggests these gender differences in bullying likely reflect early childhood norms surrounding gender expectations and ‘age- appropriate’ gendered behavior (Murray-Close and Ostrov 2009).

There are a number of reasons why youth might become involved in bullying. For example, victimization might occur due to physical or personality traits that are deemed

‘unpopular’ or ‘weird,’ or because of perceptions that the youth lacks important social skills (e.g., Frisen, Jonsson, and Persson 2007; Thornberg 2011). There are also questions as to whether certain personal or social traits predict victimization or whether these traits are the consequence of victimization (i.e., does social isolation/pre-existing mental health problems predict victimization or does victimization predict future social isolation and mental health?) (e.g., Alvarez-Garcia, Garcia, and Nunez 2015; Kim et al. 2006). In addition, perpetration may occur as a means to obtain social goals or social standing (e.g.,

Crick and Dodge 1996; Garandeau et al. 2014), or due to peer pressure and social dynamics of the peer group (e.g., Pepler et al. 2008; Salmivalli 2010). Perpetration may occur because of the experience of stress, strain, and anger in other life domains (e.g.,

7 families, school, neighborhoods) that are expressed as bullying behavior (i.e., general strain theory) (Agnew 2001; Moon and Jang 2014; Paez 2018; Patchin and Hinduja

2011). Perpetration may also arise through processes of moral disengagement leading to behaviors that are contrary one’s personal morals or values (e.g., Bandura 1990; Gini,

Pozzoli, and Hymel 2014; Hymel and Bonanno 2014), or as an expression of characteristics of an ‘antisocial personality’ (e.g., Fluck 2017). Other contextual factors associated with bullying include classroom and school dynamics (Kasen et al. 2004;

Klein, Cornell, and Konold 2012) and family and neighborhood factors (e.g., Baldry and

Farrington 2000; Bowes et al. 2009).

The consequences of bullying are vast and include physical and mental health problems (e.g., Gini and Pozzoli 2009; O’Brennan et al. 2009), trouble with parents and other interpersonal relationships (e.g., Bowes et al. 2009; Holt, Kantor, and Finkelhor

2008; Perren and Hornung 2005), trouble in school and poorer academic achievement

(e.g., Frugard-Strom et al. 2013; Juvonen, Wang, and Espinoza 2011), higher likelihood of risk behaviors (e.g., Hertz et al. 2015; Tharp-Taylor, Haviland, and D’Amico 2009), and increased suicidal ideation (e.g., Bauman, Toomey, and Walker 2013; Hinduja and

Patchin 2010). Many studies show these consequences are more pronounced for victims compared to bullies, likely because of the social positioning of bullies over victims and the ability for bullies to release frustrations on lower status peers (Andreou, Vlachou, and

Didaskalou 2005; Chaux and Castellanos 2015). Moreover, some studies find substantially more problems associated with bully-victimization than compared to victimization- or perpetration-only, perhaps because of pre-existing personal and/or social characteristics of bully-victims (e.g., trouble in the home, pre-existing

8 emotional/behavioral difficulties) (e.g., Sourander et al. 2009; Lereya et al. 2015; Lester et al. 2012). Furthermore, the consequences of bullying can be long-term and influence health and wellbeing trajectories into adulthood (e.g., Bogart et al. 2015; Takizawa et al.

2014), underscoring the importance of bullying as a critical health issue.

Religion in adolescence

Prior work examining religiosity in adolescence has focused on a number of issues such as links between religion and delinquency (e.g., Hirschi and Stark 1969), processes of religious socialization and associations between religion and the family (e.g.,

Cornwall 1988; Johnson 1973), religious differences by gender and race/ethnicity (e.g.,

Forliti and Benson 1986; Lincoln and Mamiya 1990; Smith et al. 2003; Williams, Irby, and Warner 2016), and religious growth and religious change during adolescence and emerging adulthood (e.g., Petts 2009a; Uecker, Regnerus, and Vaaler 2007). Presently, a majority of American youth affiliates with a Christian faith and a majority consider religion to be at least somewhat important in their lives (e.g., Pew Research Center 2014;

Smith with Denton 2005). Some research, however, points to a decline in religious affiliation and participation today as more Americans (and youth) consider themselves non-religious, or increasingly identifying as atheist or agnostic (e.g., Brown, Taylor, and

Chatters 2015; Edgell et al. 2016; Hout and Fischer 2002; Pew Research Center 2018).

Religiosity in adolescence is both personal and shared and is expressed in many ways. Religion is practiced through shared group membership (i.e., affiliation) of individuals under a common creed and set of values (e.g., Steensland et al. 2000).

Religion is practiced through shared behaviors such as service attendance and participation in religious youth groups or youth ministries (e.g., Smith with Denton

2005). Religion is also expressed personally through behaviors such as prayer, scripture reading, through beliefs such as views on the afterlife, beliefs in God or a higher divine power, and through the personal meaning and importance religion has for the individual

(e.g., Smith with Denton 2005). Religion is also experienced through a number of shared, multifaceted and ‘taken-for-granted’ cultural assumptions, customs, and activities that shape identity, development, and an understanding of the world over the life course (e.g.,

Garfinkel 1969; Smith 2003a,b; Ysseldyk, Matheson, and Anisman 2010).

Religion influences personal and social development beginning in early childhood

(e.g., Cornwall 1988; Erickson 1992). Parents and families have perhaps the most primary influence on their children’s religiosity, and most youth learn about religion and adopt the religious worldviews and behaviors of their parents (Ebstyne King, Furrow, and

Roth 2002; Myers 1996). In addition, parents often augment the religious views and beliefs of the home through the socializing influence of other institutions (e.g., schools, organizations) (Himmelfarb 1979). These alignments between the religious beliefs and values in the home and other social institutions (including non-familial adults therein) advance the intergenerational transmission of religion from parents to children (Erickson

1992) and help encourage the internalization of religious messages in childhood (e.g.,

Cornwall 1988; Erickson 1992).

Peers and peer groups also shape religious identity and participation. Peers are important agents of religious socialization, and youth learn about and model the religious behaviors and values of their peers (e.g., Cornwall 1988; Erickson 1992; Ebstyne King et al. 2002). Erickson (1992) notes the influence of peers on youth religiosity may be especially pronounced for youth who attend religious schools. Youth also tend to form

10 friendships with religiously similar peers (e.g., Cook, Schwadel, and Cheadle 2017) and religion can influence youth’s friendship networks and the choices youth make when selecting friends (Cook et al. 2017; Cheadle and Schwadel 2012). Additionally, religious youth groups are important contexts of peer friendships and are important means through which youth connect with other (religiously similar) peers. Recent estimates show approximately 50% of American youth are involved in at least one religious youth group, although involvement may decrease as youth age (Smith et al. 2003; Snell 2009). In fact,

Snell (2009) suggests that youth groups (and peer relationships therein) may have less of an influence on behavior in emerging adulthood than in earlier stages of adolescence.

Religious messages, parents, family, peers, and broader community factors (e.g., religious institutions, non-familial adults) shape perceptions of ‘morality’ and ‘right and wrong’ behavior in adolescence. Smith (2003b) points out the development of morality and norms surrounding perceptions of ‘right and wrong’ are essential to the role of religion individually, socially, and culturally. Religious moral messages are often internalized in youth and direct the ways in which individuals and groups view their world, their behaviors, and their responsibilities (e.g., Smith with Denton 2005; Smith

2003b). In particular, religious moralities emphasize the importance of behaviors such as self-control, helping others, treating others with respect, and related prosocial behaviors such as leadership seeking and volunteerism (Furrow, Ebstyne King, and White 2004;

Smith 2003b). In fact, most (if not all) major world religions have variations of the

‘Golden Rule’ (i.e. ‘do unto others’), which can serve as a guidepost for behavior (e.g.,

Epstein 2010; Kurtz 2015). Perhaps even without formal religious affiliation or participation, youth may sense that ‘God is watching’ or perhaps passed family members,

11 and those perceptions may be associated feelings of ‘right and wrong’ and related behaviors (e.g., McCullough and Willoughby 2009; Shariff and Norenzayan 2007).

Taken together, the accumulation and internalization of religious messages, as well as the shared participation of families, peers, and the community can be considered in terms of ‘religious capital’ (Iannaccone 1990). Iannaccone (1990) defines religious capital as the totality of resources (e.g., knowledge, supports) that are outcomes of religious participation, but are also utilized in the social production of religion. Religious capital implies the shared elements of religion (Benson et al. 2003; Desmond, Morgan, and Kikuchi 2010), thus influencing one’s values and behaviors towards others (King and

Furrow 2004; Smith 2003b; Smith and Denton 2005). Religious capital also has a transferable quality to other life domains (e.g., workplaces) (e.g., Smith with Denton

2005). Given this multifaceted nature of religious capital, religiosity may also be considered in social-ecological terms (e.g., Bronfenbrenner 1979) with multiple personal and social/environmental factors intersecting to shape religious development and identity over the life course (e.g., Ebstyne King et al. 2002; Iannaccone 1990; Smith 2003b).

Research often points to the positive influence of religiosity on youth outcomes such as preventing delinquency (e.g., Salas-Wright, Vaughn, and Maynard 2014; Sinha,

Cnaan, and Gelles 2007), increasing prosocial behavior and feelings of concern for others

(e.g., Furrow et al. 2004; Wagener et al. 2003), increasing community, adult, and peer connections, support, and oversight (Ebstyne King and Furrow 2004; Smith 2003a), heightening a sense of identity and purpose (e.g., Benson, Roehlkepartain, and Rude

2003; Hemming and Madge 2011; Ysseldyk et al. 2010), and providing benefits to health and wellbeing (e.g., Cotton et al. 2006; Wong et al. 2006). Some studies, however, point

12 to a negative influence of religion on wellbeing through factors such as religious doubt

(e.g., Hunsberger, Pratt, and Pancer 2002; Kezdy et al. 2011), or distressing relationships with religion or perceptions of God/divine other or the afterlife (e.g., Bradshaw, Ellison, and Flannelly 2008; Ellison and Lee 2010). In addition, these associations between religion, health, and wellbeing are linked to both personal (e.g., prayer) as well as social dimensions (e.g., service attendance) of religion (e.g., Cotton et al. 2006; Ellison and Lee

2010). Given the convergence of these various elements of religiosity, it is not surprising that religion thus provides a rich and unique background to understand youth (and adult) behaviors, worldviews, and outcomes.

Links between Religion and Bullying

Religion and bullying may be linked in many ways. First, religion may prevent or inhibit bullying behavior by a) encouraging the development and internalization of notions of morality and ‘morally correct’ behavior, by b) preventing the emergence of feelings of moral disengagement, or by c) increasing social supports (peer and adult) and parent and adult oversight. Religion, however, may also encourage or operate as a source of bullying behavior through a) religious-related victimization (i.e., being made fun of or treated unfairly or disrespectfully because of one’s religion), through b) stigma and discrimination linked to atheist, agnostic, and non-religious worldviews or beliefs, or through c) perceptions of religion as being ‘uncool’ in youth peer groups. In addition, religion and bullying may also be associated with pathways to physical and mental health. Studies often point to the positive influence of religiosity on health outcomes through social support and religious coping strategies in contexts of stressful life events

(e.g., Ellison et al. 2001; Nooney 2005). Prior research is unclear, however, whether

13 religiosity may buffer the health consequences of bullying, a serious and often persistent stressor in youth. The remainder of this section explores these proposed associations between religiosity and bullying in adolescence and emerging adulthood.

Religion as preventing bullying

1. Morality and internalization of moral messages

Religion provides moral messages and moral guidance to youth (e.g., Smith with

Denton 2005; Sherkat 2003). Religious messages and guidelines such as ‘do unto others’ and ‘love thy neighbor’ socialize youth into understandings of ‘right and wrong’ behavior in family, peer, and broader community contexts (e.g., Myers 1996; Sherkat 2003). These notions of right and wrong behavior, goals of ‘being a good person,’ and attaining a happy afterlife are central to how many adolescents understand religion and orientate themselves towards moral and ‘otherworldly’ matters (e.g., Sherkat 2003; Smith with

Denton 2005). In addition, the development of notions of religious morality is also related to ‘spiritual modeling,’ or the degree to which youth view and imitate the beliefs and/or behaviors of other peers and adults (e.g., Desmond et al. 2010; Ebstyne King et al.

2002).

Although research suggests that most youth understand that bullying is wrong

(Thornberg et al. 2015), it is unclear how religiosity is related to bullying. For example, religion may be associated with decreased perpetration due to greater internalization of moral messages. In this case, religious socialization and the moral messages therein may operate as a social control, preventing or inhibiting undesirable interpersonal behaviors

(e.g., fighting, bullying). In fact, religiosity is associated with lower likelihoods of other types of delinquency in adolescence including drug/alcohol use (e.g., Desmond, Ulmer,

14 and Bader 2013), sexual activity (e.g., Sinha et al. 2007) and violence (e.g., Salas-Wright et al. 2014). Moreover, links between religiosity and delinquency prevention may be stronger among youth with a high level of religious salience (e.g., Ellison et al. 2008).

2. Prevention of moral disengagement

Related to processes of moral development and internalization of moral messages, religion may also prevent and/or decrease the development of moral disengagement. As noted, moral disengagement refers to social/cognitive processes whereby individuals are able to justify ‘doing the wrong thing,’ or are able to engage in actions that are opposed to their personal or group values or perceptions of the act being wrong (e.g., minimizing one’s role in the act, restructuring of the ‘wrongfulness’ of the act, dehumanizing the victim) (e.g., Bandura 1990; Gini et al. 2014). The development of moral disengagement is related to bullying and aggression in many studies (e.g., Obermann 2011; Thornberg and Jungert 2014). Processes of religious socialization and related prosocial behaviors

(e.g., Furrow et al. 2004; Wagener et al. 2004), however, may decrease the risk of bullying (in particular perpetration) by decreasing the likelihood that youth will feel morally disengaged. In addition, religion’s role in preventing moral disengagement may be stronger among communities of highly religious people. These types of ‘moral communities’ (e.g., Baier and Wright 2001; Stark 1996) might further prevent moral disengagement through social pressures related to conformity of religious participation and belief (e.g., Graham and Haidt 2010; Hunt and Hunt 2000; Regnerus 2003).

3. Adult oversight and social connections

Religion is also a source of adult oversight and connections to other adults, peers, and members of the community (e.g., Ebstyne King and Furrow 2004; Smith 2003a). The

15 increased presence and involvement of adults and others may decrease both perpetration and victimization due to heightened adult oversight and potential for adult and peer support (e.g., Espelage 2014; Waasdorp et al. 2011). Religion may also increase the comfort that youth have talking with parents and adults about their problems (Ebstyne

King and Furrow 2004), which may decrease the likelihood of bullying (e.g., Bowes et al.

2010). Moreover, the links between religion, social support, and decreased bullying may be more pronounced among communities of highly religious people because of factors related to youth oversight and characteristics of network ties (i.e., network closure)

(Smith 2003c).

Religion as exacerbating bullying

1. Religious victimization

Religious victimization (i.e., being made fun of because of one’s religion) has received greater research attention in recent years. Religion can be a source of bullying and discrimination, particularly for youth whose religious beliefs are non-majority or are perceived as ‘weird’ or ‘deviant’ (e.g., Dupper, Forrest-Bank, and Lowry-Carusillo 2015;

Forrest-Bank and Dupper 2016; Thornberg 2011). For example, Dupper et al. (2015) describe events of religious victimization and discrimination among Jewish and Muslim public school students in the US, often initiated by peers as well as teachers. A number of case studies in mainstream media outlets have also documented issues related to religious discrimination in youth (e.g., Donaldson James 2015; Singh 2018). The negative consequences associated with religious victimization include heightened feelings of anxiety and depression (Jordanova et al. 2015), lower self-rated health (Wu and

Schimmele 2019), and lower life satisfaction (Vang, Hou, and Elder 2019). Religious

16 victimization may also uniquely influence mental health through perceptions of discrimination, threats to self or group identity, or potential for physical violence and hate crime (Dupper and Forrest-Bank 2015; Pan and Spittal 2013; Rippy and Newman 2006).

2. Non-religious/atheist stigma

Relatedly, youth may experience religious victimization or discrimination because of non-religious beliefs. Edgell et al. (2016) and Cragun et al. (2012) document increased discrimination, stigma, and associated health and wellbeing consequences in youth and adulthood among those who identify as non-religious, atheist, or agnostic because of cultural perceptions of deviance associated with these beliefs. In addition, the stigma and social consequences of non-religiosity, atheist, or agnostic beliefs may be more pronounced for individuals who are more deeply embedded in highly religious communities (Cragun et al. 2012; Smith 2003c). Given increases in the number of people who identify as non-religious, atheist, or agnostic, non-religious/atheist/agnostic stigma and victimization may affect a greater number of individuals today (Cragun et al. 2012;

Edgell et al. 2016; Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartmann 2006).

3. Religion as ‘unpopular’ in peer groups

Lastly, it is possible that religion and religious practices/behaviors are simply

‘unpopular’ in peer groups and thus can lead to bullying (e.g., Thornberg 2011). Being

‘popular’ in peer circles typically confers social advantages, and popularity dynamics are associated with bullying and aggression in youth (Cillessen and Rose 2005; de Bruyn,

Cillessen, and Wissink 2010; Garandeau et al. 2014). In addition, behaviors or traits that are viewed as different or ‘unpopular’ are often subject to bullying (e.g., Thornberg

2011). Although many American youth claim a religious affiliation and report that

17 religion is at least somewhat important in their lives (e.g., Pew Research Center 2014;

Smith with Denton 2005), most youth do not talk with their friends about religion (Pew

Research Center 2019). In addition, many young adults increasingly claim non-religious identities or view religion as generally not important (Pew Research Center 2015). These declines in religiosity thus might reflect a decreasing importance of religion among youth, which may potentially increase the risk of bullying (in particular victimization) for youth who openly practice their religion.

Associations between religion, bullying, and mental health

Religion and bullying may also be associated with mental health. Many studies show positive associations between religiosity and health through mechanisms such as social support, religious coping, and lifestyles (e.g., Cotton et al. 2006; Koenig, King, and

Carson 2012; Wong et al. 2006). Religion offers both resources (e.g., social support) and coping outlets (e.g., prayer, sense of purpose) that may help mitigate the consequences of negative life events including physical illness (Reynolds et al. 2016; Trevino et al. 2010), mental distress and mental illness (Schieman, Bierman, and Ellison 2013; Tepper et al.

2001), and stress associated with major life events such as financial hardship (Bradshaw and Ellison 2010) or grief and bereavement (Brown et al. 2004). Some studies, however, show negative associations between religion and health through distressing relationships with one’s religious beliefs, religious community members, or through troublesome perceptions of the divine (Ellison et al. 2014; Ellison and Lee 2010: Krause et al. 1999).

Whether or not religiosity influences the association between bullying and health outcomes in adolescence, however, is unclear and deserves further attention.

Dissertation overview

This dissertation examines three key themes. Chapter 1 explores associations between dimensions of religiosity (i.e., affiliation, service attendance, prayer, scripture reading, participation in religious youth groups, religious salience, beliefs in God, beliefs in an afterlife, alternative religious beliefs, and religious doubt) and bullying involvement

(i.e., victims, bullies, bully-victims, and religious victims) using Wave 1 of the National

Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR) (N=3,137). Motivated by theories of religious socialization (e.g., Sherkat 2003) and moral disengagement (e.g., Hymel and Bonanno

2014), I examine the relative risk of bully involvement by these factors of religiosity using multinomial logistic regression models. I find that religiosity is both positively and negatively associated with bullying. For example, mainline Protestant affiliation was associated with lower relative risk of perpetration, whereas higher religious doubts were associated with increased relative risk of both perpetration and bully-victimization. Given these associations, this chapter underscores the importance of addressing the multi- dimensional aspects of youth religiosity when addressing bullying (e.g., Swearer and

Hymel 2015).

Next, exploring themes of ways that religion may provoke bullying, Chapter 2 explores associations between religious victimization (i.e., being made fun of because of one’s religion), race/ethnicity, and mental health among youth in the United States. I hypothesize higher religious victimization for Black youth due to heightened cultural and social pressures linking religiosity to identity and community involvement, and thus greater potential to break norms and/or expectations surrounding the performance of

‘right’ religiosity (Hunt and Hunt 2000; Chatters et al. 2009; Frisen et al. 2007; Stets and

Burke 2000; Thornberg 2011). Using the Health Behavior in School-Aged Children

(HBSC) 2009-2010 dataset (N=11,444), I find a higher likelihood of religious victimization among Black youth (as compared to White youth), although the mental health outcomes (i.e., feeling low, feeling nervous) linked to religious victimization did not differ by race/ethnicity. Few studies have examined religious victimization using such large samples, and no known studies have examined these differences among youth of different racial/ethnic backgrounds. This chapter points to an increased burden of religious victimization and subsequent mental health consequences for Black youth in the

US.

Lastly, exploring themes of religiosity, bullying, and mental health, Chapter 3 tests mediating pathways linking religiosity in youth and emerging adulthood to bullying and mental health over time using Waves 1-3 of the NSYR (N=2,454). Based upon prior empirical research showing positive associations between religiosity, religious coping, and social supports to mental health (e.g., Bryant-Davis et al. 2012; Helms et al. 2015;

Koenig et al. 2012; Trevino et al. 2010; Sharp 2010), I examine if religiosity in youth and emerging adulthood helps mediate the negative mental health consequences (i.e., feelings of sadness, alienation) of bullying. Using random-intercept hierarchical linear regression,

I show that religiosity (i.e., service attendance, prayer, religious salience, and closeness to

God) does not mediate the mental health consequences of bullying, contrary to my proposed hypotheses based on stress process pathways (e.g., Pearlin 1989). Consistent with prior religion and health literature however, positive associations between religiosity and mental health over time are noted. This chapter contributes to knowledge on pathways to health by showing that religiosity, while an effective coping and resource

20 strategy in many contexts of negative social experiences and life events, does not attenuate the mental health consequences of bullying in adolescence.

CHAPTER 2: RELIGIOUS PREDICTORS OF BULLYING IN YOUTH: AN

ANALYSIS USING THE NATIONAL STUDY OF YOUTH AND RELIGION

Introduction

Religion is an important facet of social and personal development in youth.

Religiosity is shaped in early youth and is influenced by families, peers, and other relationships (e.g., Petts 2009b). Many youth consider themselves religious, engage in religious practices on a semi-regular basis, and consider religion to be an important part of their lives (e.g., Smith with Denton 2005). In addition, religion can influence life course trajectories by shaping the likelihood of engaging in unhealthy risk behaviors

(e.g., smoking, alcohol) (Salas-Wright et al. 2012; Smith with Denton 2005) and other delinquencies in youth (e.g., vandalism, fighting) (e.g., Petts 2009b), as well as positively influencing academic achievement (Regnerus and Elder 2003; Sinha, Cnaan, and Gelles

2007) and sense of personal self-control (Desmond, Ulmer, and Bader 2013).

Bullying is also an important factor in youth development and constitutes a serious public health issue in the United States (e.g., Gladden et al. 2014). Bullying tends to peak during the middle school years, and gradually subsides for most emerging adults

(e.g., Nansel et al. 2001; Pellegrini and Bartini 2000). Bullying influences life course trajectories by negatively impacting physical and mental health (e.g., Gini and Pozzoli

2009), decreasing self-esteem (Nansel et al. 2001; Stein, Dukes, and Warren 2006), and hindering academic achievement and feelings of school connectedness (e.g., Eisenberg,

Neumark-Sztainer, and Perry 2003; Frugard-Strom et al. 2013). Bullying is also

22 associated with increased risk of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in youth and young adulthood (e.g., Brunstein Klomek, Sourander, and Gould 2010).

Despite the importance of both religion and bullying for developmental outcomes and wellbeing over the life course, few studies have examined the relationship between religiosity and bullying in youth. Religion may be related to bullying in various ways. For instance, religion may hinder bullying perpetration by increasing personal and collective feelings of morality and moral order, as well as by offering guidelines for ‘right’ or

‘moral’ conduct in youth (e.g., Bandura 1991; Thornberg et al. 2015). Religion, however, may increase perpetration through personal or collective feelings of strain related to one’s religious doctrines or beliefs (e.g., Agnew 1992). Religiosity may also influence victimization because one’s religious affiliations, beliefs, or practices may be considered deviant, ‘unpopular’, or ‘excessive’ in peer groups or other social contexts (e.g.,

Brechwald and Prinstein 2011; Salmivalli 2010).

The aim of this study is to examine the associations between religiosity and bullying. This study considers multiple dimensions of religiosity including affiliation, religious practices (e.g., attendance, prayer), and religious views and beliefs (e.g., religious salience, orientation towards God). Moreover, this study addresses dimensions of ‘general bullying’ (i.e., involvement as victims, bullies, bully-victims) as well as

‘religious victimization’ (i.e., being made fun of because of one’s religious views/practices). Examining these associations is important because religiosity has the potential to inhibit or exacerbate bullying, a well-documented and oftentimes severe social stressor during the teen years.

Religion and Religiosity in Youth

Religiosity is a multifaceted set of beliefs and behaviors consisting of affiliations, personal and collective practices, and views and beliefs about God, the afterlife, and the nature of the universe (e.g., Smith with Denton 2005). Youth religiosity is often reflective of parental religious patterns (e.g., Petts 2009a), and parents have perhaps the most primary influence on the development of religiosity during the early years (Myers 1996).

Many teens report regular or semi-regular religious involvement including service attendance, personal and collective prayer, youth group participation, and scripture reading (e.g., Koenig, King, and Larson 2012; Smith with Denton 2005). In addition, many teens report believing in God and the afterlife, and many maintain relatively few doubts about religion (e.g., Smith with Denton 2005).

Many teens view religion as an important aspect of their lives that helps shape their sense of identity and decision-making (Smith with Denton 2005). Additionally, religion is a critical source of moral guidance and beliefs pertaining to morality and ‘right and wrong’ behavior (e.g., Smith 2003b). For example, religion often encourages characteristics such as self-control, respecting and helping others, and prosocial behaviors such as leadership seeking (Furrow, King, and White 2004; Smith 2003b). Many religions have variations of the Golden Rule (i.e., do unto others), which serves as a guidepost for personal and collective behavior (e.g., Kurtz 2015). In addition, religion often provides youth with potential role models, offering them a social embodiment of

‘legitimate’ morality and ‘right’ behavior (e.g., King 2003; Smith 2003a,b).

Religious morality is internalized and directs the ways in which individuals and groups view their world, regulate their behaviors, and determine their responsibilities

(King 2003; Smith 2003b). Among youth, studies show that religiosity is associated with

24 lower likelihoods of alcohol and tobacco use (Salas-Wright et al. 2012; Smith with

Denton 2005), less vandalism and fighting (e.g., Petts 2009b), less truancy (Sinha et al.

2007), and lower likelihoods of engaging in risky sexual behavior (Landor et al. 2011).

Moreover, religiosity is associated with higher academic achievement (Regnerus and

Elder 2003) and higher levels of perceived self-control (Desmond et al. 2013). Religiosity may also increase comfortableness talking with adults about problems (e.g. King and

Furrow 2004; Smith 2003a,b). The extent to which youth negotiate their religious beliefs and behaviors, however, is also related to one’s religious salience as well as the degree of salience within the peer group (Stark 1996). For example, if religion is not salient to the group, the individual may be less likely to consider religion in their choice of behaviors

(Stark 1996).

Bullying in Youth

Bullying is traditionally defined as: (a) “aggressive behavior or intentional

‘harmdoing’; (b) which is carried out ‘repeatedly and over time’ and (c) in an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power” (Olweus 1997:496). In addition, bullying is a form of interpersonal aggression and delinquency during the teen years (e.g.,

Baldry and Farrington 2000; Guerra, Williams, and Sadek 2011). Bullying is often delineated into subtypes involving victimization (i.e., victims), perpetration (i.e., bullies), and bully-victimization (i.e., bully-victims). Bully-victims are often considered victims first and bullies second, because these youth are thought to bully others in response to the victimization they experience (Schwartz 2000).1

1 Research has outlined other ‘participant roles’ of bullying such as ‘reinforcers’ and ‘defenders’ (e.g., Salmivalli 2014). These bullying roles (and behaviors), however, were not asked of youth in this study.

Bullying is linked to a number of social factors including peer groups and social clique dynamics (e.g., Garandeau, Lee, and Salmivalli 2014; Salmivalli 2010), relationship quality with peers and adults (e.g., Baldry and Farrington 2000; Walden and

Beran 2010), family and parental factors including parental monitoring (e.g., Baldry and

Farrington 2000; Cook et al. 2010) as well as school factors such as school type (e.g., public or private school) and school climate and a ‘culture of bullying’ (e.g., Cook et al.

2010; Swearer and Hymel 2015). For example, peer groups with more hierarchical social patterns tend to involve greater bullying (Garandeau et al. 2014). In addition, highly hierarchical peer groups may be more prevalent in more homogeneous (i.e., less diverse) schools because more diverse school settings may prevent status power from becoming concentrated in any one peer group (Juvonen, Nishina, and Graham 2006). Bullying may also be viewed as strategic behavior for achieving status in peer groups with strong hierarchical patterns, as well as among peer groups that value more aggressive or delinquent behavior (e.g., Garandeau et al. 2014; Pellegrini and Long 2002; Salmivalli

2010).

Parents and families are also linked to bullying risk. Increased parental monitoring and closeness with adults are associated with lower rates of bullying (e.g.,

Cook et al. 2010). Positive relationships with parents can increase prosocial behaviors that teens have towards other youth as well as increase feelings of comfortableness when talking with other adults about their concerns (e.g., Espelage 2014; Low and Espelage

2013). In addition, demographic factors such as parental socioeconomic status (SES) may be related to bullying. For example, among a sample of elementary school youth, children from lower SES backgrounds were more likely to be involved in bullying, particularly as

26 bullies or bully-victims (Jansen et al. 2012). Taken together, these patterns reflect a social-ecological model where multiple dimensions of social life (e.g., peers, schools, families) intersect to influence bullying likelihood (e.g., Espelage and Swearer 2003;

Swearer and Hymel 2015).

Religiosity and Victimization in Youth

Religious socialization facilitates shared understandings of morality and offers tangible and symbolic resources for social and personal development. Religion provides youth with important social connections with peers, parents, and non-familial adults, which can influence personal and social resources, behavior, and decision-making (e.g.,

Ebstyne King, Furrow, and Roth 2002; Myers 1996; Wagener et al. 2003). In addition, most youth view bullying as an immoral and harmful behavior (e.g., Thornberg et al.

2015). Whether religiosity shapes victimization risk, a harmful interpersonal behavior in adolescence, however, remains unclear.

Religiosity may prevent or exacerbate bullying in a number of ways. First, religion may protect against victimization. Religion provides social support as well as feelings of collective identity and in-group membership (e.g., Smith 2003b; Youniss, McLellan, and

Yates 1999; Ysseldyk, Matheson, and Anisman 2010). Social support and collective identity may offset victimization by offering youth protective social and personal resources and coping outlets within contexts of victimization (e.g., Newman, Holden, and

Delville 2005; Rigby 2000; Uchino, Cacioppo, and Kiecolt-Glaser 1996). Religion provides increased contact with others through activities including service attendance and youth group participation, which may augment social support and prevent against victimization (e.g., King and Furrow 2004; Lim and Putnam 2010; Snell 2009). Religion

27 can also be a source of self-esteem and prosocial attitudes that are associated with lower likelihoods of victimization (e.g., Furrow et al. 2004; Koenig et al. 2012; Markstrom

1999). Given this line of research, Hypothesis 1a states:

H1a: Religiosity will be associated with lower likelihood of general victimization

through factors such as affiliation and attendance that provide youth with social

support, in-group membership, and related prosocial behaviors.

Religiosity may also exacerbate victimization. In a predominately Christian society such as the US, certain religious views and practices (e.g., beliefs such as astrology, psychics, and communication with the dead) may be perceived as ‘weird’ or

‘not cool,’ which may increase victimization risk (e.g., Salmivalli 2010; Thornberg

2011). Teens may be victimized for not fitting in with, challenging, or doubting the predominant religious social norms or expectations of the peer group, thereby decreasing social status and increasing vulnerability to victimization (e.g., Cook et al. 2010;

Thornberg 2011). In addition, the links between religiosity and victimization may be particularly pronounced among teens who often and openly express their religious views

(i.e., zeal), regardless of the youth’s religious tradition (e.g., Thornberg 2011; Thornberg and Knutsen 2011). Following this prior research, Hypothesis 1b states:

H1b: Religiosity will be associated with higher likelihood of general victimization

through factors such as positive attitudes towards alternative beliefs and religious

doubts that may be considered ‘unpopular’ or ‘weird’ in peer groups.

In addition to patterns for general victimization, teens belonging to minority religious groups (e.g., Jewish, Muslim) may experience religious victimization because their views and practices are considered deviant or potentially dangerous and thus subject

28 to stigmatization and marginalization (e.g., Dupper, Forrest-Bank, and Lowry-Carusillo

2015; Rippy and Newman 2006; Sheridan 2006). In fact, many case studies point to incidents where teens were religiously victimized specifically because of their affiliation and practices (e.g., Donaldson James 2015; Singh 2018). Following this line of prior research and case studies, Hypothesis 1c states:

H1c: Youth belonging to minority religious traditions, as well as youth with more

positive attitudes towards alternative beliefs and greater religious doubt, will be more

likely to experience religious victimization (i.e., being made fun of because of one’s

religious status or beliefs).

Religion and Perpetration in Youth

Religion may also be related to bullying perpetration in youth. First, religion may protect against perpetration by serving as a source of personal and social notions of right behavior (e.g., Furrow et al. 2004; Smith 2003b). Religious teachings and religious morality, exemplified in indications such as ‘treating others the way you want to be treated’ (i.e., the Golden Rule) (Kurtz 2015; Rubin-Vaughan et al. 2011) are in contrast to the harmful actions of perpetration. In this case, attendance and higher religious salience may be associated with decreased perpetration in youth. In fact, having high religious salience may prevent the development of feelings of moral disengagement (i.e., tendency to behave in ways that are contrary to one’s personal or social moral beliefs), which are linked to increased perpetration in youth (e.g., Bandura 1991; Gini, Pozzoli, and Hymel

2014; Hymel and Bonanno 2014). Second, religiosity can serve as a source of personal control, particularly in relation to other delinquencies linked to bullying (e.g., substance use, fighting, vandalism) (e.g., Desmond et al. 2013; Johnson et al. 2001). Third, religion

29 may increase adult oversight and feelings of parental closeness (e.g., King and Furrow

2004; Smith 2003a), potentially lowering perpetration (Patchin and Hinduja 2011; Nation et al. 2008; Swearer and Hymel 2015). Lastly, having a belief in God or a divine power can facilitate perceptions that ‘God is watching,’ which may lower perpetration risk (e.g.,

Arnett and Jensen 2002). This research supports Hypothesis 2a, which states:

H2a: Religiosity will be associated with lower likelihood of perpetration through

factors such as attendance and religious salience that are linked with parental oversight

and increased internalization of religious morality during adolescence (e.g., Smith

2003a,b).

Conversely, religiosity may increase perpetration. Perpetration is often linked with feelings of strain pertaining to blocked goals or identities (e.g., Agnew 2001; Moon and Jang 2014; Patchin and Hinduja 2011). In particular, religion may be a source of strain due to feelings of failing to live up to one’s religious standards (e.g., Agnew 1992;

Page, Lindahl, and Malik 2013). Religiosity may increase strain among youth who perceive their peers as having negative views about their religious views (i.e., generalized other) (e.g., Mead 1934). In fact, feelings of personal strain may be the direct result of religious victimization events in youth. Religion may also lead to strain through feelings of not wanting to be religious or through disagreements with the religious norms or expectations of the household, school, or community (e.g., Agnew 1992; 2001; Petts

2009a). This prior research supports Hypothesis 2b, which states:

H2b: Religiosity will be associated with higher likelihood of perpetration through

feelings of religious doubt that are associated with strain in youth (e.g., Agnew 2001).

Furthermore, it is possible that despite the relatively high importance of religion among youth (e.g., Smith with Denton 2005), religion may have little impact on regulating perpetration behavior. This may be because achieving social status in peer groups is more salient (even if it involves bullying) than following indications of ‘right behavior’ outlined by religious teachings (e.g., Arnett and Jensen 2002; Salmivalli 2010;

Smith with Denton 2005). In this case, religiosity may be ineffective at preventing feelings of moral disengagement that are linked to perpetration in adolescence (e.g.,

Bandura 1991; Hymel and Bonanno 2014; Thornberg et al. 2015).

Current Study

The links between religion and bullying are an understudied yet important area of inquiry into social forces that influence health and wellbeing among youth and young adults. This study thus examines the associations between religiosity and bullying. In particular, this study tests whether religiosity (e.g., affiliation, attendance, salience, religious doubt) is associated with differential likelihoods of bullying involvement as victims, bullies, or bully-victims (i.e., general bullying), as well as the likelihood of religious victimization. Here, prior studies suggest that ‘general’ and ‘religious victimization’ constitute two different types of victimization. For example, some studies find that while general victimization (i.e., general teasing) tends to decrease with age, religious victimization may actually increase with age (e.g., Glover et al. 2000; Nansel et al. 2001). In addition, this study accounts for key social-ecological factors (e.g., peers, school contexts) as well as youth and parent control factors (e.g., youth age, parent monitoring, parent SES) that studies show are associated with both religiosity and bullying. Addressing these associations is important because religion and bullying are

31 critical factors influencing social and personal development in youth, as well as having potential life-long implications for health, wellbeing, and development.

Data and Method

This study uses Wave 1 of the National Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR

2001-2015). The NSYR is a nationally representative, longitudinal study assessing factors of religion in youth and young adulthood with key demographic, education, relationship, and wellbeing measures. This study uses data provided by 3,137 youth and at least one of their parents via telephone surveying conducted from July 2002 to April

2003. All youth were between ages 13-17 at the time of first interview. Parent interviews were conducted at Wave 1 only.

Dependent variables

Two dependent variables are used in the analysis. First, a categorical measure of general bullying has four values: 1) uninvolved, 2) victim-only, 3) bully-only, and 4) bully-victim. The general bullying measure was created using two items asking a) frequency of being teased and b) frequency of teasing others (range 1=never to 5=almost everyday). Because relatively few youth reported frequent involvement (i.e., teasing occurring almost everyday; 4.9% for victimization, 5.65% for perpetration), victimization and perpetration categories were created if youth reported being teased (victims) or teasing others (bullies) “at least once or twice a month” (1=yes). In addition, bully- victims were identified if the youth reported being teased and teasing others at least once or twice a month (1=yes). The groups were combined into a single categorical variable representing the bullying subtypes (1=uninvolved (59%), 2=victim-only (9%), 3=bully-

32 only (17%), 4=bully-victim (15%). These estimates correspond to recent estimates of bullying prevalence in the US (e.g., NCES 2016).

Second, a single binary measure of religious victimization (range 1=none to 4=a lot) was created if the respondent reported being teased because of their religion, or because they were not religious, at least “a little” (1=yes; 20% of youth). Bullying measures were available at Wave 1 only.

Independent variables

Measures of religiosity fall into three main categories: a) religious affiliation, b) religious practices, and c) religious views and beliefs. Religious affiliation is assessed as a series of dummy variables for conservative Protestant, mainline Protestant, Black

Protestant, Catholic, other religion, and no religious affiliation (1=yes) (Steensland et al.

2000). Religious practices include a) service attendance, b) personal prayer, c) scripture reading, and d) participation in religious youth groups. Service attendance is an ordinal measure ranging from 0=never to 6=more than once a week. Prayer is an ordinal variable ranging from 1=never to 7=multiple times per day. Scripture reading is an ordinal measure ranging from 1=never to 7=many times a day. Lastly, youth group participation is a dummy variable where 1=currently involved in a religious youth group.

Several measures addressing youth religious views and beliefs are also included for a) religious salience, b) orientation towards God, c) belief in an afterlife, d) attitudes towards alternative beliefs and e) feelings of religious doubt. Religious salience is an ordinal measure ranging from 1=not at all important to 5=extremely important.

Orientation towards God is a scale of averaged responses over four items including a) do you believe in God, b) have you made a commitment to live your life for God, c) do you

33 believe in power of divine miracles of God, and d) how distant or close do you feel to

God most of the time (alpha=.78). The orientation towards God scale was created to account for youth who may believe in God, but who may not feel close to God or who may feel less committed to living according to God’s precepts as outlined in religious teachings (i.e., do unto others). Belief in an afterlife (range 1=not at all to 3=definitely) is included because afterlife beliefs may influence youth behavior in the hopes of attaining a happy afterlife (e.g., Smith with Denton 2005). Attitudes towards alternative beliefs is a scale of averaged responses across three items including do you believe in astrology, do you believe in the possibility of communicating with the dead, and do you believe in the power of psychics and fortunetellers (alpha=.61). Lastly, religious doubt is an ordinal measure whether the respondent had doubts about their religion or about not being religious (range 1=no doubts to 4=many doubts).

Control factors

Several control variables are grouped under two categories for a) social-ecological factors and b) youth and parent control factors. Social-ecological factors include a) youth friendship networks, b) youth school factors, and c) parent and adult relationship factors.

Youth friendship networks includes six measures for a) number of friends, b) number of friends belonging to the same religious group2, c) number of friends you feel especially close to, d) number of friends who have a bad influence on you, e) are you part of a popular group in school, and f) how important is it that you fit in with what other teens think is cool. The four measures assessing number of friends are continuous ranging

0=no friends to 5=five friends. How much would you say that you are part of the popular

2 Number of friends belonging to the same religious group was coded as 0 for unaffiliated youth.

34 group is an ordinal measure ranging 1=none to 4=a lot. Importance of fitting in with what other teens think is cool is an ordinal measure ranging 1=not important at all to

5=extremely important. Importantly, this study includes measures of being part of a popular group and importance of being cool to account for peer group hierarchies and importance of status attainment in youth (e.g., Garandeau et al. 2014). In addition, friendship variables are included because friendship dynamics and peer groups are critical means through which bullying emerges and continues through adolescence (e.g.

Salmivalli 2010).

In addition, because schools are important means through which bullying emerges

(e.g., Bradshaw, Sawyer, and O’Brennan 2009), four youth school factors are included.

School type is assessed using an indicator for private school (1=yes). Public schools serve as the omitted reference. Grades in school (i.e., achievement) is continuous ranging from 1=mostly F’s to 10=all A’s.3 A measure of grades in school is included because academic achievement may be one factor predicting victimization and/or perpetration in youth (e.g., Farrington and Baldry 2010). How often do you openly express your religious beliefs at school is an ordinal measure ranging 1=none to 4=a lot. Lastly, a binary item asking whether students generally look down on teens who are openly religious in school is included (1=yes). Measures for religious expression in school and whether students look down on others who are openly religious are included as proxy measures of school climate in this study (e.g., Swearer and Hymel 2015).

Religiosity and religious participation are often associated with increased parental monitoring and closeness to parents (e.g., King and Furrow 2004; Regnerus and Uecker

3 Youth who reported their grades as “mixed” were set to missing (5.96%).

2006). In addition, increased adult supervision and closeness with parents may decrease the likelihood of bullying (e.g., Pepler et al. 2008). Thus, two measures assessing parent relationships are used: a) parental monitoring and b) closeness with parents. Parental monitoring is an ordinal measure asking how often their parent(s) monitor who they hang out with (1=never to 5=always). Feelings of parental closeness is an ordinal measure ranging 1=not close at all to 6=extremely close.4

Several youth and parent control factors are also employed. For youth factors, age is measured in years of age (range 13-17). Female is a binary measure indicating female youth. Four categories of race/ethnicity are used: Black, Hispanic/Latino, White, and other race/ethnicity. White youth serve as the omitted reference group. South Census region is a dummy variable indicting living in the South. In addition, four parental control variables are included because parents exert a strong influence on youth religiosity and because parental factors are linked to bullying (e.g. Pepler et al. 2008; Petts 2009a,b).

Parent religious salience is an ordinal measure ranging 1=not at all important to

6=extremely important. Parent education is a binary measure indicating whether at least one parent in the household had a Bachelor’s degree (1=yes). Parent marital status is a binary measure indicating married respondents.5 Lastly, household income is an ordinal measure ranging 1=less than $10,000 to 11=greater than $100,000.

Analytic Strategy

This study uses multinomial logistic regression models (general bullying) and binary logistic regression models (religious victimization) to examine the association

4 Parental closeness includes feelings of closeness to one’s Mother and/or Father if applicable. 5 Divorced and separated respondents were considered not married.

36 between religion and bullying in youth. This study has two objectives. First, this study sets to test the relative risk that youth will be involved in general bullying as victims, bullies, or bully-victims by key religious factors in youth. Second, this study tests the likelihood that youth report being made fun of because of their religion, or because they are not religious, by religious factors. As noted, general bullying (i.e. victims, bullies, bully-victims) is an indicator for whether the youth reported being teased or teasing others “at least once or twice a month.” Religious victimization is an indicator for whether the youth reported being teased because of their religion, or because they were not religious, at least “a little.”

Results begin with a discussion of general bullying, followed by religious victimization. Results for both general bullying and religious victimization progress over two models. Model 1 introduces social-ecological factors including youth friendship groups, school factors, parental relationship factors, and youth/parent control variables to account for baseline associations with bullying. Model 2 then adds religiosity measures

(e.g., affiliation, practices, views and beliefs) to evaluate independent religious patterns, adjusting for key social-ecological and control variables associated with both religiosity and bullying. Prior to analysis, respondents constituting the Jewish oversample (N=80) were omitted because these cases could not be weighted alongside the nationally representative sample. In addition, homeschooled youth or youth attending other types of school arrangements were omitted (4.65%) because many study measures are specific to youth attending public or private schools. Following omitting these groups, missing data for all study variables were handled using multiple imputation by chained equations across 10 imputed datasets using the Stata ‘ice’ command (White, Royston, and Wood

2011). Thus, the final analytic sample is 3,137 youth ages 13 to 17 attending public or private schools in the US. Table 1.1 provides a column for percent missing across all study variables. All analyses were conducted in Stata 13.

Results

Table 1.1 shows descriptive statistics for all study variables. Approximately 59% of youth reported no bullying involvement, 9% reported victimization only, 17% reported perpetration only, and 15% reported bully-victimization. In addition, about 20% of youth reported religious victimization.

Religiosity factors show most youth had conservative Protestant affiliation (.31), followed by Catholic (.25), and Black Protestant and the unaffiliated (.12). On average, most youth reported somewhat regular service attendance and prayer frequency, as well as having relatively high levels of religious salience. About 38% of youth were actively involved in a religious youth group. Most youth had a fairly strong orientation towards

God as well as fairly positive attitudes towards alternative beliefs. In addition, youth were generally likely to believe in an afterlife and most reported few overall religious doubts.

Social-ecological factors show that most youth could name at least five close friends, however only approximately two of these friends on average belonged to the same religious group. Youth reported on average that they were somewhat close to their friends. Most youth reported having two or fewer friends who had a bad influence on them. In addition, most youth reported that they were at least somewhat part of a popular group and consider fitting in with what other peers think is cool as fairly important.

School factors show that about 91% of youth attended public schools, with the remaining 9% attending private schools. Youth reported their grades corresponded to

Table 1.1: Descriptive statistics M/P SD Min Max % miss Bully involvement Victimization .09 0 1 .01 Perpetration .17 0 1 .01 Bully-victimization .15 0 1 .01 No involvement .59 0 1 .01 Religious victimization .20 0 1 .00 Religious Factors Religious affiliation Conservative Protestant .31 0 1 .00 Mainline Protestant .11 0 1 .00 Black Protestant .12 0 1 .00 Catholic .25 0 1 .00 Other religion .09 0 1 .00 No religion .12 0 1 .00 Religious practice Attendance 3.15 2.18 0 6 .00 Prayer 4.37 2.00 1 7 .00 Scripture reading 2.59 1.73 1 7 .00 Religious youth groups .38 0 1 .00 Religious views and beliefs Religious salience 3.46 1.12 1 5 .00 Orientation towards God 1.75 .56 0 3 .00 Belief in an afterlife 2.36 .71 1 3 .02 Attitudes towards alternative beliefs 1.44 .47 1 3 .00 Religious doubts 1.77 .90 1 4 .00 Social-Ecological Factors Youth friendship networks Number of friends 4.70 .93 0 5 .01 Number of friends in same religious group 1.73 2.06 0 5 .03 Closeness to friends 2.69 1.66 0 5 .02 Number of friends having bad influence .75 1.52 0 5 .01 Are you part of a popular group? 3.04 .91 1 4 .01 Importance of being cool 2.58 1.12 1 5 .00 Youth school factors Public school .91 0 1 .00 Private school .09 0 1 .00 Grades in school 3.60 1.61 1 10 .07 Express your religious views in school? 2.20 1.02 1 4 .07 Peers look down on religious youth in school? .18 0 1 .03 Parent and adult relationship factors Parents monitor who you hang out with 3.70 1.25 1 5 .00 Closeness to parent(s) 5.05 .96 1 6 .00 Youth and parent control factors Youth measures Age 14.99 1.39 13 17 .00 Female .49 0 1 .00 Black .18 0 1 .01 Hispanic/Latino .12 0 1 .01 White .65 0 1 .01 Other race .05 0 1 .01 South Census region .42 0 1 .00 Parent measures Parent religious salience 4.99 1.26 1 6 .00 Parent Bachelors or higher .38 0 1 .00 Parent married .68 0 1 .00 Parent income 5.91 2.91 1 11 .06 N=3137

39 mostly A’s and B’s. Youth reported on average that they express their religious views in school somewhat. In addition, about 18% of respondents reported their peers look down on other religious youth in school.

Table 1.2 shows multinomial logistic regression results for general bullying across two models. Model 1 shows baseline results for social-ecological factors and youth/parent control factors. Model 2 adds independent religiosity measures. Results for general bullying begin with a discussion of victims, followed by bullies, and lastly bully- victims.

General victimization

Model 1 (V1) shows baseline results for victimization as relative risk ratios. As noted, youth who reported no bullying involvement serve as the base reference group.

Each additional friend the youth reported (RRR=.85 p<.05) and being part of a popular group (RRR=.51 p<.001) were associated with lower relative risk of victimization compared to the uninvolved. Conversely, youth whose peers look down on religious youth in school reported increased risk of victimization (RRR=1.84 p<.01). Younger youth (RRR=.85 p<.01) and girls (RRR=.58 p<.001) had lower risk of victimization than older youth and boys respectively.

Model 2 (V2) adds religiosity measures including affiliation, religious practices, and religious views and beliefs. No independent religious measure was associated with victimization likelihood in Model 2. In addition, after including measures of religiosity, being part of a popular group continued to be associated with lower risk of victimization, while having peers who look down on religious youth in school continued to be related to

Table 1.2: Multinomial relative risk of general bullying involvement (i.e., victims, bullies, bully-victims) by religious and social-ecological factors a Model 1 Model 2 V1 B1 BV1 V2 B2 BV2 RRR b RRR RRR RRR RRR RRR Religious Factors Religious affiliation Conservative Protestant .86 .86 .62 Mainline Protestant .93 .54 * .61 Black Protestant 1.05 1.21 .97 Catholic .88 .87 .64 Other religion .46 .84 .50 * Religious practice Attendance 1.10 1.06 1.05 Prayer 1.10 1.10 ** 1.08 Scripture reading 1.05 .91 * .94 Religious youth groups .97 .99 1.28 Religious views and beliefs Religious salience .94 .79 ** .97 Orientation towards God 1.04 .97 .88 Belief in an afterlife .98 1.03 1.15 Attitudes towards alternative beliefs 1.16 1.02 .97 Religious doubts 1.14 1.29 *** 1.17 * Social-Ecological Factors Youth friendship networks Number of friends .85 * 1.11 .98 .85 * 1.12 .99 Number of friends in same religious group 1.08 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.02 Closeness to friends 1.04 .96 1.04 1.05 .95 1.03 Number of friends having bad influence 1.04 1.12 ** 1.13 ** 1.03 1.12 ** 1.13 ** Are you part of a popular group? .51 *** 1.35 *** .76 *** .51 *** 1.30 *** .76 *** Importance of being cool 1.08 1.06 1.13 * 1.05 1.06 1.14 * Youth school factors Private school .89 1.70 * 2.53 *** .85 1.69 * 2.51 *** Grades in school .98 1.15 *** 1.04 .99 1.14 *** 1.05 Express your religious views in school? 1.14 .90 1.01 1.04 .96 1.03 Peers look down on religious youth in school? 1.84 ** 1.56 ** 1.17 1.65 * 1.44 * 1.13 Parent and adult relationship factors Parents monitor who you hang out with .98 .93 .99 .98 .95 1.00 Closeness to parent(s) .85 .94 .84 ** .84 .98 .85 * Youth and Parent Control Factors

Table 1.2: continued Youth measures Age .85 ** 1.00 .97 .85 *** 1.00 .96 Female .58 *** .57 *** .44 *** .53 *** .54 *** .43 *** Black .82 1.66 ** 1.05 .69 1.39 .83 Hispanic/Latino .71 .96 .65 * .71 .91 .68 Other race 1.30 1.40 .92 1.29 1.24 .88 South Census region 1.04 1.07 .87 .96 1.12 .85 Parent measures Parent religious salience .96 1.01 .96 .91 1.02 .96 Parent Bachelors or higher .91 .91 1.34 .97 .90 1.32 Parent married 1.01 .99 1.08 .98 .97 1.06 Parent income 1.03 1.01 .97 1.04 1.01 .97 Constant 42.57 *** .07 *** 2.47 36.76 ** .05 ** 1.34 N=3137 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 a: Base reference group is no involvement b: Relative risk ratio

42 increased risk of victimization. Overall, these findings show that religiosity did not account for general victimization likelihood among youth in this sample.

General Perpetration

Model 1 (B1) presents baseline results for perpetration. Each additional friend the youth reported had a bad influence on them (RRR=1.12 p<.01) and being part of a popular group (RRR=1.35 p<.001) were both associated with higher relative risk of perpetration compared to the uninvolved. Youth attending private schools (RRR=1.70 p<.05) had higher risk of perpetration than public school youth. Higher grade achievement (RRR=1.15 p<.001) was associated with increasing relative risk of perpetration. Similar to victimization, youth who reported their peers look down on other religious youth had higher risk of perpetration (RRR=1.56 p<.01). Girls had lower risk of perpetration than boys (RRR=.57 p<.001), while Black youth had higher risk of perpetration than White youth (RRR=1.66 p<.01).

Model 2 (B2) shows results for perpetration upon including religiosity measures.

Model 2 (B2) shows mainline Protestants (RRR=.54 p<.05) had lower relative risk of perpetration when compared to the unaffiliated. Increasing frequency of prayer

(RRR=1.10 p<.01) and higher religious doubts (RRR=1.29 p<.001) were associated with higher perpetration risk. Alternatively, increasing scripture reading (RRR=.91 p<.05) and higher religious salience (RRR=.79 p<.01) were associated with lower perpetration risk.

In addition, all significant social-ecological and control associations present in Model 1 remained in Model 2 after including religiosity measures, with the exception of Black youth who were no longer significantly more likely than White youth to perpetrate bullying after accounting for measures of religiosity. In summary, results show that

43 mainline Protestants (compared to the unaffiliated), youth who more often read scripture, and youth with higher religious salience were less likely to perpetrate bullying, while youth who prayed more often and who had higher religious doubts were more likely to perpetrate bullying.

General Bully-Victimization

Model 1 (BV1) shows baseline results for bully-victimization. Each additional friend the youth reported had a bad influence on them increased the risk of bully- victimization (RRR=1.13 p<.01). Being part of a popular group was associated with decreased risk of bully-victimization (RRR=.76 p<.001). Additionally, increasing importance of being cool with peers was associated with increased bully-victimization risk (RRR=1.13 p<.05).

Youth attending private schools had more than double the risk of bully- victimization than youth attending public schools (RRR=2.53 p<.001). In addition, increasing closeness to parents was associated with decreased risk of bully-victimization

(RRR=.84 p<.01). Girls had lower risk of bully-victimization than boys (RRR=.44 p<.001), while Hispanic/Latino youth had lower risk of bully-victimization (RRR=.65 p<.05) than White youth.

Model 2 (BV2) includes religiosity measures. Youth of other religious traditions were less likely to be bully-victims compared to the unaffiliated (RRR=.50 p<.05).

Conversely, higher religious doubts (RRR=1.17 p<.05) increased the risk of bully- victimization. In addition, all social-ecological and control factors significant in Model 1 were significant in Model 2, with the exception of Hispanic/Latino youth who were not

44 significantly less likely than White youth to be involved as bully-victims after adjusting for religiosity.

Religious Victimization

Baseline Model 1 for religious victimization includes social-ecological and youth and parent control factors. Results are presented as odds ratios. Each additional friend the youth reported belonged to the same religious group was associated with increased odds

(OR=1.08 p<.001) of religious victimization. In addition, each additional friend the youth reported had a bad influence on them increased the odds of religious victimization

(OR=1.09 p<.01). Increasing religious expression in school was associated with higher odds of religious victimization (OR=1.46 p<.001), and youth whose peers looked down on religious youth had more than two times the odds of religious victimization (OR=2.58 p<.001). Conversely, being part of a popular group was associated with decreased odds of religious victimization (OR=.76 p<.001).

Contrary to general victimization, older youth (OR=1.15 p<.001) had higher odds of religious victimization than younger youth. In addition, Black youth had lower odds of religious victimization than White youth (OR=.55 p<.001). Increasing religious salience of the parent(s), however, increased the odds of religious victimization (OR=1.13 p<.01).

Model 2 adds religiosity measures. Conservative Protestant (OR=.57 p<.05), mainline Protestant (OR=.36 p<.001), Black Protestant (OR=.41 p<.01), and Catholic youth (OR=.35 p<.001) all had significantly lower odds of religious victimization compared to the unaffiliated. Increasing service attendance (OR=1.09 p<.01) and scripture reading (OR=1.16 p<.001) were both associated with greater odds of religious

Table 1.3: Logistic odds ratios of religious victimization by religious and social-ecological factors Model 1 Model 2 OR a OR Religious Factors Religious affiliation Conservative Protestant .57 * Mainline Protestant .36 *** Black Protestant .41 ** Catholic .35 *** Other religion 1.47 Religious practice Attendance 1.09 ** Prayer 1.03 Scripture reading 1.16 *** Religious youth groups 1.46 ** Religious views and beliefs Religious salience 1.10 Orientation towards God .87 Belief in an afterlife 1.00 Attitudes towards alternative beliefs 1.05 Religious doubts 1.21 *** Social-Ecological Factors Youth friendship networks Number of friends .92 .94 Number of friends in same religious group 1.08 *** 1.04 Closeness to friends 1.04 1.04 Number of friends having bad influence 1.09 ** 1.09 ** Are you part of a popular group? .76 *** .79 *** Importance of being cool .95 .97 Youth school factors Private school 1.18 1.32 Grades in school .96 .97 Express your religious views in school? 1.46 *** 1.30 *** Peers look down on religious youth in school? 2.58 *** 2.46 *** Parent and adult relationship factors Parents monitor who you hang out with 1.07 1.04 Closeness to parent(s) 1.02 1.03 Youth and Parent Control Factors Youth measures Age 1.15 *** 1.17 *** Female .98 .95 Black .55 *** .65 * Hispanic/Latino .98 1.24 Other race .86 .70 South Census region .87 .89 Parent measures Parent religious salience 1.13 ** 1.06 Parent Bachelors or higher 1.00 1.00 Parent married 1.12 1.08 Parent income .98 1.00 Constant .02 *** .01 *** N=3137 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 a: Odds ratio

victimization. Participation in religious youth groups was associated with greater odds of religious victimization (OR=1.46 p<.01). Higher religious doubts were also associated

46 with increased odds of religious victimization (OR=1.21 p<.001). Moreover, the significant associations between number of religious friends and parent salience in Model

1 are fully mediated upon including religiosity measures in Model 2. Taken overall, results show that having a Christian affiliation is protective of religious victimization, while increasing religious practices (i.e., attendance, scripture reading, religious youth groups) are associated with higher likelihood of religious victimization during adolescence.

Discussion

Religiosity and bullying are important dimensions of personal and social development in adolescence that influence health and wellbeing trajectories over the life course. Overall, results show that different facets of religiosity including affiliation, practices, and religious views and beliefs were differentially associated with bullying likelihood, adjusting for key social and personal factors that are associated with religiosity and bullying. This study begins with a discussion of victimization (i.e., general and religious-related), followed by perpetration.

General victimization in youth

As noted, general victimization is defined as teasing that occurred at least once or twice a month. Despite findings, however, that religion provides in-group membership, sense of self-esteem, social support, and increased contact with adults (e.g., Smith 2003b;

King and Furrow 2004; Ysseldyk et al. 2010), religiosity was not associated with general victimization in this study. In this case, religiosity does not appear to prevent general victimization through mechanisms such as affiliation or service attendance that are associated with increased presence of social support and adult oversight (e.g., King and

Furrow 2004). In addition, religiosity did not exacerbate victimization through factors such as positive attitudes towards alternative beliefs and religious doubts that may be considered ‘unpopular’ or ‘weird’ within peer groups (e.g., Thornberg 2011). Thus, these findings fail to support Hypothesis 1a and 1b that religiosity will be associated with either lower or higher likelihoods of victimization.

In terms of general victimization, a few considerations might help explain these findings. First, all youth were between the ages of 13 to 17 and attending public or private schools in this study. While religious gatherings such as service attendance and youth group participation tend to occur rather infrequently (i.e., most youth in this study reported attending services less than once per week on average), many youth spend the majority of their week attending school. In this case, factors such as attendance may not prevent victimization because the social support and oversight these activities provide occur too infrequently and generally do not extend beyond the religious group. Second, some dimensions of religiosity may be ‘invisible’ to other youth. The nature of one’s prayer habits, religious doubts, attitudes towards alternative beliefs, and even affiliation may not be evident to peers, and therefore these beliefs and behaviors do not become a basis for general victimization. Third, most American youth affiliate with a Christian faith, and many consider religion an important part of their lives (e.g., Smith with Denton

2005). Thus, religion may not be associated with general victimization because religious beliefs and practices are normative to many youth and are not considered deviant, ‘odd’, or ‘different’ in many peer contexts.

Religious victimization in youth

Differentiating from general victimization, religious victimization was defined as being teased because of one’s religious practices or beliefs (or because youth were not religious). Contrary to general victimization, all four main Christian traditions (i.e., conservative Protestant, mainline Protestant, Black Protestant, Catholic) had lower odds of religious victimization relative to the unaffiliated. This shows that youth of all four

Christian traditions were less likely to be made fun of because of their religion, relative to the unaffiliated being made fun of because they were ‘not religious.’ In addition, although youth belonging to other religious traditions (e.g., Jewish, Mormon) had higher odds of religious victimization, they did not significantly differ from the unaffiliated in this regard. These findings point to the normativity of religion (i.e., Christianity) among

American youth. In this case, unaffiliated youth may be at increased risk of religious victimization because they are viewed as deviating from the moral or cultural norms of the majority and therefore are considered different (i.e., ‘us versus them’) (e.g., Link and

Phelan 2001). Unaffiliated youth could be labeled atheist or agnostic, which could increase the risk of victimization among a community of religious peers who hold disparaging views towards beliefs such as atheism (e.g., Cragun et al. 2012). In fact, beliefs such as atheism and religious non-affiliation often expose individuals to stigma and labeling as being morally corrupted, non-civic-minded, and potentially dangerous

(e.g., Cragun et al. 2012; Edgell et al. 2016).

On the other hand, higher service attendance, scripture reading, and participation in religious youth groups were all associated with increased odds of religious victimization. These findings likely reflect a level of ‘visibility’ of religiosity, potentially exposing youth to teasing because their religious practices or expressions are deemed

49 excessive or unpopular. In fact, prayer was not associated with an increased risk of religious victimization likely because youth are unaware of their peer’s personal prayer habits. In addition, higher religious doubt was associated with higher odds of religious victimization. This finding also points to the normativity of religion, as youth who question or doubt mainstream religious views and beliefs are likely more susceptible to religious victimization. Expressing religious doubts among peers that do not value religion (i.e., religion is not salient to the group) could also increase the risk of religious victimization due to perceptions that the youth is ‘weird’ (e.g., Thornberg 2011).

In summary, these findings show that while having Christian affiliation likely protects youth from religious victimization through its normativity in US culture, increasing religious practices and religious expression may actually increase the risk that youth will be victimized because of their religiosity. This might be because practicing religion, on average, is viewed as relatively unpopular in youth peer groups. Religiosity might also be regarded as antithetical to achieving status in peer groups, especially among peer groups with clear social hierarchies and that value assertive and/or aggressive behaviors to achieve or maintain status (e.g., Cillessen and Rose 2005; Garandeau et al.

2014). Taken together, this association between religiosity and religious victimization is likely non-linear; that is, it appears best to be somewhat religious, not too much or not too little, during the teen years. These results, thus, offer partial support for Hypothesis1c that youth with higher religious doubts will be more likely to experience religious victimization.

Perpetration in youth

Perpetration was defined as youth who reported teasing others at least once or twice a month. In this study, religiosity was also associated with differential likelihoods of perpetration. First, only mainline Protestant youth had lower risk of perpetration relative to the unaffiliated. Here, it is likely that religious socialization processes within mainline Protestant traditions decreases the risk that youth will perpetrate bullying. For example, mainline Protestant traditions tend to emphasize public service and civic engagement among their members (e.g., Ammerman 2002). Public service and civic engagement are linked with more prosocial behaviors in youth (e.g., Zeldin 2004), which associated with lower likelihoods of perpetration (e.g., Gini et al. 2007; Salmivalli 2010).

Civic engagement may be linked with more positive perceptions of school climate, which may also lower perpetration in youth (e.g., Geller et al. 2013). Moreover, having high civic engagement and more pro-social attitudes may help inhibit feelings of moral disengagement in youth (e.g., Hymel and Bonanno 2014). Thus, lower perpetration risk among mainline Protestants likely reflects higher civic participation and related prosocial behaviors that extend towards others in peer contexts and influence behaviors towards peers.

Youth reporting more scripture reading and higher religious salience were also less likely to perpetrate bullying. Teens who consider religion as an important part of their lives and who read scripture more often may be more likely to consider religious guidelines in their choice of behaviors. Higher religious salience may also be associated with heightened internalization of religious moral messages in youth. In fact, Smith

(2003b) suggests that having a strong religious orientation can augment moral messages and provide a greater foundation for personal moral action during adolescence. In

51 addition, religious factors such as scripture reading and religious salience may prevent the emergence of feelings of moral disengagement, which are linked with perpetration

(e.g., Gini et al. 2014; Hymel and Bonanno 2014). Thus, these results provide partial support for Hypothesis 2a that religious salience will be associated with lower likelihood of perpetration through heightened internalization of religious morality and messages.

Religious doubt, however, was associated with higher perpetration. This finding might reflect feelings of strain in youth, as youth with higher religious or spiritual doubts might attempt to ease their doubt (and related stress) by directing it outward as bullying behavior (e.g., Agnew 2001). In fact, youth may view the sources of religious doubt as more authoritarian or distant (e.g., parents, clergy, God), and therefore release frustrations on peers because parents and clergy are not seen as viable options in which to release anger or stress (e.g., De Coster and Kort-Butler 2006). Thus, this finding provides support for Hypothesis 2b that religious doubt will be associated with increased risk of perpetration due to feelings of strain associated with religiosity.

Interestingly, increase in personal prayer was associated with higher risk of perpetration. In this case, youth who are experiencing strain in other domains (e.g., families, peers, mental health) may be using prayer to cope, but such strains are concomitant to perpetration.6 In other words, prayer may be associated with perpetration indirectly because youth are attempting to alleviate multiple circumstances of strain and stress that may also be linked with perpetration. Future research should unravel how

6 Using multiple measures of potential strain in youth, Appendix A shows associations between strain and prayer. Results show that victims, youth who were made fun of because of their religion and youth with heightened feelings of guilt were more likely to pray. Conversely, youth who experienced at least one parental breakup, youth who had poorer quality relationships with their parents, and youth who were dissatisfied with their appearance were less likely to pray.

52 prayer is related to feelings of strain and coping among youth, particularly in bullying contexts.

Bully-victimization in youth

As noted, bully-victimization was defined as youth who reported both being teased and teasing others at least once or twice a month. Associations between religiosity and bully-victimization were similar to that of bullies, but with a few differences. First, mainline Protestant youth did not have lower risk of bully-victimization compared to the unaffiliated. Second, higher religious salience was not associated with lower bully- victimization likelihood. In both cases, religiosity does not appear to prevent youth from engaging in forms of aggressive retaliation (e.g., Schwartz 2000). In other words, increasing civic participation (and prosocial behavior) among mainline Protestants and higher religious salience may prevent youth from bullying others, but may not prevent youth from bullying if they are being victimized. This may be because, although youth often view bullying as wrong (e.g., Thornberg et al. 2015), achieving or maintaining social status within peer groups is more salient in the context of victimization than following religious indications (e.g., Garandeau et al. 2014). Youth belonging to other religious traditions were also less likely to be involved as bully-victims relative to the unaffiliated. This may be due to religious and/or family influences that are unique to youth of other religious traditions that help avert aggressive retaliation in peer contexts.

Social-ecological patterns and bullying

Several social-ecological factors were consistently associated with differential likelihoods of bullying. First, being part of a popular group was associated with lower risks of victimization, bully-victimization, and religious victimization, but with higher

53 risk of perpetration. Peer group membership and status are important dimensions of identity in youth and provide youth with resources (e.g., personal, social) to help prevent victimization. Likewise, aggression towards peers is often one means through which youth attempt to attain social standing (e.g., Salmivalli 2010). These findings thus align with prior research demonstrating the importance of the peer group when examining youth bullying (e.g., Pellegrini, Bartini, and Brooks 1999; Salmivalli 2010). Second, youth attending private schools had higher odds of perpetration and bully-victimization.

This might reflect higher rates of bullying in smaller schools (e.g., Ma 2002) and schools with less race/ethnic diversity (e.g., Juvonen et al. 2006). In addition, these findings provide some support for peer homophily hypotheses that bullying tends to increase among more homophilous peer groups, particularly when the peer group is engaged in bullying (e.g., Espelage and Swearer 2003; Hong and Espelage 2012). Third, youth who more often expressed their religious views in school had a higher likelihood of religious victimization. This finding might reflect peer group norms surrounding the normative or

‘right degree’ of religious expression. In other words, youth who more often express their religious views to others may be victimized due to perceptions of the youth being different or breaking social norms (e.g., Thornberg 2011).

In addition, a few control patterns emerged that are worth discussing. Youth age was associated with lower odds of general victimization, but higher odds of religious victimization. This finding aligns with Glover et al. (2000) and Nansel et al. (2001) who find that while general bullying often decreases with age, religious victimization, being a qualitatively different type of bullying, actually increases with age. Future research should more carefully consider the differences between general and religious

54 victimization, and how patterns of involvement and outcomes associated with these forms of bullying vary among youth of different social and cultural backgrounds. Lastly, higher likelihoods of perpetration for Black youth (compared to White youth) were fully mediated after including religiosity measures. This finding indicates that religiosity might be particularly advantageous to preventing perpetration for Black youth. Future studies should examine how associations between religiosity and bullying are unique to youth of different race/ethnic backgrounds.

Limitations

Despite the contributions of this study, there are a few limitations. First, general bullying was assessed using one item asking how often the youth has been teased or teases others. This measure, thus, does not account for other dimensions of bullying such as physical (e.g., pushing) and relational aggression (e.g., rumor spreading, exclusion)

(e.g., Houbre et al. 2006; O’Brennan, Bradshaw, and Sawyer 2009). Future research should examine how religiosity is associated with these different forms of bullying.

Second, important social-ecological factors including school culture, classroom climate, and neighborhood/community factors (e.g., Swearer and Hymel 2015) were not available in the NSYR dataset. Future research should aim to include such measures in future analyses addressing religiosity and bullying. Third, measures of bullying are available at

Wave 1 only, thus limiting causal inference (i.e., are victimized youth more likely to be religious) (e.g., Aydin, Fischer, and Frey 2010). Future research should attempt to examine how religiosity influences bullying over time, ideally with younger cohorts.

Last, studies should also examine different ‘participant roles’ of bullying, such as reinforcer or defender, to help understand whether religiosity influences how youth react

55 to the bullying incidents that occur around them (i.e., are religious youth more likely to defend peers who are being victimized?) (e.g., Salmivalli 2010).

Conclusion

Despite these limitations, this study has a number of strengths. This is one of the first studies to assess the likelihood of general bullying and religious victimization by key religious and social-ecological factors in adolescence. In addition, this study accounts for multiple social-ecological and demographic variables that are associated with both religiosity and bullying. Addressing the association between religion and bullying is an important step towards understanding how multiple dimensions of social life shape bullying risk. In addition, because religiosity and bullying are critical factors in social and personal development, assessing this relationship is important towards understanding potential health and wellness implications and disparities in adolescence and over the life course.

CHAPTER 3: RELIGIOUS VICTIMIZATION IN YOUTH: DIFFERENCES BY

RACE/ETHNICITY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MENTAL HEALTH

Introduction

Youth bullying is traditionally defined as “aggressive behavior or intentional harm-doing, which is carried out repeatedly and over time, and in an interpersonal relationship characterized by an imbalance of power” (Olweus 1997:496). Behaviors constituting bullying in youth are categorized as being ‘direct’ (e.g., pushing, name- calling), as ‘relational’ (e.g., rumor spreading, exclusion), and more recently as occurring through online interactions (e.g., Hymel and Swearer 2015; Patchin and Hinduja 2011).

Bullying on social traits such as religious status (perhaps similarly to statuses such as race/ethnicity or sexuality), however, represents a distinct form of bullying because of unique threats to personal and collective identity, perceptions of discrimination, and potential for physical harm (e.g., hate violence) during the teen years and adulthood

(Dupper and Forrest-Bank 2015, Forrest-Bank and Dupper 2016; Nadal et al. 2010).

Religious victimization in youth (i.e., being made fun of because of one’s religion) has received little empirical attention, although evidence suggests religious victimization may have unique mental health and wellbeing implications (e.g., Jordanova et al. 2015).

The frequency of religious victimization and subsequent mental health outcomes may further differ by race/ethnicity. Many teens consider religion to be an important part of their lives and engage in at least semi-regular religious practice (Smith et al. 2003), yet religious salience, service attendance, and the cultural importance of the church tends to be particularly high among Black Americans (Brown, Taylor, and Chatters 2015; Hunt

57 and Hunt 2000). This increased visibility of religiosity, the centrality of the church, heightened religious expectations and norms, and links between religion and social status within Black communities might thus expose Black youth to higher rates of religious victimization and subsequently worse mental health (Fluck 2017; Thoits 2013; Thornberg

2015a,b).

Using the Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC) 2009-2010 dataset, this study examines differences in religious victimization by race/ethnicity, and race/ethnic differences in mental health (i.e., feeling low, nervousness) associated with religious victimization. Prior studies show that rates of ‘general peer victimization’ (e.g., non-specific name-calling, rumor spreading) may differ by race/ethnicity (Fisher et al.

2015; Hong and Espelage 2012), however whether similar patterns are present with respect to religious victimization is unclear. This study contributes to victimization research by examining race/ethnic patterns of religious victimization using a large, nationally representative sample of elementary to high school students (grades 5 to 10).

In addition, this study helps identify unique mental health and wellbeing consequences of religious victimization across race/ethnic groups. These lines of research are important as peer victimization is associated with serious physical, mental, and social consequences for youth and over the adult life course (e.g., Bogart et al. 2015; Gini and Pozzoli 2009).

Literature review

Race/Ethnicity, Religion, and Victimization in Adolescence

Peer victimization is associated with serious health and social consequences for youth. Victimization is associated with poorer physical and mental health outcomes (e.g.,

Bogart et al. 2015; Gini and Pozzoli 2009), poorer academic performance (Juvonen,

Wang, and Espinoza 2011), trouble with interpersonal relationships (e.g., Nansel et al.

2001), and increased likelihood of substance abuse (Tharp-Taylor, Haviland, and

D’Amico 2009). In addition, peer victimization can negatively influence health and wellbeing trajectories well into adulthood (Sourander et al. 2007; Takizawa, Maughan, and Arseneault 2014). A recent meta-analysis involving 80 studies examining bullying prevalence found that about 35% of youth experience peer victimization during adolescence (Modecki et al. 2014).

Frequency of peer victimization may differ by race/ethnicity. Some studies show that Black youth have lower rates of peer victimization when compared to White or

Hispanic/Latino youth (Hong and Espelage 2012; Spriggs et al. 2007; Wang, Iannotti, and Nansel 2009). Other studies, however, find no associations between race/ethnicity and peer victimization (Vervoort, Scholte, and Overbeek 2010) or associations that are explained by social/contextual factors such as the race/ethnic diversity of the classroom

(Fisher et al. 2015). In light of these discrepancies, it is important to note evidence of race/ethnic and cultural differences in understanding what constitutes ‘bullying’ (Fisher et al. 2015), as well as race/ethnic differences in reporting peer victimization in youth surveys (Sawyer, Bradshaw, and O’Brennan 2008).

Despite these inconsistencies in prior studies linking race/ethnicity and peer victimization, there are reasons to expect religious victimization to differ by race/ethnicity. In particular, many studies point to the high salience of religion and the central role of the church among Black Americans. Across race/ethnic groups, Black

Americans have some of the highest levels of religious participation in the United States

(Brown et al. 2015). This includes high rates of affiliation, attendance, religious salience,

59 investment (e.g., time, resources) in the church and church community, and religious coping (Brown et al. 2015; Chatters et al. 2009). In addition, historically and today, the

Black church is oftentimes considered a ‘free space’ facilitating the advancement of group identity, representation, and collective action (Calhoun-Brown 2000, Greenberg

2000). This centrality of religion among Black Americans likely reflects histories of racial oppression, with religion serving as a source of community connections, social capital, personal and social coping, and as a stage to advance civil rights, reduce racism and achieve liberation (Brown et al. 2015; Chatters et al. 2009; Taylor et al. 1996).

In addition to the role of religion and the church for Black Americans, Hunt and

Hunt (2000) refer historically to Black churches as “semi-involuntary institutions.” This theory points to potential cultural and structural pressures on Black Americans to be religious. Religious participation is normative and the church serves as a source of status achievement and social respectability within Black communities (Hunt and Hunt 2000).

Those who are not religious or who practice more alternative forms of religion or spirituality may thus be stigmatized due to perceptions that they are breaking norms, being immoral, or not contributing to the goals and values of the community. These cultural and moral pressures towards religious involvement point to the heightened salience of religion, and may increase the visibility of one’s religious status (or non- religious status) for Black Americans.

Given this role and importance of religion and the church for Black Americans, there is reason to suggest that religious victimization (i.e., being made fun of because of one’s religion) may be higher among Black youth compared to youth of other race/ethnic groups (i.e., Whites). For example, non-religious Black youth (or youth who practice

60 alternative religion) may have a greater risk of religious victimization due to perceptions that they are breaking norms and/or are ‘weird’ (e.g., Thornberg 2011). It is also possible that because of links between religious and community/civic involvement, Black youth experience greater constraint and higher risk of peer victimization across social contexts if/when they attempt to ‘opt out’ of religion. Moreover, religion may simply be more salient to Black youth and therefore serves as a more meaningful point of victimization and perpetration (Salmivalli 2010; Thornberg 2011). In fact, peer victimization can increase in intensity when particularly salient social statuses are challenged or disrupted within peer groups and other social networks (e.g., Frisen, Jonsson, and Persson 2007;

Salmivalli 2010). In view of the cultural importance of religion and church among Black

Americans, I offer the following first organizing hypothesis:

H1: Religious victimization will be higher for Black youth compared to White

youth.

Religious Victimization, Race/Ethnicity, and Mental Health

In a recent qualitative study involving focus groups, Jewish and Muslim middle and high school students reported teasing and discrimination for their religious views and beliefs in school (Dupper and Forrest-Bank 2015). These events were often initiated by peers as well as teachers, and led students to feel worried, ostracized, and occasionally to physical violence (Dupper and Forrest-Bank 2015). Another study by the same researchers describes similar experiences among youth who identified as atheist (Forrest-

Bank and Dupper 2016), with similar outcomes.

Relatedly, Pan and Spittal (2013) examined associations between religious victimization, suicidal ideation, and depressive symptoms using a sample of Chinese

61 middle and high school students. Although the authors note the majority of Chinese citizens do not identify with a formal religious affiliation, many increasingly identify as

Muslim, Buddhist, or Christian. Results of this study indicated that religious victimization was associated with increased suicidal ideation and depressive symptoms, in particular among boys. In addition, because the magnitude of the religious victimization effect was greater than the effect of more ‘general’ victimization on these mental health indicators, the authors suggest religious victimization may constitute a unique bullying-related stressor in adolescence. It is important to note, however, that religiosity in US and Chinese contexts is quite different (Goossaert 2005), and results of this study therefore may not be generalizable to youth in the US.

There is comparatively more empirical research addressing religious discrimination and mental health among adults, and these experiences and outcomes likely parallel those in adolescence. Religious discrimination in the US is higher among minority religious groups (e.g., Muslim, Jewish) and among adults who identify as atheist or agnostic (Cragun et al. 2012; Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartmann 2006; Wu and Schimmele

2019). Religious discrimination is associated with lower self-rated health, lower life satisfaction, and increased anxiety and depression (Jordanova et al. 2015; Vang, Hou, and

Elder 2019; Rippy and Newman 2006; Wu and Schimmele 2019). In addition, evidence suggests the negative mental health and wellbeing outcomes of religious discrimination are similar across different religious traditions (Wu and Schimmele 2019). These consistent mental health consequences likely reflect collective threats to identity, loss of coping resources, feelings of hypervigilance, and potential for physical violence among

62 members of different religious groups (Jordanova et al. 2015; Rippy and Newman 2006;

Wu and Schimmele 2019).

It is less clear, however, what association religious victimization has with the mental health and wellbeing of US youth, and even more so among US youth of different race/ethnic backgrounds. Both stress process and social identity theory can help situate these potentially unique associations between religious victimization, race/ethnicity, and mental health. Stress process theory (Pearlin 1989) posits that negative social events (e.g., peer victimization) are stressful, and the accumulation of stress and distress associated with such events negatively influences health. Stressors that threaten particularly salient identity characteristics (e.g., religious status) may be especially distressing and can lead to distinct mental health consequences (Thoits 2013). Given many US teens consider religion an important part of their self- and collective identity (Smith et al. 2003), religious victimization may thus have unique mental health consequences among youth, perhaps in particular for Black youth due to comparatively high levels of religious salience and participation.

Second and relatedly, social identity theory (e.g., Stets and Burke 2000) suggests that ‘identity’ is distinguished by various in- and out-group memberships and role requirements, and that the salience of any particular identity depends upon the importance these memberships and roles have for the individual. Points of conflict, however, can arise when norms, roles, and relations are challenged both within the group as well as between groups (Duffy and Nesdale 2009; Ysseldyk, Matheson, and Anisman

2010). Moreover, feelings of conflict may be particularly pronounced when more salient

63 identities (personally or collectively) are threatened or challenged (Stets and Burke 2000;

Ysseldyk et al. 2010).

While many youth consider religion to be an important part of their lives (Petts

2009a), it is possible that Black youth (because of comparatively high levels of religiosity, high religious salience, and the historical/cultural role of the church and religious community) will experience heightened feelings of conflict (and subsequent distress) when religious status is threatened or challenged. These “identity-relevant stress experiences” (Thoits 2013:364) might thus influence the mental health of Black youth differently than youth of other race/ethnic backgrounds. Given prior empirical research and theory, I offer the following second organizing hypothesis:

H2: Black youth will experience more negative mental health consequences

associated with religious victimization compared to White youth.7

Current Study

This study examines religious victimization and subsequent mental health outcomes for US youth of different race/ethnic backgrounds (i.e., Black, Hispanic/Latino, other race, White) testing two primary hypotheses. The study proceeds in two parts. First,

I examine whether religious victimization differs by race/ethnicity. Second, I test whether the mental health outcomes associated with religious victimization differ across

7 Recent studies show patterns of religiosity between Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic White youth are more similar than religiosity patterns among Black youth (e.g., Brown et al. 2015; Cnaan, Gelles, Sinha 2004). This includes frequency of service attendance, views of the importance of religion, and rates of religious non-participation. For these reasons, no specific hypotheses are given regarding differences in religious victimization and associated mental health outcomes between Hispanic/Latino and White youth. In addition, because of considerable race/ethnic heterogeneity included in the ‘other race/ethnicity’ category (e.g., Asian, American Indian or Alaskan Native), no specific hypotheses are provided for youth belonging to ‘other’ race/ethnic groups.

64 race/ethnic groups. This study accounts for peer and school-level characteristics (i.e., friendships, classroom climate) that are associated with bullying during middle school

(e.g., Swearer and Hymel 2015). In addition, this study accounts for demographic characteristics (e.g., first generation US youth) that may be associated with increased risk of religious victimization (Dupper and Forrest-Bank 2015; Rippy and Newman 2006).

Examining these associations is important because of the potentially unique and deleterious effect religious victimization may have for mental health and development during adolescence and into adulthood.

Data and Method

This study uses the Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC) 2009-2010 survey. The HBSC is sponsored by the World Health Organization and was conducted in

42 countries during the 2009-2010 cycle (Iannotti 2010). The HBSC 2009-2010 US- based survey is a nationally representative cross-sectional sample of elementary to high school students from grades 5 to 10 (age range 10 to 17) (Iannotti 2010). The HBSC addresses health and wellness behaviors including physical and mental health, bullying behaviors, wellness behaviors (e.g., nutrition, exercise frequency), health risk behaviors

(e.g., alcohol use), peer relationships, and feelings about school. A total of 12,642 youth completed the student survey. An oversample of Black and Hispanic/Latino youth was also conducted, but these cases were omitted because they could not be weighted with the nationally representative sample (N=661). In addition, youth missing on race/ethnicity

65 were omitted (N=537) because race/ethnicity was included as a focal independent variable.8 Thus, the final sample for this study was 11,444 US youth ages 10 to 17.

Study Variables

I. General Peer and Religious Victimization

Two measures of victimization are used. First, an ordinal measure of religious victimization (i.e., how often have you been bullied with mean names and comments about your religion) was included. Second, an ordinal measure of general peer victimization (i.e., how often are you bullied at school) was included. Both measures range from 1 “I have not been bullied in this way in the past couple months” to 5 “several times a week.” The measure of general peer victimization is included to adjust for dimensions of general peer victimization (e.g., non-specific name-calling, rumor spreading) that might be confounded with religious victimization.

II. Mental Health

Two mental health measures are used. First, feeling low was asked “in the past six months how often have you felt low” and ranged from 1 “rarely or never” to 5 “about every day.” Similarly, feeling nervous was asked “in the past six months how often have you felt nervous” and ranged from 1 “rarely or never” to 5 “about every day.”9 Single- item mental health variables have similarly been used in prior studies linking bullying

8 Preliminary exploration and analyses were conducted using subsamples stratified by race/ethnicity. Descriptive and analytic results of these stratified results are presented in Appendices B, C, and D. 9 Due to the right skew and ordered responses of the victimization and mental health items, separate random-effects ordered logistic regression and tobit models were estimated as a robustness check. Models using both approaches were consistent with what is reported here and results are shown in Appendices E, F, G, H, and I for ordered logistic regression results and Appendices J, K, L, M, and N for tobit regression results. 65

66 and mental health in adolescence (e.g., Gini and Pozzoli 2009; Natvig, Albrektsen, and

Qvarnstrom 2001).

III. Race/Ethnicity

Race/ethnicity was pre-computed in the sample data by HBSC 2009-2010 coders using youth’s self-identified race/ethnicity into categories indicating Black,

Hispanic/Latino, other race, and White. Due to low representation, Asian, American

Indian or Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and youth identifying with two or more races were included in the other race/ethnicity category

(13.3%). For regression analyses, White youth are the omitted reference group.

IV. School, Peer, Family, and Demographic Variables

Thirteen school, peer, family, and demographic variables are included. Age was measured in years of age (range 10 to 17). Gender was assessed with a variable indicating female. Nativity status was measured with a binary variable indicating youth who were not born in the US. This item was included to account for potentially higher religious victimization among first generation US youth (Rippy and Newman 2006).

Peer relationship and school climate variables include number of friends, time spent with friends, feelings about school, and classroom climate. Number of friends (girls and boys) was measured using the average of two items asking “how many close friends do you have who are female/male?” (range 1 “none” to 4 “three or more”). Time spent with friends was measured by averaging responses for two items: a) number of days spent with friends per week after school on average and b) number of evenings spent with friends per week on average (alpha=.73). The time spent with friends item was positively coded so higher values represent more days/nights per week spent with friends on

67 average (range 0-7). Feelings about school were measured using a single item “how do you feel about school at present?” (range 1 “I don’t like it at all” to 4 “I like it a lot”).

Classroom climate was assessed by averaging responses across three variables: a) “The students in my class(es) enjoy being together,” b) “Most of the students in my class(es) are kind and helpful,” and c) “Other students accept me as I am” (range 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”) (alpha=.73). Classroom climate items were positively coded to reflect positive feelings about the classroom. Peer and classroom climate measures are included because both factors are important predictors of bullying and mental health in adolescence (e.g., Garandeau, Lee, and Salmivalli 2014; Swearer et al.

2010).

Parent and family controls include family living arrangement and a measure of family affluence. First, family living arrangement was measured using a series of dummy variables indicating living with both parents, living with one parent, or in another family arrangement. Youth who reported living with a stepparent, grandparent, in foster or other child care home, or some other living arrangement were included as living in an other family arrangement (N=699, 5.53%). For regression analyses, youth living with both parents are the omitted reference group. Second, a continuous measure of family affluence (i.e., Family Affluence Scale (FAS); see Currie et al. 2008) was provided by the

HBSC 2009-2010 that combines responses across the following five items: a) “How well off do you think your family is” (range 1 “not at all well off” to 5 “very well off”), b)

“How many computers does your family own” (range 0 “none” to 3 “more than two”), c)

“Do you have your own bedroom for yourself” (0 “no,” 1 “yes”), d) “Does your family own a car, van, or truck” (0 “no,” 1 “yes,” 2 “yes, two or more”), and e) “During the past

12 months, how many times did you travel away on vacation with your family” (range 0

“not at all” to 3 “more than twice”) (HBSC 2009-2010 FAS scale range 0 “low” to 9

“high”).

Lastly, two measures of general health are included. Self-rated health was assessed using one continuous measure for overall health rating (range 1 “poor” to 4

“excellent”). Body mass index (BMI) was assessed using indicator variables for underweight or healthy weight, at-risk weight (i.e., overweight), and obese. BMI categories were created according to the Centers for Disease Control’s 2000 BMI guidelines for youth (Iannotti 2010). Youth whose weight status was considered underweight to healthy range are the omitted reference group in the regression analyses.

Indicators for both overweight and obese are included as these differences in weight status have been linked with differences in bullying likelihood (Janssen et al. 2004) as well as mental health outcomes (Waasdorp et al. 2018) in adolescence.

Analytic strategy

This study uses school-level fixed effects maximum likelihood estimation10 to assess a) race/ethnic differences in religious victimization, and b) race/ethnic differences in feeling low and feeling nervous associated with religious victimization. School-level fixed effects models are used to adjust for between-school variance so results can be

10 Preliminary analyses explored dichotomous measures of the three dependent variables at specific cutoff points. School-level fixed effect logistic regression models were unsuccessful, however, due to the lack of variance within classroom clusters. In other words, within some classrooms, students reported all positive or all negative outcomes. This was due to the small number of students within some surveyed classrooms (range 8-96 students). These classrooms (and youth) were subsequently dropped from estimation models due to this lack of variance. For this reason, and to leverage out school-level effects, the analysis employs a school-level fixed effect maximum likelihood estimation model utilizing scaled dependent variables. As noted, random-effects ordered logistic and tobit regression analyses were conducted as a robustness check, and results were consistent to what is reported here (see Appendices E to N). 68

69 interpreted for youth who attend the same schools (Allison 2005).11 The analysis proceeds in two steps. First, this study tests associations between race/ethnicity and religious victimization (Model A). Model 1A predicts religious victimization and includes all race/ethnic categories and demographic, peer, school, and health control variables. Model 2A then includes the measure of general peer victimization. Second, this study compares the mental health outcomes associated with religious victimization across race/ethnic groups by including an interaction term for each race/ethnic group by religious victimization (White is omitted). For models predicting feeling low (Model B) and nervousness (Model C), Models 1B and 1C include the measure of religious victimization, race/ethnic categories, and all relevant controls. Models 2B and 2C include the measure of general peer victimization, and Models 3B and 3C include three interaction terms (race/ethnic categories*religious victimization; White is omitted). In addition, all dependent variables were standardized so that effect sizes can be interpreted in terms of standard deviations.

There were moderate amounts of missing values across study covariates (range

0% for living arrangement, 19% for BMI). Missing values for all study variables were handled using multiple imputation of chained equations across 20 datasets using the Stata

13 ‘ice’ command (White, Royston, and Wood 2011).12 Proportions of missing values for

11 Comparing full model results using fixed- and random-effects estimation, Hausman specification tests (Hausman 1978) provided evidence for a fixed-effects approach when predicting religious victimization (!!=44.6, p<.001) and feeling low (!!=33.6, p<.05). Both random and fixed-effects approaches were consistent, however, when predicting nervousness (!!=28.18, p=.08). 12 Imputation was conducted on the pooled sample for the main analyses and included the interaction terms in the imputation model. For supplemental stratified analyses (see Appendix B, C, and D), imputation was conducted for each race/ethnic group separately to estimate stratified models post-imputation.

70 all variables are shown in Table 2.1. Final sample size post-imputation was 11,444. The

HBSC 2009-2010 also includes an individual sampling weight and this weight was included in the imputation model. All analyses were conducted in the Stata 13 ‘mi est’ command suite.

Results

Table 2.1: Descriptives statistics M/P 1 SD Min Max Miss 2 Victimization Religious victimization 1.19 .70 1 5 .07 General peer victimization 1.51 1.01 1 5 .04 Mental Health Feeling low 1.92 1.29 1 5 .05 Nervousness 2.29 1.34 1 5 .05 Race/ethnicity Black .17 0 1 0 Hispanic/Latino .18 0 1 0 Other race .14 0 1 0 White .51 0 1 0 Youth controls Age 12.97 1.75 10 17 .00 Female .49 0 1 .00 First generation .08 0 1 .04 Number of friends 3.50 .71 1 4 .02 Time spent with friends 2.42 1.82 0 7 .02 Feelings about school 3.00 .88 1 4 .03 Class climate 3.69 .86 1 5 .04 Both parent family .58 0 1 0 Single parent family .37 0 1 0 Other living arrangement .05 0 1 0 Parent SES 5.97 1.94 0 9 .01 Family relationships 8.86 2.39 1 11 .02 Self-rated health 3.02 .76 1 4 .01 Under or healthy weight .68 0 1 .18 Overweight .18 0 1 .18 Obese .14 0 1 .18 N=11,444 1: Mean/proportion 2: Proportion of missing values

Table 2.1 shows descriptive statistics. Mean of religious victimization was 1.19

(standard deviation (SD)=.70; range 1-5) and mean of general peer victimization was

1.51 (SD=1.01; range 1-5). Average of feeling low was 1.92 (SD=1.29; range 1-5) and average of feeling nervous was 2.29 (SD=1.34; range 1-5). About 17% of youth in the sample self-identified as Black, 18% as Hispanic/Latino, 14% as other race/ethnicity and

51% as White. Average age was approximately 13 years and about 49% of youth identified as female. In addition, approximately 58% of youth lived with both parents and about 68% were classified as being within an underweight to healthy weight range

(BMI=<85th percentile) (CDC 2019; Iannotti 2010).

Religious victimization

School-level fixed effects maximum likelihood results predicting religious victimization by race/ethnicity are presented in Table 2.2 (Model A). Both religious and general peer victimization were standardized so that effect sizes can be interpreted as standard deviations (SD). Model 1A includes race/ethnic categories and controls, and

Model 2A includes the general peer victimization measure. Model 1A in Table 2.2 shows religious victimization was .08 SDs higher for Black youth and .08 SDs higher for other race/ethnicity youth compared to White youth. The result for other race/ethnic youth, however, should be interpreted with caution due to substantial heterogeneity included in the other race/ethnic category. First generation youth (.22), increasing time spent with friends (.06), living in other family arrangements (.23), and being overweight (.08) and obese (.07) were all associated with higher religious victimization. Conversely, girls (-

.10), increasing number of friends (-.06), more positive feelings about school (-.03), perceptions of more positive classroom climates (-.11), and more positive family relationships (-.04) were associated with lower religious victimization.

Table 2.2: School-level fixed effects maximum likelihood estimation predicting religious victimization by race/ethnicity (standardized) (Model A) Model 1A Model 2A B SE B SE General peer victimization .31 *** .01 Race/ethnicity 1 Black .08 * .04 .11 ** .04 Hispanic/Latino -.06 .04 -.02 .03 Other race .08 * .03 .07 * .03 Youth controls Age .03 .02 .04 * .02 Female -.10 *** .02 -.08 *** .02 First generation .22 *** .04 .20 *** .04 Number of friends -.06 *** .01 -.05 *** .01 Time spent with friends .06 *** .01 .05 *** .01 Feelings about school -.03 ** .01 -.02 * .01 Class climate -.11 *** .01 -.04 *** .01 Single parent family 2 .01 .02 .00 .02 Other living arrangement .23 *** .05 .19 *** .05 Parent SES .02 .01 .01 .01 Family relationships -.04 ** .01 -.01 .01 Self-rated health .01 .01 .02 .01 Overweight 3 .08 * .03 .07 * .03 Obese .07 * .04 .03 .04 Constant -.02 .02 -.02 .02 Variance components Between estimate .26 .23 Within estimate .98 .93 Intraclass correlation .07 .06 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: White omitted 2: Living with both parents omitted 3: Under or healthy weight omitted

After adjusting for general peer victimization in Model 2A in Table 2.2, Black youth (.11) and youth of other race/ethnic backgrounds (.07) continued to have higher religious victimization as compared to White youth. In fact, the effect size of religious victimization for Black youth increased in magnitude (.08 to .11) after adjusting for general peer victimization (attenuation of religious victimization by general peer

73 victimization for Black youth=.033, non-significant).13 Religious victimization was also

.31 SDs higher per one SD increase in general peer victimization. In addition, an age effect emerged (.04) showing higher religious victimization among older youth in Model

2A. Family relationship and obesity effects, however, were fully attenuated in Model 2A after including general peer victimization. Overall, results indicate religious victimization is higher for Black youth and youth of other race/ethnic groups compared to White youth, and this association is consistent after adjusting for general peer victimization.

Feeling low and feeling nervous

To compare the mental health consequences of religious victimization across race/ethnic groups, separate models were estimated and include an interaction term for each race/ethnic group by religious victimization (White omitted). Table 2.3 shows results for feeling low (Model B), and Table 2.4 for nervousness (Model C). Interaction terms were included for both sets of results (i.e., feeling low, nervousness) in Models B and C.

Model 1B in Table 2.3 shows a one SD increase in religious victimization is associated with a .09 SD increase in feeling low. In addition, Hispanic/Latino youth reported feeling less low (-.08) as compared to White youth. Girls (.19), youth living with a single parent (.05), and youth exceeding clinical obesity thresholds (.09) had higher likelihoods of feeling low. Increasing number of friends (-.02), more positive feelings about school (-.09), more positive perceptions of class climate (-.06), more positive family relationships

13 Significance of the attenuation was determined by including an interaction term for general victimization*Black youth (Frazier, Tix, and Barron 2004). Confidence interval (CI) of the effect for Black youth (compared to White youth) in Model 1A is .011 (low) to .158 (high). The CI of the effect for Black youth in Model 2A is .036 (low) to .177 (high). 73

Table 2.3: School-level fixed effects maximum likelihood estimation predicting feeling low by religious victimization and race/ethnicity (standardized) (Model B) Model 1B Model 2B Model 3B B SE B SE B SE Religious victimization .09 *** .01 .05 *** .01 .06 *** .01 General peer victimization .13 *** .01 .13 *** .01 Race/ethnicity 1 Black -.02 .03 -.01 .03 -.01 .03 Hispanic/Latino -.08 * .03 -.07 * .03 -.07 * .03 Other race .04 .03 .04 .03 .04 .03 Youth controls Age .03 .02 .03 .02 .03 .02 Female .19 *** .02 .19 *** .02 .20 *** .02 First generation .01 .03 .01 .03 .01 .03 Number of friends -.02 * .01 -.02 * .01 -.02 * .01 Time spent with friends .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 Feelings about school -.09 *** .01 -.09 *** .01 -.09 *** .01 Class climate -.06 *** .01 -.04 *** .01 -.04 *** .01 Single parent family 2 .05 * .02 .04 * .02 .04 * .02 Other living arrangement .08 .04 .08 .04 .07 .04 Parent SES -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Family relationships -.27 *** .01 -.26 *** .01 -.26 *** .01 Self-rated health -.13 *** .01 -.13 *** .01 -.13 *** .01 Overweight 3 .05 .03 .05 .03 .05 .03 Obese .09 ** .03 .08 * .03 .08 * .03 Interactions Black*religious victim .00 .03 Hispanic/Latino*religious victim .00 .03 Other race*religious victim -.05 .02 Constant -.13 *** .02 -.13 *** .02 -.13 *** .02 Variance components Between estimate .18 .17 .18 Within estimate .89 .89 .89 Intraclass correlation .04 .04 .04 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: White omitted 2: Living with both parents omitted 3: Under or healthy weight omitted

(-.27), and better self-rated health (-.13), however, were all associated with feeling less low.

Model 2B in Table 2.3 includes the measure of general peer victimization. After including general peer victimization, a one SD increase in religious victimization was

75 associated with a .05 SD increase in feeling low (attenuation of feeling low for religious victimization by general peer victimization=.042, p<.001)14, showing modest yet significant attenuation of the association between religious victimization and sadness through general peer victimization. Despite this attenuation, however, the association between religious victimization and feeling low was independent of the general peer victimization effect in Model 2B. All race/ethnic and control patterns were consistent in

Models 1B and 2B after including general peer victimization.

Table 2.3 Model 3B includes three interaction terms to compare race/ethnic differences in feeling low resulting from religious victimization. No interaction term was significant for feeling low, indicating that this mental health consequence of religious victimization did not differ significantly across race/ethnic groups. In sum, results show that religious victimization has an independent association with feeling low (independent of the association with general peer victimization), although this outcome did not differ by race/ethnicity.

Model 1C in Table 2.4 (feeling nervous) shows a one SD increase in religious victimization is associated with a .05 SD increase in nervousness. Similar to feeling low,

Hispanic/Latino youth reported lower nervousness (-.08) as compared to White youth.

Girls (.19) reported higher nervousness compared to boys. In addition, more positive feelings about school (-.03), more positive perceptions of class climate (-.06), more positive family relationships (-.14), and higher self-rated health (-.13) were all associated with less nervousness.

14 Significance was determined by including an interaction term for general victimization*religious victimization. The CI of the effect of religious victimization in Model 1B is .0684 (low) to .1048 (high). Likewise, the CI of the effect of general religious in Model 2B is .0303 (low) to .0681 (high). 75

Table 2.4: School-level fixed effects maximum likelihood estimation predicting nervousness by religious victimization and race/ethnicity (standardized) (Model C) Model 1C Model 2C Model 3C B SE B SE B SE Religious victimization .05 *** .01 .02 .01 .02 .02 General peer victimization .13 *** .01 .13 *** .01 Race/ethnicity 1 Black -.02 .03 -.01 .03 -.01 .03 Hispanic/Latino -.08 * .03 -.06 .03 -.06 .03 Other race .04 .03 .04 .03 .04 .03 Youth controls Age .01 .02 .01 .02 .01 .02 Female .19 *** .02 .19 *** .02 .19 *** .02 First generation .01 .04 .00 .04 .00 .04 Number of friends -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Time spent with friends -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Feelings about school -.03 ** .01 -.03 ** .01 -.03 ** .01 Class climate -.06 *** .01 -.04 *** .01 -.04 *** .01 Single parent family 2 -.03 .02 -.04 .02 -.04 .02 Other living arrangement -.01 .05 -.02 .05 -.02 .05 Parent SES .01 .01 .00 .01 .00 .01 Family relationships -.14 *** .01 -.13 *** .01 -.13 *** .01 Self-rated health -.13 *** .01 -.12 *** .01 -.12 *** .01 Overweight 3 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 .03 Obese -.03 .03 -.05 .03 -.05 .04 Interactions Black*religious victim .03 .03 Hispanic/Latino*religious victim .01 .03 Other race*religious victim -.04 .03 Constant -.07 *** .02 -.07 *** .02 -.07 *** .02 Variance components Between estimate .20 .20 .20 Within estimate .95 .95 .95 Intraclass correlation .04 .04 .04 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: White omitted 2: Living with both parents omitted 3: Under or healthy weight omitted

Model 2C in Table 2.4 includes general peer victimization. Feelings of nervousness were .13 SDs higher per one SD increase in general peer victimization. In addition, the association between religious victimization and nervousness was fully attenuated after including general peer victimization. Feelings of nervousness were also

77 no longer significantly different between Hispanic/Latino and White youth after adjusting for general peer victimization. Similar to feeling low, however, all control patterns were consistent in Models 1C and 2C after including general peer victimization.

Lastly, Model 3C in Table 2.4 shows race/ethnic differences in nervousness related to religious victimization. Similar to feeling low, no interaction term was significant for nervousness, indicating nervousness associated with religious victimization did not differ by race/ethnicity. In summary, religious victimization did not have a significant association with nervousness independent of general victimization, and feelings of nervousness associated with religious victimization did not differ significantly across race/ethnic groups.

Discussion

While recent studies have addressed race/ethnic differences in general peer victimization and mental health (Hong and Espelage 2012; Vervoort et al. 2010), studies have not examined race/ethnic differences (and subsequent mental health outcomes) associated with religious victimization. This line of research is important, as religious victimization is a distinct form of victimization with unique implications for identity, perceptions of discrimination, and potential for violence (e.g., Dupper and Forrest-Bank

2015; Nadal et al. 2010). This study thus explores associations between religious victimization, race/ethnicity, and mental health among US youth. Results show differences in religious victimization across race/ethnic groups as well as independent associations between religious victimization and mental health, although the mental health consequences of religious victimization did not differ significantly by race/ethnicity. I discuss the implications of these findings below.

To begin, Black youth reported higher religious victimization when compared to

White youth. There are a few factors that help explain this finding. First, Black youth (on average) may consider religion as more salient to identity and community attachment, and therefore religion becomes a more meaningful and identity-relevant means of teasing and victimization (Duffy and Nesdale 2009; Thornberg 2011; Salmivalli 2010). In other words, the links between religiosity, identity, and social standing for Black Americans may increase religious victimization for Black youth due to the heightened importance of religion for establishing and/or demonstrating social status in peer and broader community networks (Brown et al. 2015; Calhoun-Brown 2000).

Second, due to higher religious salience and perspectives of religion as being a

‘semi-involuntary institution’ for Black Americans (Hunt and Hunt 2000), there are likely additional opportunities to break religious social norms and responsibilities, resulting in higher religious victimization. In other words, Black youth may experience heightened religious victimization if they attempt to ‘opt-out’ or challenge religious responsibilities or practices. Conversely, religious victimization did not differ between Hispanic/Latino and White youth. This is consistent with prior studies showing fewer religious distinctions between Whites and Latinos (e.g., Brown et al. 2015; Cnann et al. 2004).

Overall these results support Hypothesis 1 that religious victimization will be higher for

Black youth compared to White youth.

Higher religious victimization among Black youth is in contrast to studies finding lower rates of general peer victimization for Black youth when compared to

Hispanic/Latino or White youth (Hong and Espelage 2012; Wang et al. 2009). This finding points to the importance of examining multiple dimensions of bullying and

79 victimization (e.g., general peer victimization, religious victimization, LGBT victimization) when addressing such race/ethnic differences. Importantly, researchers should also be mindful of how bullying is assessed in surveys (i.e., as a single item referencing the word ‘bullying’ or as multiple items representing bullying behaviors), and implications for how survey design and question wording may influence responses to bullying and victimization across race/ethnic groups (Modecki et al. 2014; Sawyer et al.

2008).

In terms of mental health, religious victimization had an independent association with feeling low (adjusting for general peer victimization) (see Table 2.3 Model 2B).

This finding supports Pan and Spittal (2013) showing a unique mental health burden associated with religious victimization. The relationship between religious victimization and feeling low, however, did not differ by race/ethnicity (see Table 2.3 Model 3B). In other words, religious victimization had similar (albeit independent) associations with feeling low for youth of different race/ethnic backgrounds. This finding thus does not support Hypothesis 2 that Black youth will experience more negative mental health consequences (i.e., feeling low) associated with religious victimization compared to

White youth. This lack of difference may perhaps be due to age; it is possible mental health differences may emerge as religious responsibilities and roles change into adulthood. This result may also point to the importance of including religious salience when examining the mental health consequences of religious victimization, rather than simply race/ethnic distinctions. In this case, the mental health consequences of religious victimization may be particularly pronounced for youth (and adults) who consider religion to be a highly important factor in their lives.

Although results showed feeling low did not differ across race/ethnic groups,

Black youth still reported higher religious victimization compared to White youth. Given this increased frequency of religious victimization, as well as the independent association between religious victimization (i.e., upon including general peer victimization) and feeling low, this finding points to an increased mental health burden associated with religious victimization for Black youth. Future studies should continue to explore related mental health outcomes (e.g., depressive symptoms) associated with religious victimization and the potential for heightened consequences of religious victimization among youth of different race/ethnic backgrounds.

Interestingly, religious victimization was not associated with nervousness, adjusting for general peer victimization (see Table 2.4 Model 2C). This is surprising given research describing heightened anxiety, feelings of hypervigilance, and increased stress associated with religious discrimination in adulthood (e.g., Rippy and Newman

2006). This finding was also unexpected due to research outlining complicated identity and stigma management processes connected to religious disengagement in youth, particularly among groups for which religiosity is very important (Cooper and Mitra

2018). There are a few potential explanations for this unexpected finding. First, because this study is derived from a nationally representative sample of US youth, the majority of religious youth in the sample likely affiliated with a Christian faith. As such, the item

“how often have you been bullied with mean names and comments about your religion” may not be interpreted as religious discrimination, but rather as ‘general teasing’ in terms of breaking social norms surrounding religiosity in adolescence.

Second and relatedly, although many youth consider religion to be at least somewhat important in their lives (e.g., Petts 2009a), it is also possible that religion is perceived as relatively unpopular among US youth (Pew Research 2019). Expressions of religiosity that are deemed excessive or odd may thus become subject to teasing (e.g.,

Thornberg 2011), but these events are not necessarily perceived as discriminating, nor are they necessarily viewed differently from events of more general victimization. It is for these reasons that religious victimization may not have independent associations with nervousness in youth (in contrast to religious discrimination in adulthood; Rippy and

Newman 2006; Wu and Schimmele 2019). Research should continue to evaluate the

‘potentially’ unique stressor of religious victimization in adolescence, and whether religious victimization is associated with other general health and wellbeing outcomes in youth and into adulthood.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several important limitations. First, the HBSC 2009-2010 is a cross-sectional dataset and therefore causality cannot be determined. It is possible that youth who experience higher mental distress (e.g., feeling low/nervous) are more likely to be victims in elementary to high school. Future studies should address how mental and physical health influence the likelihood of peer victimization in youth, preferably with longitudinal samples.

Second, the HBSC 2009-2010 does not provide measures of religiosity. This is a limitation for a few reasons. First, it is not possible to assess whether religious victimization differs across religious affiliations, non-affiliation, or by religious practices.

For example, research shows Americans belonging to non-Christian backgrounds and

82 those who identify as atheist or agnostic are more likely to experience religious victimization (Dupper and Forrest-Bank 2015; Edgell et al. 2006). Second, differences in religiosity (e.g., salience) both within and between race/ethnic groups might help clarify differences in religious victimization and mental health. For instance, it is possible that, among Black youth with high religious salience, religious victimization has a particularly detrimental effect on mental health and wellbeing. Future studies should examine race/ethnic differences in religious victimization and subsequent mental health using these relevant measures of religiosity.

Third and relatedly, prior studies demonstrate substantial within-group race/ethnic heterogeneity in health outcomes associated with events of victimization and discrimination over the life course (e.g., Held and Lee 2017; Nadimpalli and Hutchinson

2012; Pachter et al. 2017). This study, however, cannot examine the potential for additional within-group race/ethnic heterogeneity (e.g., Black, Latinx, Asian subgroups) because this information was not provided in the HBSC 2009-2010 dataset. Future studies should explore potential differences in religious victimization and subsequent mental health by incorporating greater representation of more meaningful race/ethnic identities in youth and adulthood.

Fourth, the HSBC 2009-2010 does not provide a direct or inferable measure for whether the school was public or private. It is not possible, therefore, to determine whether general peer or religious victimization occur with similar frequency between public and private schools (in particular religious private schools). Future research should examine school-contextual factors when examining patterns between race/ethnicity, religious victimization, and mental health.

Fifth, in order to account for school-level effects, this analysis utilized a fixed- effects maximum likelihood estimation approach using bullying measures on a five-point scale. Prior studies, however, have assessed bullying involvement dichotomously with specific frequency cut-off points (e.g., Bogart et al. 2015; Waasdorp et al. 2017). In this case, it is possible that religious victimization and mental health differences may emerge depending upon how victimization and bullying are defined (Modecki et al. 2014).

Additional research is needed to more accurately determine not only the prevalence of

‘bullying’, but also how bullying items on surveys are interpreted by youth of different race/ethnic (and other) backgrounds.

Lastly, although this study accounts for peer influences, the analysis does not specifically examine social network influences that are implicated in the emergence of bullying (e.g., Breechwald and Prinstein 2011; Espelage and Swearer 2003). For instance, the likelihood of religious victimization may differ by the degree to which religiosity is considered ‘popular’ or salient to the peer group (Barrett et al. 2007; Salmivalli 2010).

Future studies should explore these associations with attention to social network characteristics, as well as demographic factors and race/ethnic characteristics of the peer group (Juvonen, Nishina, and Graham 2006; Ma 2002).

Conclusion

Many states have adopted measures that protect students from religious discrimination (Hong and Garbarino 2012), which may lead to lower overall rates of religious victimization as compared to general peer victimization (Nansel et al. 2001).

Although religious victimization may occur with less frequency than more general peer victimization, religious victimization still has unique implications for mental health.

Moreover, religious victimization may be one way through which youth progressively lose religiosity into emerging adulthood (Petts 2009a). This decline in religiosity may further aggravate mental health through the loss of previous social supports and lifestyle behaviors. In summary, this study shows religious victimization had independent associations with feeling low, and that Black youth were more likely to experience religious victimization compared to White youth. This finding thus points to heightened mental health consequences associated with religious victimization for Black youth.

Future studies should more carefully examine the nature of religious victimization in adolescence, how religious victimization affects youth of different backgrounds, and the potential consequences that religious victimization has for adolescent health and future adult life course outcomes.

CHAPTER 4: MEDIATING PATHWAYS LINKING RELIGIOSITY TO

BULLYING AND MENTAL HEALTH: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY

Introduction

Youth bullying is associated with mental health consequences including higher likelihoods of depressive symptoms and anxiety, and lower self-esteem (e.g., Gini and

Pozzoli 2009; Houbre et al. 2006; O’Brennan, Bradshaw, and Sawyer 2009). Bullying is also associated with poorer educational outcomes, interpersonal trouble with peers and parents, increased likelihood of substance abuse, and increased likelihood of suicidality

(e.g., Bradshaw 2013; Carlyle and Steinman 2007; Hinduja and Patchin 2010; Nansel et al. 2001). Bullying can constitute one of the most major stressors youth face (Bauman,

Toomey, and Walker 2013; Juvonen and Graham 2001) and can influence health and wellbeing across the life course (e.g., Beaty and Alexeyev 2008; Hawker and Boulton

2000; Rigby 2003). Recent estimates provided by the US Department of Education find about 20% of school-aged youth are involved in bullying (NCES 2016).

In contrast to the negative health and social consequences associated with bullying, religiosity is often associated with better overall mental health and wellbeing in adolescence (e.g. Chen and VanderWeele 2018; Wong, Rew, and Slaikeu 2006).

Religiosity can influence mental health and wellbeing by fostering positive interactions with parents and adults (King and Furrow 2004), promoting prosocial behaviors such as leadership-seeking and concern for others (Wagener et al. 2003), heightening a sense of personal self-control (Desmond, Ulmer, and Bader 2013), and lowering likelihoods of substance abuse and other delinquencies (Fletcher and Kumar 2014; Hill et al. 2007). In

86 addition, religion provides a number of potential coping resources (e.g., social supports, relationship to God/divine other) that can be utilized in the context of stressful life events

(e.g., Koenig, King, and Carson 2012; Nooney 2005; Schieman, Bierman, and Ellison

2013; Sharp 2010).

While empirical research shows that religiosity often promotes better mental health through the provision of social supports and coping resources, very few studies have examined links between religiosity, bullying, and mental health in youth. One study found fewer depressive symptoms among victimized youth with higher levels of

‘intrinsic religiosity’ (e.g., reliance on God and/or faith) (Helms et al. 2015). Another study found fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety (i.e., internalizing symptoms) among victimized youth with higher levels of religious engagement (Hope and Buhs

2018). Religiosity and religious coping were also associated with better mental health outcomes among adults who experienced childhood abuse (e.g., Bryant-Davis et al.

2012). Prior studies, however, have not examined whether religiosity might mediate associations between bullying and mental health in youth and into emerging adulthood.

In addition, the links between religiosity and other forms of bullying (i.e., perpetration, bully-victimization) and mental health have not been addressed and deserve further attention.

This study thus examines whether religiosity (i.e., service attendance, prayer, religious salience, feelings of closeness to God) during youth and emerging adulthood mediates the mental health consequences of youth bullying. This study advances prior research in two key ways. First, the analysis examines multiple dimensions of bullying

(i.e., victimization, perpetration, bully-victimization) and two dimensions of mental

87 health (i.e., feelings of sadness and alienation). Second, the analysis examines mediating pathways over time. To assess these patterns, this study uses Waves 1-3 of the National

Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR). The study begins with an overview of the theoretical approach (i.e., stress process), followed by a discussion of mediating pathways linking religiosity to bullying and mental health. While results show no evidence of religious mediation, important patterns linking bullying to poorer mental health and religiosity to better mental health over time do emerge. Addressing these questions is important as bullying and religion both have potentially life-long implications for health and wellbeing.

Bullying, Stress Process, and Mental Health

Bullying is stressful for youth. In fact, peer victimization may be one of the most salient stressors youth face and can greatly influence mental and physical health

(Kaltiala-Heino et al. 2000; O’Brennan et al. 2009). Peer victimization is stressful as youth become trapped in non-preferred roles and status hierarchies that are difficult to disengage from during the school years (Eccles and Roeser 2011; Pearlin et al. 2005;

Pearlin 1989). Victimization can diminish feelings of personal agency and self-esteem, which are useful resources when dealing with social stress (e.g., Thoits 2006). Victimized youth tend to report fewer social supports and coping outlets (e.g., O’Brennan et al.

2009). Moreover, victims may continue to isolate from others, which can perpetuate future victimization and worsen mental health (Pearlin et al. 2005; Thornberg 2011).

The process of being a bully (i.e., perpetration) can also be stressful and is linked with poorer mental health and wellbeing. Perpetration is often associated with feelings of hypervigilance, anger, and aggression as youth attempt to gain or maintain status within

88 peer group hierarchies (e.g., O’Brennan et al. 2009; Sapolsky 2004). Perpetration is linked to higher rates of substance abuse, fighting, and risk-taking behavior, all of which can be stressful life events and can negatively influence health and wellbeing (e.g.,

Baldry and Farrington 2000; Carlyle and Steinman 2007; Pepler et al. 2008). Difficulties in other life areas (e.g., family relationships, identity struggles) may also lead to stress/distress and translate into bullying behavior towards peers (i.e., general strain)

(Agnew 2001; Moon and Jang 2014).15

Perpetrators, however, may not experience the same severity of distress associated with bullying as compared to victims (e.g., Schwartz 2000). Bullies may be quite popular and have many friends, thus providing social opportunities and supports to prevent victimization and/or offset the stress/distress associated with perpetration (e.g., Houbre et al. 2006; Thunfors and Cornell 2008). Lower feelings of distress among perpetrators may also reflect social positioning above victims in peer groups, allowing perpetrators to more easily execute social power and release frustrations on lower status peers (Chaux and

Castellanos 2015; Andreou, Vlachou, and Didaskalou 2005; Schwartz 2000).

Studies show bullying also negatively influences health and wellbeing over time.

In a recent study involving 7,771 British adults, Takizawa, Maughan, and Arseneault

(2014) found that victimization occurring between ages 7-11 was associated with higher odds of depression, anxiety, and suicidality at two separate time points across the adult life course (ages 23 and 50). Sourander and colleagues (2007) found victimization among

15 Studies often include ‘bully-victims’ as a third subgroup. Bully-victims are often considered as victims first and bullies second, because bully-victims are thought to bully others in response to their own victimization (i.e., aggressive victimization) (e.g., Schwartz 2000). In addition, some research suggests bully-victims may be at the highest risk for negative mental health outcomes across the bullying subgroups (e.g., Lereya et al. 2015; O’Brennan et al. 2009).

89 boys (age 8) was associated with increased odds of anxiety, while perpetration was associated with increased odds of antisociality during emerging adulthood (ages 18-23).

Similarly, Bond and colleagues (2001) found that victimization at age 13 was associated with higher odds of depression and anxiety at age 14, in particular among girls.

Stress process theory (Pearlin 1989) can help situate the mental health consequences associated with bullying. Stress process theory posits that the accumulation of stressors leads to psychological distress and ultimately worse mental and physical health, unless beneficial coping resources and strategies are available to offset the stressors and subsequent distress (e.g., Pearlin 1989; Thoits 2011). Bullying is a common stressful event in youth, often occurring repeatedly and in the absence of social support, and leading to significant mental and physical distress (e.g., Gini and Pozzoli 2009;

Kaltiala-Heino et al. 2000). Based on these theoretical perspectives and prior empirical research, this study offers the first organizing hypothesis linking bullying and mental health:

H1: Bullying (i.e., victimization, perpetration, bully-victimization) in adolescence will be

associated with higher feelings of sadness and alienation into emerging adulthood.

Mediating Pathways Linking Religiosity to Bullying and Mental Health

While bullying is linked to poorer mental health, religious factors such as service attendance, prayer, and closeness to God are often associated with mental health advantages in youth and adulthood. These mental health advantages are thought to occur through social support and personal characteristics (e.g., higher prosocial attitudes, higher self-esteem, sense of purpose, self-awareness, and self-control) that are associated with religiosity in youth (e.g., Cotton et al. 2006; Koenig et al. 2012). In addition, it is possible

90 these aspects of religiosity may offset the mental health consequences of stressful life events, including bullying, during the teenage years.

Previous research suggests religion may promote better mental health in at least two ways. First, religion provides contextual resources that can have a beneficial influence on youth development. For example, being religiously affiliated provides resources including group membership, social support, adult and peer oversight, and broader connections among a community of like-minded individuals (Ebstyne King and

Furrow 2004; Petts 2014). Religion also encourages the development of personal and social characteristics such as self-esteem, self-awareness, and concern for others (e.g.,

Furrow, Ebstyne King, and White 2004). While research has identified health and wellbeing differences across religious affiliations (and having no affiliation), these differences often are largely explained by demographic differences (e.g., socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, gender, age) as well as differences in the frequency/nature of religious practices/beliefs (e.g., service attendance, prayer) (e.g., Koenig et al. 2012;

Schlundt et al. 2008).

Second, religion also provides coping strategies for youth. Religious coping is defined as the extent to which individuals use the social and personal resources that religion provides to help cope with life stressors (Folkman 2008; George, Ellison, and

Larson 2002). Dimensions of religious coping include prayer, perceived relationship with

God/divine other, or seeking social support through service attendance (e.g., Bierman

2006; Pargament, Koenig, and Perez 2000; Schieman et al. 2013; Sharp 2010). Religious coping also involves religious salience, or the degree that one finds religion important and meaningful (e.g., Ellison et al. 2008; Smith with Denton 2005). Many studies point to

91 the positive influence of religious coping on health and wellbeing in adolescence (e.g.,

Cotton et al. 2006; Helms et al. 2015; Hope and Buhs 2018; Nooney 2005) and in adulthood (e.g., Acevado, Ellison, and Xu 2014; Trevino et al. 2010). Across studies, religious coping is generally associated with lower distress and better mental health, as well as higher feelings of acceptance, self-esteem, and sense of self-control.

Importantly, these religious coping strategies may mitigate distress and poor mental health associated with bullying according to the stress process pathway (Pearlin

1989). Service attendance can provide youth with social support from a community of supportive peers (e.g., Ellison, Burdette, and Hill 2009; Schieman et al. 2013), and thus the mental health consequences of bullying may be lower among more frequent attenders.

Prayer may increase feelings of personal meaning and self-esteem, which may help buffer or decrease distress (e.g., Schieman, Ellison, and Bierman 2010; Thoits 2013).

Having high religious salience can shape propensity towards religious engagement and the degree to which youth rely on (and find meaningful) the beneficial resources that religion provides (e.g., Ellison et al. 2008; Smith with Denton 2005). Having a close and positive relationship with God/divine other may also mediate distress by increasing feelings of comfort, acceptance, and insight (e.g., Hill and Pargament 2003; Sharp 2010).

Given prior empirical research and theoretical perspectives, this study offers the second organizing hypothesis linking religiosity to bullying and mental health:

H2: Religiosity (i.e., attendance, prayer, salience, and closeness to God) will at least

partially mediate the mental health outcomes of bullying for victims, bullies, and

bully-victims, such that higher religiosity is associated with lessened mental health

consequences according to pathways of statistical mediation (Baron and Kenny

1986).

Data and Method

This study uses Waves 1-3 of the National Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR).

The NSYR is a nationally representative longitudinal study of youth beginning in 2002-

2003 and ending most recently with Wave 4 in 2015.16 The NSYR provides data on religious affiliation and religious behaviors (e.g., attendance, prayer, beliefs) as well as core demographic, family, peer, and wellbeing measures. Wave 1 data collection was conducted from July 2002 to April 2003 and included 3,290 youth (ages 13-17) and one of their parents via telephone surveying.17 Parent interviews were conducted at Wave 1 only. Wave 2 surveying was conducted June to November 2005 via telephone and included 2,530 youth (i.e., 23.2% attrition rate). Respondents were between the ages of

16 and 21 at Wave 2. Wave 3 surveying was conducted September 2007 to April 2008 via telephone. Wave 3 included 2,458 respondents for an overall attrition rate of 25.3%.

Respondents were between the ages of 17 and 24 at Wave 3.18 For this study, cases were omitted if youth did not participate in Wave 3. In addition, four cases were omitted due to missing longitudinal weight values. Thus, the final analytic sample is 2,454. A longitudinal sampling weight at Wave 3 is included and is applied to all analyses (NSYR

2015).

16 The study does not use Wave 4 of the NSYR due to differences in item measurement of the dependent variables (i.e., sadness, alienation) in Waves 1-3 compared to Wave 4. 17 Wave 1 includes an oversample of Jewish youth (N=80). This oversample, however, was omitted from the analysis because the oversample cannot be weighed alongside the other cases. 18 Eleven respondents were age 17 and one respondent was age 24 at Wave 3. For this study, these cases were coded as age 18 (if they were 17) or as age 23 (if they were 24).

Dependent variables

Two dependent variables addressing mental health are used in the analysis. First, sadness is asked, “In general, how often do you feel very sad or depressed” (range

1=never to 5=always). Second, feelings of alienation was asked, “In general, how much do you feel alone and misunderstood” (range 1=none to 4=a lot). Sadness and alienation were included in Waves 1-3.

Independent variables

Bullying items were included at Wave 1 only. Three independent categories of bullying are employed: a) victims-only, b) bullies-only, and c) bully-victims. Victim, bully, and bully-victim categories were created as dummy variables using two measures asking a) frequency of being teased (i.e., victimization) and b) frequency of teasing others

(i.e., perpetration) (range 1=never to 5=almost everyday for both measures). The victim category references youth who reported being teased “at least once or twice a month”

(1=yes), but did not report perpetration. The bully category conversely references youth who reported teasing others “at least once or twice a month” (1=yes), but did not report victimization. Lastly, the bully-victim category references youth who reported both being teased and teasing others “at least once or twice a month” (1=yes). Thus, the victim, bully, and bully-victim categories are mutually exclusive. Uninvolved youth (i.e., youth who report victimization or perpetration occurring less than once or twice a month) serve as the reference group in regression analyses. These specific bullying cutoffs were used to best approximate recent youth bullying prevalence rates in the US (about 20% youth involvement (NCES 2016), although estimates can vary substantially between samples and survey characteristics) (Modecki et al. 2014).

Religiosity measures

Five overall measures of religiosity are used. Affiliation at Wave 1 is included as a relevant religious background characteristic that shapes access to resources and one’s orientation towards religion (e.g., Ellison et al. 2008; Smith with Denton 2005).

Affiliation groups are included as a series of dummy variables for a) conservative

Protestant, b) mainline Protestant, c) Black Protestant, d) Catholic, e) other religious affiliation (e.g., Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist), and f) no affiliation (Steensland et al. 2000).

No religious affiliation (i.e., unaffiliated) is the omitted reference group.

The four remaining religiosity items are mediators in the analyses. Service attendance is an ordinal measure ranging 0=never to 6=more than once a week. Personal prayer is an ordinal measure ranging 1=never to 7=many times a day. Religious salience

(i.e., importance of religion) is an ordinal measure ranging 1=not at all important to 5

=very important. Lastly, feelings of closeness to God is an ordinal variable ranging

1=extremely distant to 6 =extremely close.

Demographic controls

Eight demographic control variables are included. A measure of age is included as a dummy variable indicating youth who were 17-18 years old at Wave 3 (19%). Age was included as a dummy variable to indicate respondents who were high school aged over the study period. Female is an indicator for female respondents. Race/ethnicity is included as a series of dummy variables for Black, Hispanic/Latino, White, and other race/ethnicity (e.g., Asian, two or more race/ethnicities). White youth are the omitted reference group. A dummy variable for college exposure is included indicating youth who attended college by Wave 3 (51%). Living in the South Census Region is assessed

95 with a dummy variable for those living in the South at Wave 3. Parent income at Wave 1 is an ordinal measure ranging 1=less than $10,000 to 11=more than $100,000. Whether one or more parent had at least a Bachelor’s degree is included as a dummy variable indicating one parent had a Bachelor’s degree at Wave 1. Lastly, parent marital status is a dummy variable indicating the responding parent (mother or father) was married at

Wave 1.

Analytic strategy

This study uses two-level random intercept linear regression models to assess a) whether bullying at Wave 1 is associated with feelings of sadness and alienation over time and b) whether or not religiosity mediates the effect of bullying on these mental health measures over time. The level-1 portion of the model addresses individual (i.e., within-person) change in mental health by bullying at Wave 1 and religiosity over time.

The level-2 portion of the model addresses between-person (i.e., aggregated) differences in mental health by bullying at Wave 1 and aggregated religiosity. The following equation represents the full model:19

Within portion:

!!" = !!!" + !!!"(!"#$) + !!!"(!""#$%!$&#) + !!!"(!"#$%") + !!!"(!"#$%&'%) +

!!!"(!"#$%&%$$) + !!"

Between portion:

!!! = !!! + !!" !"#$"% + !!" !"##$ + !!" !"##$!!"#$"% + !!" !""#$%!$&# + !!" !"#$%"

+ !!"(!"#$%&'%) + !!"(!"#$%&%$$) + !!"!(!""#$#!%#&') + !!"! !"#$%"&' + !!

19 For between-level affiliation and controls, subscript ‘k’ following !!"# notation indicates multiple values/variables (e.g., mainline Protestant, Catholic, female, race/ethnic categories).

Level-1 religiosity covariates were group-mean centered to allow individuals to deviate around their own average over the study period. Level-2 religiosity measures were grand-mean centered to allow individual averages to deviate between youth over the course of the study. As such, the within portion of the model can be interpreted as controlling for between-youth effects that are stable over the study period (Enders and

Tofighi 2007; Raudenbush and Bryk 2002). Continuous variables were standardized

(mean=0, SD=1) to more directly address effect sizes. In addition, the dependent variables were standardized at both the within- and between-levels of analysis. Thus, the dependent variables capture within-person variability from wave to wave, which was standardized, as well as variability between youth over the study period, which was also standardized. Effects at both levels, thus, can be directly interpreted as effect sizes in terms of standard deviations (e.g., Allison 2005).

In addition, this study addresses mediating pathways linking bullying, religiosity, and mental health following Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guidelines for statistical mediation. First, bullying and mental health associations are presented in the absence of the mediator (i.e., religiosity) variables. Second, religiosity mediators are regressed on measures of bullying (i.e., independent variables). Third, the indirect effects of the mediators on the dependent variables are estimated in a joint model using the Sobel-delta method. Lastly, the extent to which mental health is fully or partially mediated by religiosity is calculated. Religiosity mediators (i.e., attendance, prayer, salience, closeness to God) are included for both the within- and between-portions of the model.

Missing data were handled with multiple imputations of chained equations across

20 imputed datasets using the Stata ‘ice’ command (see White, Royston, and Wood

2011). All study variables (i.e., dependent, independent, mediating, control) were included in the imputation model (Young and Johnson 2010). Group- and grand-mean centering was accomplished post imputation and variables were registered as imputed.

The final sample size was 2,454.20 All analyses include a longitudinal weight variable at

Wave 3 and were conducted using Stata 13.

Multivariate results for sadness are presented first, followed by alienation. Results are shown over three models for both outcomes. Model 1 includes bullying measures, demographic controls, and the within-person time measure (i.e., wave). Model 2 includes religious background characteristics of affiliation (e.g., Ellison et al. 2008; Smith with

Denton 2005). Model 3 introduces religiosity mediators (i.e., attendance, prayer, salience, closeness to God) for the within- and between-portions of the model. Mediation is examined across Models 2 and 3. Results showing pathways of statistical mediation

(Baron and Kenny 1986) are then presented.

Results

Table 3.1 shows descriptive statistics for all study variables for the within- and between-portions of the model. For the within-portion, Table 3.1 shows means for sadness, alienation, and religiosity mediators over the study period. For the between- portion, approximately 10% of teens were categorized as victims, 17% as bullies, and

16% as bully-victims at Wave 1. About 30% of youth identified as conservative

Protestant and about 17% were unaffiliated at Wave 1. About 51% identified as female,

20 Final analytic sample size after listwise deletion was 2,134. Using the multiple imputation approach thus preserved 320 cases (N=2,454). Model results after listwise deletion and multiple imputation (shown here) were very similar and are available upon request.

Table 3.1: Descriptive statistics Within-person M/P 1 SD Min Max % miss Dependent variables Sadness 2.29 .82 1 5 .04 Alienation 1.95 .95 1 4 .04 Religious mediators Attendance 2.66 2.23 0 6 .04 Prayer 4.12 2.04 1 7 .04 Salience 3.33 1.21 1 5 .04 Closeness to God 3.83 1.33 1 6 .04

Between-person Independent variables (W1) 2 Victim .10 0 1 .00 Bully .17 0 1 .00 Bully-victim .16 0 1 .00 Uninvolved youth 0 1 .00 Religious mediators Attendance 2.66 1.82 0 6 .04 Prayer 4.12 1.74 1 7 .04 Salience 3.33 1.05 1 5 .04 Closeness to God 3.83 1.11 1 6 .04 Affiliation (W1) Conservative Protestant .30 0 1 .04 Mainline Protestant .10 0 1 .04 Black Protestant .09 0 1 .04 Catholic .21 0 1 .04 Other religion .13 0 1 .04 No religion .17 0 1 .04 Demographic controls Age (17-18 year old) (W3) 3 .19 0 1 0 Female (W1) .51 0 1 0 Black (W1) .16 0 1 .01 Hispanic/Latino (W1) .10 0 1 .01 White (W1) .69 0 1 .01 Other race/ethnicity (W1) .05 0 1 .01 College exposure (W3) .51 0 1 0 South Census region (W3) .42 0 1 .01 Parent income (W1) 6.15 2.89 1 11 .06 Parent Bachelor's or higher (W1) .41 0 1 0 Parent married (W1) .72 0 1 .00 N=2454 1: Mean/proportion 2: Wave 1 3: Wave 3

16% as Black, and 10% as Hispanic/Latino at Wave 1, and about 51% had attended college by Wave 3.

Multivariate results for sadness and alienation

Feelings of sadness

Table 3.2: Multilevel random intercept regression models for sadness by bullying and religiosity over time Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Within portion B SE B SE B SE Religious mediators Attendance -.06 ** .02 Prayer .03 .02 Salience .03 .02 Closeness to God -.09 *** .02 Wave .03 .02 .02 .02 -.01 .02

Between portion Independent variables 1 Victim .42 *** .08 .43 *** .08 .43 *** .08 Bully .10 .06 .10 .06 .10 .06 Bully-victim .40 *** .07 .40 *** .07 .37 *** .07 Religious mediators Attendance -.18 *** .04 Prayer .12 ** .05 Salience .06 .05 Closeness to God -.16 *** .04 Affiliation 2 Conservative Protestant -.26 *** .07 -.01 .08 Mainline Protestant -.24 ** .08 -.02 .08 Black Protestant -.05 .11 .17 .12 Catholic -.16 * .07 .03 .07 Other religion -.10 .07 .08 .08 Demographic controls Age (17-18 year old) -.01 .06 .00 .06 .03 .06 Female .40 *** .05 .41 *** .05 .40 *** .05 Black 3 -.07 .07 -.14 .09 -.13 .09 Hispanic/Latino 3 .09 .08 .08 .08 .11 .09 Other race/ethnicity 3 .18 .12 .15 .12 .14 .13 College exposure -.10 * .05 -.09 .05 -.06 .05 South Census region -.09 .05 -.05 .05 -.06 .05 Parent income -.06 .03 -.06 * .03 -.06 .03 Parent Bachelor's or higher -.12 * .05 -.12 * .05 -.09 .05 Parent married -.12 * .06 -.11 .06 -.08 .06 Intercept -.14 .08 .01 .10 -.16 .11

Variance components Low 4 High Low High Low High Variance within (residual) 1.25 1.21 1.29 1.25 1.21 1.29 1.24 1.21 1.28 Variance between (constant) .60 .55 .66 .60 .54 .66 .58 .53 .64 Intraclass correlation (ICC) .32 .32 .32 N=2454 * p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 1: Uninvolved omitted 2: Unaffiliated omitted 3: White omitted 4: 95% confidence interval

Table 3.2 shows multilevel random intercept regression results for sadness as a function of bullying at Wave 1 and religiosity over the study period. Model 1 shows that

100 feelings of sadness were .42 standard deviations (SDs) higher among victims and .30 SDs higher among bully-victims compared to uninvolved youth. Women reported .40 SDs higher sadness compared to men. Conversely, youth who attended college at Wave 3 (-

.10), youth with one parent with at least a Bachelor’s degree (-.12) and youth whose parents were married at Wave 1 (-.12) reported less sadness.

Model 2 includes the relevant religious background characteristics of affiliation.

Conservative Protestant (-.26), mainline Protestant (-.24), and Catholic teens (-.16) at

Wave 1 reported lower sadness as compared to unaffiliated youth. Associations between bullying and sadness were consistent in Model 2 after adjusting for affiliation.

Religiosity mediators are shown in Model 3 for the within- and between-level portions of the model. For the within-portion, a one SD increase in within-person attendance over the study period was associated with a .06 SD decrease in sadness.

Similarly, a one SD increase in feelings of closeness to God was associated with a .09 SD decrease in sadness.

For the between portion, sadness was.18 SDs lower per one SD increase in attendance and .16 SDs lower per one SD increase in closeness to God. Conversely, feelings of sadness were .11 SDs higher per one SD increase in prayer. Victims (.43) and bully-victims (.37) continued to have higher levels of sadness compared to the uninvolved after including the within- and between-level mediators.

Overall, results show that while religiosity did not appear to mediate feelings of sadness associated with bullying (Models 2 to 3), religiosity was associated with lower sadness through increasing attendance and closeness to God on average and over the study period. In other words, youth with higher average service attendance and feelings

101 of closeness to God, as well as youth who more attended services more frequently and felt closer to God over the study period, reported less sadness. Prayer, however, was associated with higher sadness between-youth only.

Feelings of alienation

Table 3.3 shows results for alienation by bullying and religiosity over time. Model

1 shows feelings of alienation were .29 SDs higher for victims and .50 SDs higher for bully-victims compared to uninvolved youth. Females (.10), Black youth, (.20),

Hispanic/Latino youth (.20), and youth identifying with other race/ethnic groups (.20) had higher alienation compared to males or White youth. Conversely, youth who attended college by Wave 3 reported lower alienation (-.16). Wave progression was also associated with a .09 SD decrease in alienation, indicating declining feelings of alienation over the course of the study.

Model 2 includes affiliation. Conservative Protestant (-.28), mainline Protestant (-

.21), Black Protestant (-.28), and Catholic youth (-.23) all reported lower feelings of alienation compared to the unaffiliated. Victims (.30) and bully-victims (.50) continued to report higher alienation relative to the uninvolved after adjusting for affiliation.

Model 3 includes religiosity mediators. For the within-portion, a one SD increase in closeness to God was associated with a .07 decrease in alienation. Wave progression also continued to be associated with a decrease (.12) in alienation over the study period.

For the between portion, feelings of alienation were .30 SDs higher for victims and .47 SDs higher for bully-victims compared to the uninvolved after adjusting for religiosity mediators. Alienation was also .13 SDs lower per one SD increase in attendance and .18 SDs lower per one SD increase in closeness to God. In addition,

102

Table 3.3: Multilevel random intercept regression models for alienation by bullying and religiosity over time Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Within portion B SE B SE B SE Religious mediators Attendance -.01 .02 Prayer -.02 .02 Salience .00 .02 Closeness to God -.07 ** .02 Wave -.09 *** .02 -.11 *** .02 -.12 *** .02

Between portion Independent variables 1 Victim .29 *** .08 .30 *** .08 .30 *** .08 Bully .10 .06 .11 .06 .10 .06 Bully-victim .50 *** .07 .50 *** .07 .47 *** .07 Religious mediators Attendance -.13 *** .03 Prayer .08 .04 Salience .06 .05 Closeness to God -.18 *** .04 Affiliation 2 Conservative Protestant -.28 *** .07 -.04 .08 Mainline Protestant -.21 * .09 .00 .09 Black Protestant -.28 * .12 -.07 .13 Catholic -.23 ** .08 -.03 .08 Other religion -.14 .08 .04 .08 Demographic controls Age (17-18 year old) (W3) -.01 .06 .00 .06 .02 .06 Female .10 * .05 .11 * .05 .11 * .05 Black 3 .20 ** .07 .23 * .09 .27 ** .09 Hispanic/Latino 3 .20 * .08 .20 * .08 .24 ** .08 Other race/ethnicity 3 .20 * .09 .18 .09 .17 .09 College exposure -.16 *** .05 -.14 ** .05 -.12 * .05 South Census region -.09 .05 -.05 .05 -.05 .05 Parent income -.11 *** .03 -.11 *** .03 -.12 *** .03 Parent Bachelor's or higher -.01 .05 -.01 .05 .01 .05 Parent married -.08 .06 -.07 .06 -.04 .06 Intercept .14 .08 .32 *** .10 .12 .11

Variance components Low 4 High Low High Low High Variance within (residual) 1.24 1.20 1.27 1.24 1.20 1.27 1.23 1.20 1.27 Variance between (constant) .61 .55 .66 .60 .54 .66 .58 .53 .64 Intraclass correlation (ICC) .33 .33 .32 N=2454 * p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 1: Uninvolved omitted 2: Unaffiliated omitted 3: White omitted 4: 95% confidence interval

103 modest suppression patterns emerge in Model 3, as alienation increases in magnitude and significance for Black and Hispanic/Latino youth (relative to White youth) upon including the religiosity mediators.

In summary, religiosity did not appear to mediate feelings of alienation associated with bullying. Higher on average service attendance was associated with less alienation, but this association was not present over time. Feelings of closeness to God were associated with lower alienation between-youth on average and over the study period.

Testing pathways of statistical mediation

Table 3.4: Bullying categories on within- and between-level religiosity mediators (models including controls) Victim 1 Bully Bully-victim Within B SE B SE B SE Attendance .01 .01 .00 .01 .00 .01 Prayer -.01 .01 .00 .01 .01 .01 Salience .01 .01 .00 .01 .00 .02 Closeness to God .00 .01 .00 .01 .00 .01

Victim Bully Bully -victim Between B SE B SE B SE Attendance .10 .07 -.01 .02 -.02 .03 Prayer .07 .06 -.02 .02 .04 .03 Salience .08 .07 -.04 .02 .00 .03 Closeness to God .03 .04 -.01 .02 -.03 .03 N=2454 * p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 1: Each bullying category included separately in regression models.

Although this study finds little to no indication of mediation by factors of religiosity, the following section tests the components necessary to establish statistical mediation as set forth by Baron and Kenny (1986). First, results of this study show that a relationship exists between the independent (i.e., bullying) and dependent (i.e., mental health) variables, thus satisfying the first criteria of statistical mediation.21 Next, Table

3.4 presents results addressing the second criteria of mediation by testing associations

21 The bully subgroup did not differ significantly from the uninvolved on sadness or alienation.

104 between bullying (i.e., independent variables) and religiosity, the hypothesized mediating variables. No significant associations emerged between bullying at Wave 1 and religiosity either over time or between-youth on average.22

Table 3.5: Sobel indirect effects of religiosity on bullying and mental health (models including controls) Sadness Victim 1 Bully 1 Bully-victim 1 Within mediators B SE B SE B SE Attendance -.03 * .01 -.01 .00 -.02 * .01 Prayer .01 .01 .00 .00 .01 .01 Salience .01 .01 .00 .00 .01 .01 Closeness to God -.04 *** .01 -.01 .01 -.03 *** .01

Victim Bully Bully -victim Between mediators B SE B SE B SE Attendance -.08 *** .02 -.02 .01 -.07 *** .02 Prayer .05 * .02 .01 .01 .05 ** .02 Salience .03 .02 .01 .01 .02 .02 Closeness to God -.07 ** .02 -.02 .01 -.06 ** .02

Alienation Victim Bully Bully-victim Within mediators B SE B SE B SE Attendance .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .01 Prayer -.01 .01 .00 .00 -.01 .01 Salience .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .01 Closeness to God -.02 * .01 -.01 .00 -.03 ** .01

Victim Bully Bully -victim Between mediators B SE B SE B SE Attendance -.04 ** .01 -.01 .01 -.06 *** .02 Prayer .02 .01 .01 .01 .04 .02 Salience .02 .01 .01 .01 .03 .02 Closeness to God -.06 ** .02 -.02 .01 -.09 *** .02 N=2454 * p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 1: Uninvolved omitted

While Table 3.4 shows no associations linking bullying to the religiosity mediators, Table 3.5 addresses the third criteria of statistical mediation by calculating the indirect effects of religiosity on associations between bullying and mental health using the Sobel-delta method. Results presented in Table 3.5 show that higher on average

22 Models without controls similarly did not show any significant patterns linking bullying to religiosity.

105 service attendance and closeness to God, as well as increasing attendance and closeness to God over time, were associated with lower sadness among victims and bully-victims.

Increasing prayer on average, however, was associated with higher sadness. Similar patterns are found for bully-victims, although attendance (within) and prayer (between) were not significantly associated with alienation.

Table 3.6: Total and partial mediation of religiosity on bullying and mental health Total mediation 1 Within portion 2 Between portion 3 Sadness Victim -.01 .00 -.01 Bully .05 .01 .03 Bully-victim .07 .00 .07 Alienation Victim -.01 .00 -.01 Bully .06 .01 .05 Bully-victim .05 .00 .05 1: Values presented as proportions 2: Includes within-person religious mediators only (models including controls) 3: Includes between-person religious mediators only (models including controls)

Addressing the final criteria of statistical mediation, Table 3.6 shows the proportion of total and partial mediation for within- and between-level religious mediators separately. No mediation is shown for victims, and very slight attenuation is shown for bullies and bully-victims. This attenuation furthermore was almost entirely accounted for by aggregate religious characteristics rather than individual religious patterns over time.

Discussion

Bullying, religiosity, and mental health

This study examines mediating pathways linking religiosity to bullying and mental health in youth and emerging adulthood. Consistent with prior research (e.g., Gini and Pozzoli 2009), victims and bully-victims at Wave 1 had higher feelings of sadness and alienation over time compared to the uninvolved. These results support Hypothesis 1

106 that bullying is associated with poorer mental health over time (e.g., Takizawa et al.

2014; Sourander et al. 2007). Bullies, however, did not significantly differ from the uninvolved on these mental health measures. This result thus does not support Hypothesis

1 that bullies will also report worse mental health outcomes. In this case, it is possible that bullies experience less overall distress and mental health burden due to factors such as social positioning, popularity, and social power within peer groups (Chaux and

Castellanos 2015; Thornberg 2015; Thunfors and Cornell 2008).

Second, religiosity had both beneficial and detrimental associations with mental health. In terms of beneficial associations, higher service attendance and closeness to God were linked to less sadness and alienation both over time and between-youth on average.

In this study, effect sizes were larger for the between-youth portions of the model compared to models assessing within-person change, which may perhaps indicate the beneficial influences of attendance and closeness to God accumulate over time and lead to better mental health outcomes among more religious youth on average. It is also possible that more religious youth are inclined to report better mental health than less religious youth through factors such as self-esteem. These findings align with research showing that religiosity often confers health and wellbeing advantages in adolescence

(e.g., Chen and VanderWeele 2018; Cotton et al. 2006; Wong et al. 2006).

In terms of detrimental associations, interestingly, prayer was associated with higher sadness on average. There are a few potential explanations for this unexpected finding. First, it is possible that youth were experiencing other stressors (e.g., family, school, relationships) over the study period (and concurrent to bullying) in which they were using prayer as a means of coping (e.g., Nooney 2005). In this case, the positive

107 association between prayer and sadness might indicate other confounding stressors that were not included in this study, but which may help clarify the negative association between prayer and sadness in the context of youth bullying. Second, higher frequency of prayer may represent a greater number and/or perception of life stressors in general

(Bradshaw, Ellison, and Flannelly 2008). In this case, it may be that prayer is essentially an ineffective coping strategy in the presence of multiple stressors and (comparatively) high levels of stress/distress. Third, the type and/or nature of prayer may be associated with mental health differences. For instance, prayer characterized by fearful, judgmental, or retributive perceptions of God/divine other can increase stress, sadness, feelings of dependency, and thus lead to poorer mental health (Bradshaw et al. 2008; Ellison et al.

2014; Schieman et al. 2013).

A few interesting control patterns also emerged that deserve discussion. First, the negative associations between affiliation (compared to the unaffiliated) and feelings of sadness and alienation in Model 2 were fully attenuated by religious mediators in Model

3. This finding supports prior research (e.g., Cotton et al. 2006; Schlundt et al. 2008) showing that associations between religion and health are more often related to religious behaviors, beliefs, and/or identities (e.g., attendance, closeness to God, salience) rather than background/contextual factors such as affiliation. Second, suppression effects involving race/ethnicity, religiosity, and alienation emerged. Specifically, after including the religiosity mediators in Model 3, feelings of alienation increased in magnitude and significance among Black and Hispanic/Latino youth (as compared to White youth). This finding points to the importance of religion for positive mental health and wellbeing outcomes for Black and Hispanic/Latino youth, as well as the importance of religion as a

108 potential buffer to negative health outcomes associated with negative social events such as bullying (e.g., Calvillo and Bailer 2015; Poole 2017; Taylor and Chatters 2010).

Pathways of religious mediation

This study also examined several mediating pathways linking religiosity to bullying and mental health. Although statistical mediation (Baron and Kenny 1986) could not be established because bullying (i.e., independent variables) was not associated with religiosity (i.e., mediating variables) (see Table 3.4), religiosity was associated with better mental health (see Table 3.5). For instance, higher service attendance and closeness to God were associated with lower sadness and alienation both on average and over time.

These indirect effects of religiosity, however, did not attenuate the mental health consequences of bullying (see Table 3.6), because religiosity did not differ between bully-involved and uninvolved adolescents. These results, thus, do not support

Hypothesis 2 that religiosity (i.e., service attendance, prayer, salience, closeness to God) will at least partially mediate the mental health consequences of bullying for victims, bullies, and bully-victims according to pathways of statistical mediation.

Findings of no mediation indicate that while religion may potentially be an effective coping strategy in the context of bullying (hence the indirect effects linking religiosity to better mental health), religion as a coping strategy is likely less relevant to youth. In this study, bully-involved and uninvolved youth did not differ on service attendance, prayer, religious salience or feelings of closeness to God either over time or on average. This lack of difference may point to influences of religious inheritance (i.e., downstream parent-child effects of religion) as well as perceptions of freedom of religious choice and religious ‘ownership’ in early adolescence. Most American youth

109 adopt the religious beliefs and behaviors of the family and thus are in many ways religiously similar to their parents (Smith with Denton 2005). Emerging adulthood, however, is a transitional time of the life course often marked by major life and identity changes (Arnett 2000), including pronounced religious exploration and change (e.g., Petts

2009b). Many young adults seek new religious (or non-religious) identities as a means of establishing independence and finding personal meaning (e.g., Petts 2009b). As younger teens may not experience the same freedom of choice and possibility of religious exploration compared to emerging adults, religion (and related resources/coping strategies) thus may be considered personally less relevant. Here, perhaps greater religious mediation would become apparent as young adults age into religious faiths and practices that are more personally meaningful to them.

Relatedly, it is possible religion in general is not considered ‘popular’ or socially salient to the peer group. Many American teens claim they do not talk with their friends about religion, and most do not invite their friends to religious activities or youth groups

(Pew Research Center 2019). As peer groups and interactions are critical means through which youth understand themselves and shape their behaviors (e.g., Brechwald and

Prinstein 2011), the fact that many adolescents do not talk about or share religion with their friends may suggest that religion is not particularly relevant to teens’ day-to-day interactions or their perceptions of identity or social position within the peer group. Thus, the lack of association between bullying and religiosity in this study may point to a disconnect between the relative importance of bullying and religion in peer interactions and to group identity. The extent to which religion is considered ‘popular’ in youth, however, may influence bullying likelihood. For example, one study found a positive

110 association between school-wide perceptions of being religious as a ‘popular trait’ and a higher likelihood of considering religious teachings in one’s choice of behaviors (e.g., do unto others) (Barrett et al. 2007).

Lastly, it is also possible that youth are increasingly finding religious meaning and related resources/coping outlets in more ‘alternative’ or ‘non-traditional’ forms of religiosity and spirituality (e.g., Pew Research Center 2018). Religion in adolescence is noted as being highly individualistic, and many emerging adults create their own religious worldviews using teachings and influences from multiple sources (e.g., Petts

2009b; Arnett and Jensen 2002). Given increasing acceptance of alternative forms of religiosity and ‘new age’ spirituality (e.g., psychics, astrology), as well as the increasing relevance of technology and social media, it is possible that youth increasingly cope in ways that are interpreted as religiously and personally meaningful, but in ways that do not align with the beliefs or practices of more institutional forms of religion in adolescence (e.g., Clark 2002). Thus, the lack of associations between bullying and religion in this study might reflect an increasing reliance on non-traditional or alternative forms of religious coping. Future research should consider exploring alternative and/or non-traditional religious (and spiritual) worldviews, behaviors, and coping strategies to determine if these views/practices may help attenuate the mental health consequences of bullying.

Limitations and Future Directions

While this study has a number of strengths, there are limitations. First, bullying was assessed using one item asking how often youth reported being teased or teasing others. This measure thus does not account for other important bullying behaviors (e.g.,

111 hitting/pushing, rumor spreading, social exclusion). Future research should attempt to address the association between religiosity and bullying using a wider range of bullying behaviors (Modecki et al. 2014). Second, this study does not account for other bullying

‘roles’ (e.g., reinforcers, defenders) that may be associated with religion and mental health

(e.g., Polanin, Espelage, and Pigott 2012). For example, are religious youth more likely to intervene in bullying events as compared to non-religious youth? Research should address links between religiosity and bullying for youth who are situated differently in bullying subcultures. Third, factors such as closeness to God or prayer may have different associations with mental health depending upon the nature of prayer and/or relationship to God/divine other (e.g., Ellison et al. 2014). This study, however, does not account for characteristics of prayer (i.e., positive or retributive) or the nature of one’s relationship with God/divine other (e.g., fearful, comforting). These analyses might help clarify the negative association between prayer and mental health (i.e., sadness) in this study.23

Conclusion

While religiosity in youth and emerging adulthood is often associated with mental health and wellbeing advantages (e.g., Cotton et al. 2006; Koenig et al. 2012; Wong et al.

2006), results of this study show these mental health advantages do not appear to extend to bully-involved youth. Nevertheless, this study contributes to literature linking religiosity, bullying, and health in several ways. This is one of the first studies to examine associations between religiosity, bullying, and mental health in youth and into emerging

23 Several cross-level interactions were also examined to determine if mental health outcomes associated with bullying differed by changes in religiosity over time (within) as well as among youth with higher/lower religiosity on average (between). Results showed little evidence of mental health moderation by religiosity factors for bully-involved youth, and therefore results are not presented here (available upon request).

112 adulthood, a critical, transitional time of the life course. This study also examines mediating pathways linking religiosity to bullying and mental health over time. Lastly, the study accounts for two conceptually different measures of mental health and wellbeing (i.e., sadness, alienation) as well as multiple measures of religiosity. While religiosity did not attenuate the relationship between bullying and mental health, religiosity was associated with better mental health both over time and on average.

Perhaps efforts to increase the relevance of religion and religious coping strategies for youth who are experiencing bullying would be beneficial for their mental health.

Continuing to address these associations is important because bullying has serious health and wellbeing consequences for individuals across the life course.

113

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

This dissertation examined associations between religiosity, bullying, and mental health in youth and emerging adulthood across three empirical chapters. This is an important area of research because both religion and bullying are key social factors and experiences that can influence life course outcomes across multiple domains (e.g., family, school, work). While this dissertation motivates many additional questions that remained to be answered, this work provides a strong overview of a number of patterns linking religiosity, bullying, and mental health. In the remainder of this discussion, I revisit each empirical chapter with a summary of the study goals and empirical results, and offer suggestions for future research avenues. I then conclude with a summary of the contributions this dissertation makes to the study of religion, bullying, and mental health in youth and emerging adulthood.

Overview and Future Research Avenues for Chapter 1

Chapter 1 examined associations between religiosity (i.e., affiliation, service attendance, prayer, scripture reading, participation in religious youth groups, religious salience, orientation towards God, beliefs in an afterlife, attitudes towards alternative beliefs, and religious doubts) and bullying (i.e., general peer victimization, perpetration, bully-victimization, and religious victimization) using Wave 1 of the National Study of

Youth and Religion (NSYR). Motivated by theoretical perspectives including religious socialization (e.g., Cornwall 1988; Sherkat 2003) and moral disengagement (e.g.,

Bandura 1990; Gini, Pozzoli, and Hymel 2014), I hypothesized that religion would have both negative associations to bullying (e.g., lower victimization due to increased parental

114 oversight and in-group membership), as well as positive associations to bullying (e.g., through religious doubts and religious victimization). Results of the study showed, first, that religiosity was not associated with general peer victimization, contrary to expectations that religiosity may prevent victimization through factors such as increased parental oversight, in-group membership, or perhaps indirectly through mechanisms such as increased self-esteem (Ebstyne King and Furrow 2004; Furrow, Ebstyne King, and

White 2004; Ysseldyk, Matheson, and Anisman 2010).

Second and in comparison, results for perpetration showed that mainline

Protestant youth had lower relative risk of perpetration when compared to unaffiliated youth. This finding may point to an increased emphasis on civic engagement and public service within mainline traditions (e.g., Ammerman 2002), which may therefore increase prosocial behaviors (i.e., towards peers) for mainline Protestant youth. In addition, religious salience and scripture reading were also associated with lower perpetration.

These patterns suggest that religion may decrease perpetration through the internalization of religious messages as well as the personal relevance of religiosity in daily life (Smith

2003b). Contrary to associations linking religiosity with decreased perpetration, however, religious doubts were associated with higher relative risk of perpetration. This finding may point to religious doubt as a source of stress and/or strain (e.g., identity) (Pearlin

1989; Agnew 2001), which might help explain aggressive behavior (i.e., bullying) towards peers (Moon and Jang 2014; Paez 2018).

Third, Chapter 1 also showed that the likelihood of religious victimization was lowest for youth affiliated with Christian faiths (i.e., conservative Protestant, mainline

Protestant, Black Protestant, Catholic) when compared to the unaffiliated. Yet, increasing

115 attendance, scripture reading, and participation in religious youth groups were associated with higher odds of experiencing religious victimization. To explain these patterns, I suggest that the reduced odds of religious victimization for youth affiliated with Christian faiths is linked to the normativity of Christian affiliation in the US. I also suggest that the higher odds of religious victimization occurring through service attendance, scripture reading, and participation in religious youth groups also point to an underlying

‘normativity’ of religiosity or religious expression in youth, whereby the risk of religious victimization is perhaps lowest for youth who identify as ‘somewhat religious’ (e.g.,

Thornberg 2011). In other words, the association between religiosity and religious victimization in adolescence may be curvilinear.

Future directions for Chapter 1 include, first, a greater exploration of the links between religiosity and religious victimization in youth. Results of this study showed lower religious victimization among youth affiliated with Christian faiths (compared to the unaffiliated), but higher religious victimization with increasing attendance, scripture reading, and participation in religious youth groups. As noted, these patterns perhaps suggest the presence of a curvilinear association between religiosity and religious victimization, whereby the ‘norm’ of religious expression might be to identify and/or practice as ‘somewhat religious’ in youth. Future research should consider a more careful definition of ‘somewhat religious,’ or similarly what is meant by ‘non-religious’ or ‘very religious’ in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Second, the extent to which religion is salient or ‘popular’ to the peer group deserves further attention. Being part of a popular group was strongly associated with increased relative risks of victimization, perpetration, and bully-victimization in this study. Perhaps social network data could help clarify

116 whether religiosity influences the emergence (or desistence) of bullying differently in peer groups, depending on the salience of religion or perceptions of the ‘popularity’ of religion in the peer group (e.g., Barrett et al. 2007). Third, some aspects of religiosity

(i.e., religious doubt, prayer) were associated with higher risk of perpetration. Future research should continue to evaluate ways in which religion (and religious beliefs) might operate as a stressor and/or source of strain (e.g., through identity, unwanted memberships, negative forms of religious coping), which may provoke bullying behavior.

Lastly, future studies should consider other ‘participant roles’ of bullying (e.g., reinforcers, defenders) to examine whether religiosity is associated with these dimensions of bullying participation (e.g., are more religious teens more likely to intervene in bullying incidents than less religious teens?).

Overview and Future Research Avenues for Chapter 2

Continuing to address religious victimization, Chapter 2 examined associations between religious victimization, race/ethnicity, and mental health using the Health

Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC) 2009-2010 dataset, a large and nationally representative sample of elementary to high school students (grades 5 to 10) in the US.

Chapter 2 addressed two primary questions: first, does the frequency of religious victimization among youth in the US differ by race/ethnicity, and second, do the mental health consequences associated with religious victimization also differ by race/ethnicity?

I hypothesized that religious victimization would be higher among Black youth (as compared to White youth) because of the cultural and historical importance of the church and religious community for Black Americans. In particular, I expected higher religious victimization for Black youth because of increased social and cultural pressures towards

117 being ‘religious’ and increased social pressures around the performance of ‘right religiosity,’ which thus may increase the visibility of religion and risk of breaking religious social norms (e.g., Brown, Taylor, and Chatters 2015; Chatters et al. 2009; Hunt and Hunt 2000). Consistent with the hypothesis, results showed that Black youth reported significantly higher religious victimization compared to White youth in the US.

The second hypothesis of Chapter 2 addressed whether the mental health consequences of religious victimization also differed by race/ethnicity. I hypothesized that Black youth would experience increased mental health burden (i.e., worse mental health outcomes) resulting from religious victimization because of increased social pressures of religiosity, as well as the heightened importance of religion to community membership, participation, social standing, and identity (e.g., Brown et al. 2015; Stets and Burke 2000). Contrary to expectations, I found that the mental health consequences of religious victimization (i.e., feeling low, feeling nervous) did not differ by race/ethnicity, yet religious victimization was associated with a greater likelihood of feeling low. Importantly, although the mental health consequences of religious victimization did not differ by race/ethnicity, there still remains a higher likelihood of religious victimization for Black youth and thus an increased mental health burden associated with religious victimization.

A major limitation of the HBSC 2009-2010 dataset is that it does not include measures of religiosity. Future research should examine whether the likelihood of religious victimization is differentially related to affiliation, religious beliefs, and behaviors for youth of different race/ethnic backgrounds. Future research should also examine whether the mental health consequences of religious victimization differ by

118 religious characteristics (e.g., having high religious salience), and whether these associations further differ by race/ethnicity. In addition, studies find race/ethnic differences in how bullying is understood in peer contexts, as well as how youth of different race/ethnic backgrounds respond to survey questions about bullying (Modecki et al. 2014; Sawyer, Bradshaw, and O’Brennan 2008). This is an important area of research for bullying in general as greater clarification is needed as to what constitutes ‘bullying’ in adolescence and how bullying is understood/defined by youth across different contexts. Moreover, a clearer conceptual definition of ‘religious bullying’ is needed, as well as a clearer explanation of how ‘religious bullying’ differs from (or is similar to)

‘religious discrimination’ (e.g., Dupper, Forrest-Bank, and Lowry-Carusillo 2015;

Olweus 1997; Priest et al. 2019).

Overview and Future Research Avenues for Chapter 3

Lastly, Chapter 3 examined mediating pathways linking religiosity and bullying to mental health over time. Many empirical studies show positive associations between religiosity and mental health in adolescence (e.g., Cotton et al. 2006; Wong, Rew, and

Slaikeu 2006), as well as increases in prosocial behavior, lower rates of delinquency, and lower rates of risk behaviors (e.g., Desmond, Ulmer, and Bader 2013; Furrow et al. 2004;

Salas-Wright, Vaughn, and Maynard 2014). The extent that religiosity might mitigate the mental health consequences of bullying, however, was unclear. Using Waves 1-3 of the

NSYR, I found that bullying was associated with increased sadness and feelings of alienation over time. In addition, increasing service attendance and feelings of closeness to God were associated with better mental health both over the study period as well as between-youth on average. These aspects of religiosity, however, did not mediate the

119 association between bullying and mental health because bully-involved and uninvolved youth did not differ across the measures of religiosity included in this study (i.e., attendance, prayer, religious salience, closeness to God). I suggest that while religiosity may potentially be an effective coping strategy for bully-involved youth, religiosity does not appear to be a relevant coping strategy for youth. In other words, the positive associations between religiosity and mental health show that while religiosity has the potential to help buffer the consequences of bullying, bully involvement did not predict differential use of these religious coping resources.

The lack of associations between bullying and religiosity in this study might be explained in a few ways. First, it may be indicative of the ‘downstream effects of religion’, or influences of religious inheritance such that youth do not experience a sense of ‘ownership’ of their religion. Compared to emerging adults, younger adolescents may not experience the same degree of freedom of religious choice and expression (Petts

2009a). These factors of religious inheritance and lack of ‘ownership’ of one’s religious beliefs may lead to feelings that religion is not personally relevant, and thus lead to less reliance on religious faith or messages in daily life. The lack of associations between bullying and religiosity may also point to the relative unimportance of religion to youth, in particular to interactions occurring within peer/friendship groups (Pew Research

Center 2019).

Future directions for Chapter 3 (attentive to suggestions motivated by prior chapters) include, first, examining factors related to ‘negative religious coping.’ Prior studies find that dimensions of negative religious coping such as those occurring through prayer (e.g., dependent, anxious forms of prayer) or through perceptions of the nature of

120

God/divine other (e.g., retributive, punishing) are associated with increased stress and poorer mental health (e.g., Ellison et al. 2014; Ellison and Lee 2010). The analysis in this

Chapter, however, does not account for these characteristics of religious coping, which might help explain some of the negative associations between religiosity (i.e., prayer) and mental health noted in this study. Second, it is possible that youth (and others) may engage in forms of coping that are personally ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual’ (e.g., spending time in nature, meditation, yoga, forms of media/entertainment), but that are not accounted for by institutional forms of religious practice (e.g., service attendance) (e.g., Benson,

Roehlkepartain, and Rude 2003; Clark 2002). For this reason, it would be important for research to examine alternative forms of religious coping both in youth and adulthood, and their potential influence on mental health outcomes associated with negative social experiences, such as bullying, over the life course.

Concluding statement

Overall, this dissertation shows that the relationship between religiosity and bullying is complicated, but meaningful. Religion can operate as a source of bullying through factors such as religious victimization and religious discrimination, particularly for individuals whose religious beliefs are considered ‘different’ or non-majority (e.g., non-religious or atheist beliefs, minority religious group membership) (e.g., Dupper et al.

2015; Edgell et al. 2016). Religion may also encourage or exacerbate bullying through stressful experiences and identity factors such as religious doubt or stressful relationships with one’s religious group and/or perceptions of God/the divine. Conversely, religion may also operate to prevent bullying through processes of religious socialization (e.g.,

Ammerman 2002) as well as through influences such as religious salience and practices

121

(e.g., scripture reading). Lastly, religion has the potential to influence mental health outcomes associated with bullying both in youth and into adulthood. Although associations between religiosity, bullying, and mental health were generally modest, perhaps stronger associations will emerge in the future as youth age into religions and practices that are personally meaningful to them.

In closing, this dissertation contributes to the literature on religion, bullying, and mental health. This work highlights the importance of religion and religiosity when addressing youth bullying, and further supports social-ecological approaches (e.g.,

Swearer and Hymel 2015) of the study of bullying by emphasizing the role of religiosity in overlapping family, school, neighborhood, and peer group contexts. This work also points to many future avenues of research that will help expand on and clarify associations between religion and bullying in youth. Lastly, the results of this dissertation would be beneficial to parents, teachers, schools, religious organizations and religious leaders, and other community members to more adequately understand the nature of bullying, to help support efforts to prevent bullying, and to help manage the consequences of bullying when it occurs. Addressing factors of religiosity in contexts of youth bullying thus advances social-ecological perspectives of youth development by considering various social contexts (e.g., religion) in which youth are embedded, and which have the potential to shape multiple life course outcomes and a general sense of wellbeing.

122

REFERENCES

Acevado, Gabriel A., Christopher G. Ellison, and Xiaohe Xu. 2014. Is it really religion? Comparing the main and stress-buffering effects of religious and secular civic engagement on psychological distress. Society and Mental Health, 4(2): 111-128.

Andreou, Eleni, Anastasia Vlachou, and Eleni Didaskalou. 2005. The roles of self- efficacy, peer interactions, and attitudes in bully-victim incidents: Implications for intervention policy practices. School Psychology International, 26(5): 545-562.

Agnew, Robert. 2001. Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(4): 319-361.

Agnew, Robert. 1992. Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1): 47-87.

Allison, Paul D. 2005. Fixed Effects Regression Methods for Longitudinal Data Using SAS. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Alvarez-Garcia, David, Trinidad Garcia, and Jose Carlos Nunez. 2015. Predictors of school bullying perpetration in adolescence: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 23: 126-136.

Ammerman, Nancy T. 2002. “Connecting Mainline Protestant Churches with Public Life”. Pp. 129-158 in The Quiet Hand of God: Faith-based Activism and the Public Role of Mainline Protestantism, R. Wuthnow and J.H. Evans, Eds. University of California Press: Los Angeles.

Andreou, Eleni, Anastasia Vlachou, and Eleni Didaskalou. 2005. The roles of self- efficacy, peer interactions, and attitudes in bully-victim incidents: Implications for intervention policy-practices. School Psychology International, 26(5): 545-562.

Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen and Lene Arnett Jensen. 2002. A congregation of one: Individualized religious beliefs among emerging adults. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17(5): 451-467.

Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2000. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5): 469-480.

Aydin, Nilufer, Peter Fischer, and Dieter Frey. 2010. Turing to God in the face of ostracism: Effects of social exclusion of religiousness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(6): 742-753.

Bacchini, Dario, Giovanna Esposito, and Gaetana Affuso. 2009. Social experience and school bullying. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19: 17-32.

123

Baier, Colin J. and Bradley R.E. Wright. 2001. “If you love me, keep my commandments”: A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(1): 3-21.

Baldry, Anna C. and David P. Farrington. 2005. Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in adolescence bullying. Social Psychology of Education, 8: 263-284.

Baldry, Anna C. and David P. Farrington. 2000. Bullies and delinquents: Personal characteristics and parental styles. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10: 17-31.

Bandura, Albert. 1991. “Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Action”. Pp. 45- 103 in Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development, W.M. Kurtines and J. L. Gewirtz, Eds. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ.

Bandura, Albert 1990. Selective activation and disengagement of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46(1): 27-46.

Baron, Reuben M. and David A. Kenny. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research. Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6): 1173-1182.

Barrett, Jennifer B., Jennifer Pearson, Chandra Muller, and Kenneth A. Frank. 2007. Adolescent religiosity and school contexts. Social Science Quarterly, 88(4): 1024- 1037.

Bauman, Sheri, Russell B. Toomey, and Jenny L. Walker. 2013. Associations among bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide in high school students. Journal of Adolescence, 36: 341-350.

Beaty, Lee A. and Erick B. Alexeyev. 2008. The problem of school bullies: What the research tells us. Adolescence, 43(169): 1-11.

Benson, Peter L., Eugene C. Roehlkepartain, and Stacey P. Rude. 2003. Spiritual development in childhood and adolescence: Toward a field of inquiry. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3): 205-213.

Benson, Peter L., Michael J. Donahue, and Joseph A. Erickson. 1989. Adolescence and religion: A review of the literature from 1970-1986. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 1: 153-181.

Bierman, Alex. 2006. Does religion buffer the effects of discrimination on mental health? Differing effects by race. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(4): 551-565.

Bogart, Laura D., Marc N. Elliott, David J. Klein, Susan R. Tortolero, Sylvie Mrug,

124

Melissa F. Peskin, Susan L. Davies, Elizabeth T. Schink, and Mark A. Schuster. 2015. Peer victimization in fifth grade and health in tenth grade. Pediatrics, 133(3): 440-447.

Bond, Lyndal, John B. Carlin, Lyndal Thomas, Kerryn Rubin, and George Patton. 2001. Does bullying cause emotional problems? A prospective study of young teenagers. British Medical Journal, 323: 480-484.

Bowes, Lucy, Barbara Maughan, Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Louise Arseneault. 2010. Families promote emotional and behavioural resilience to bullying: Evidence of an environmental effect. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(7): 809-817.

Bowes, Lucy, Louise Arseneault, Barbara Maughan, Alan Taylor, Avshalom Caspi, and Terrie E. Moffitt. 2009. School, neighborhood, and family factors are associated with children’s bullying involvement: A nationally representative longitudinal study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(5): 545- 553.

Bradshaw, Catherine P. 2013. Translating research to practice in bullying prevention. American Psychologist, 40(4): 322-332.

Bradshaw, Catherine P., Anne L. Sawyer, and Lindsey M. O’Brennan. 2009. A social disorganization perspective on bullying-related attitudes and behaviors: The influence of school context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43:204-220.

Bradshaw, Matt and Christopher G. Ellison. 2010. Financial hardship and psychological distress: Exploring the buffering effects of religion. Social Science & Medicine, 71(1): 196-204.

Bradshaw, Matt, Christopher G. Ellison, and Kevin J. Flannelly. 2008. Prayer, God Imagery, and symptoms of psychopathology. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47(4): 644-659.

Brechwald, Whitney A. and Mitchell J. Prinstein. 2011. Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1): 166-179.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

Brown, R. Khari, Robert Joseph Taylor, and Linda M. Chatters. 2015. Race/ethnic and social-demographic correlates of religious non-involvement in America: Findings from three national surveys. Journal of Black Studies, 46(4): 335-362.

Brown, Sarah and Karl Taylor. 2008. Bullying, education and earnings: Evidence from

125

the National Child Development Study. Economics of Education Review, 27:387-401.

Brown, Stephanie L., Randolph M. Nesse, James S. House, and Rebecca L. Utz. 2004. Religion and emotional compensation: Results from a prospective study of widowhood. Personality and Social Science Bulletin, 30(9): 1165-1174.

Brunstein Klomek, Anat, Andre Sourander, and Madelyn Gould. 2010. The association of suicide and bullying in childhood to young adulthood: A review of cross-sectional and longitudinal research findings. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(5): 282- 288.

Bryant-Davis, Thema, Monica U. Ellis, Elizabeth Burke-Maynard, Nathan Moon, Pamela A. Counts, and Gera Anderson. 2012. Religiosity, spirituality, and trauma recovery in the lives of children and adolescents. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(4): 306-314.

Calhoun-Brown, Allison. 2000. Upon this rock: The Black church, nonviolence, and the Civil Rights Movement. PS: Political Science and Politics, 33(2): 168-174.

Calvillo, Jonathan E. and Stanley R. Bailey. 2015. Latino religious affiliation and ethnic identity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 54(1): 57-78.

Carlson, L. Wrenn and Dewey G. Cornell. 2008. Differences between persistent and desistent middle school bullies. School Psychology International, 29: 442-451.

Carlyle, Kellie E. and Kenneth J. Steinman. 2007. Demographic differences in the prevalence, co-occurrence, and correlates of adolescent bullying at school. Journal of School Health, 77(9): 623-629.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019. Recommended BMI-for-age Cutoffs. Retrieved April 13th 2020 at https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/growthcharts/training/bmiage/page4.html.

Chatters, Linda M., Robert Joseph Taylor, Kai McKeever Bullard, and James S. Jackson. 2009. Race and ethnic differences in religious involvement: African Americans, Caribbean Blacks, and non-Hispanic Whites. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(7): 1143- 1163.

Chaux, Enrique and Melisa Castellanos. 2015. Money and age in schools: Bullying and power imbalances. Aggressive Behavior, 41: 280-293.

Cheadle, Jacob E. and Philip Schwadel. 2012. The ‘friendship dynamics of religion’ or the ‘religious dynamics of friendship’? A social network analysis of adolescents who attend small schools. Social Science Research, 41(5): 1198-1212.

Chen, Ying and Tyler J. VanderWeele. 2018. Associations of religious upbringing with

126

subsequent health and well-being from adolescence to young adulthood: An outcome- wide analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology, in press.

Cillessen, Antonius H.N. and Amanda J. Rose. 2005. Understanding popularity in the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(2): 102-105.

Clark, Lynn Schofield. 2002. U.S. adolescent religious identity, the media, and the “funky” side of religion. Journal of Communication, 52: 794-811.

Cnaan, Ram A., Richard T. Gelles, and Jill W. Sinha. 2004. Youth and religion: The Gameboy generation goes to “church”. Social Indicators Research, 68: 175-200.

Cook, J. Benjamin, Philip Schwadel, and Jacob E. Cheadle. 2017. The origins of religious homophily in a medium and large school. Review of Religious Research, 59: 65-80.

Cook, Clayton R., Kirk R. Williams, Nancy G. Guerra, Tia E. Kim, and Shelly Sadek. 2010. Predictors of bullying and victimization in childhood and adolescence: A meta- analytic investigation. School Psychology Quarterly, 25(2): 65-83.

Cooper, William P. and Rahul Mitra. 2018. Religious disengagement and stigma management by African-American young adults. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46(4): 509-533.

Cornwall, Marie. 1988. “The Influences of Three Agents of Religious Socialization: Family, Church, and Peers” Pp. 207-301 in The Religion and Family Connection: Social Science Perspectives, ed. Darwin L. Thomas. Religious Studies Center, Brigham Youth University: Provo, UT.

Cotton, Sian, Kathy Zebracki, Susan L. Rosenthal, Joel Tsevat, and Dennis Drotar. 2006. Religion/spirituality and adolescent health outcomes: A review. Journal of Adolescent Health, 38: 472-480.

Cragun, Ryan T., Barry Kosmin, Ariela Keysar, Joseph H. Hammer, and Michael Nielsen. 2012. On the receiving end: Discrimination toward the non-religious in the United States. Journal of Contemporary Religion, 27(1): 105-127.

Crick, Nicki R., 1996. The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of children’s future social development. Child Development, 67: 2317-2327.

Crosnoe, Robert and Monica Kirkpatrick Johnson. 2011. Research on Adolescence in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Sociology, 37(4): 439-460.

Crick, Nicki R. and Kenneth A. Dodge. 1996. Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. Child Development, 67(3): 993-1002.

127

Currie, Candace, Michal Molcho, William Boyce, Bjorn Holstein, Torbjorn Torsheim, and Matthias Richter. 2008. Researching health inequalities in adolescents: The development of the Health Behaviors in School-Aged Children (HBSC) Family Affluence Scale. Social Science & Medicine, 66: 1429-1436. de Bruyn, Eddy H., Antonius H.N. Cillessen, and Inge B. Wissink. 2010. Associations of peer acceptance and perceived popularity with bullying and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(4): 543-566.

De Coster, Stacy and Lisa Kort-Butler. 2006. How general is general strain theory? Assessing determinacy and indeterminacy across life domains. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(4): 297-325.

Desmond, Scott A., Jeffrey T. Ulmer, and Christopher D. Bader. 2013. Religion, self control, and substance use. Deviant Behavior, 34(5): 384-406.

Desmond, Scott A., Kristopher H. Morgan, and George Kikuchi. 2010. Religious development: How (and why) does religiosity change from adolescence to young adulthood? Sociological Perspectives, 53(2): 247-270.

Donaldson James, Susan. 2015. “Jewish Bullying Victim Recalls Slurs and Beatings in N.Y. School” June 15th 2015. NBC News. Retrieved April 13th 2020 at https://www.nbcnews.com/health/kids-health/jewish-bullying-victim-recalls-slurs- beatings-n-y-school-n390186.

Duffy, Amanda L. and Drew Nesdale. 2009. Peer groups, social identity, and children’s bullying behavior. Social Development, 18(1): 121-138.

Dupper, David R., Shandra Forrest-Bank, and Autumn Lowry-Carusillo. 2015. Experiences of religious minorities in public school settings: Findings from focus groups involving Muslim, Jewish, Catholic, and Unitarian Universalist youth. Children & Schools, 37(1): 37-45.

Ebstyne King, Pamela and James L. Furrow. 2004. Religion as a resource for positive youth development: Religion, social capital, and moral outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 40(5): 703-713.

Ebstyne King, Pamela. 2003. Religion and identity: The role of ideological, social, and spiritual contexts. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3): 197-204.

Ebstyne King, Pamela, James L. Furrow, and Natalie Roth. 2002. The influence of families and peers on adolescent religiousness. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 21(2): 109-120.

Eccles, Jacquelynne S. and Robert W. Roeser. 2011. Schools as developmental contexts during adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1): 225-241.

128

Edgell, Penny, Douglas Hartmann, Evan Stewart, and Joseph Gerteis. 2016. Atheists and other culture outsiders: Moral boundaries and the non-religious in the United States. Social Forces, 95(2): 607-638.

Edgell, Penny, Joseph Gerteis, and Douglas Hartmann. 2006. Atheists as “other”: Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review, 71: 211-234.

Eisenberg, Marla E., Dianne Neumark-Sztainer, and Cheryl L. Perry. 2003. Peer harassment, school connectedness, and academic achievement. Journal of School Health, 73(8): 311-316.

Ellison, Christopher G., Matt Bradshaw, Kevin J. Flannelly, and Kathleen C. Galek. 2014. Prayer, attachment to God, and symptoms of anxiety-related disorders among U.S. adults. Sociology of Religion, 75(2): 208-233.

Ellison, Christopher G. and Jinwoo Lee. 2010. Spiritual struggles and psychological distress: Is there a dark side of religion? Social Indicators Research, 98: 501-517.

Ellison, Christopher G., Amy M. Burdette, and Terrence D. Hill. 2009. Blessed assurance: Religion, anxiety, and tranquility among US adults. Social Science Research, 38: 656-667.

Ellison, Christopher G., Matt Bradshaw, Sunshine Rote, Jennifer Storch, and Marcie Trevino. 2008. Religion and alcohol use among college students: Exploring the role of domain-specific salience. Journal of Drug Issues, 38(3): 821-846.

Ellison, Christopher G., Jason D. Boardman, David R. Williams, and James S. Jackson. 2001. Religious involvement, stress, and mental health: Findings from the 1995 Detroit Area Study. Social Forces, 80(1): 215-249.

Enders, Craig K. and Davood Tofighi. 2007. Centering predictor variables in cross- sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2): 121-138.

Epstein, Greg M. 2010. Good without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Do Believe. Harper Collins: New York.

Erickson, Joseph A. 1992. Adolescent religious development and commitment: A structural equation model of the role of family, peer group, and educational influences. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31(2): 131-152.

Espelage, Dorothy. 2014. Ecological theory: Preventing youth bullying, aggression, and victimization. Theory Into Practice, 53(4): 257-264.

129

Espelage, Dorothy, Mrinalini A. Rao, and Lisa De La Rue. 2013. Current research on school-based bullying: A social-ecological perspective. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 22(1): 7-21.

Espelage, Dorothy L. and Susan M. Swearer. 2003. Research on school bullying and victimization: What have we learned and where do we go from here? School Psychology Review, 32(3): 365-383.

Evans, Caroline B.R., Paul R. Smokowski, Roderick A. Rose, Melissa C. Mercado, and Khiya J. Marshall. 2019. Cumulative bullying experiences, adolescent behaviors and mental health, and academic achievement: An integrative model of perpetration, victimization, and bystander behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28: 2415-2428.

Farrington, David P. and Anna Costanza Baldry. 2010. Individual risk factors for school bullying. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 2(1): 4-16.

Fisher, Sycarah, Kyndra Middleton, Elizabeth Ricks, Celeste Malone, Candyce Briggs, and Jessica Barnes. 2015. Not just black and white: Peer victimization and the intersectionality of school diversity and race. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44: 1241-1250.

Fletcher, Jason and Sanjeev Kumar. 2014. Religion and risky health behaviors among U.S. adolescents and adults. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 104: 123-140.

Fluck, Julia. 2017. Why do students bully? An analysis of motives behind violence in schools. Youth & Society, 49(5): 567-587.

Folkman, Susan. 2008. The case for positive emotions in the stress process. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 21(1): 3-14.

Forliti, John E. and Peter L. Benson. 1986. Young adolescents: A national study. Religious Education, 81(2): 199-224.

Forrest-Bank, Shandra S. and David R. Dupper. 2016. A qualitative study of coping with religious minority status in public schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 61: 261-270.

Frazier, Patricia A., Andrew P. Tix, and Kenneth E. Barron. 2004. Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51(1): 115-134.

Frisen, Ann, Anna-karin Jonsson, and Camilla Persson. 2007. Adolescents’ perception of bullying: Who is the victim? Who is the bully? What can be done to stop bullying? Adolescence, 42(168): 749-761.

130

Frugard-Strom, Ida, Siri Thoresen, Tore Wentzel-Larsen, and Grete Dyb. 2013. Violence, bullying, and academic achievement: A study of 15-year-old adolescents and their school environment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37: 243-251.

Furrow, James L., Pamela Ebstyne King, and Krystal White. 2004. Religion and positive youth development: Identity, meaning, and prosocial concerns. Applied Developmental Science, 8(1): 17-26.

Furstenberg, Frank F. 2000. The sociology of adolescence and youth in the 1990s: A critical commentary. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(4): 896-910.

Garandeau, Claire, Ihno A. Lee, and Christina Salmivalli. 2014. Inequality matters: Classroom status hierarchy and adolescent’s bullying. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43: 1123-1133.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity Press: Cambridge.

Geller, Joanna D., Adam Voight, Holly Wegman, and Maury Nation. 2013. How do varying types of youth civic engagement relate to perceptions of school climate? Applied Developmental Science, 17(3): 135-147.

Gendron, Brian P., Kirk R. Williams, and Nancy G. Guerra. 2011. An analysis of bullying among students within schools: Estimating the effects of individual normative beliefs, self-esteem, and school climate. Journal of School Violence, 10(2): 150-164.

George, Linda K., Christopher G. Ellison, and David B. Larson. 2002. Explaining relationships between religious involvement and health. Psychological Inquiry, 13(3): 190-200.

Gini, Gianluca, Tiziana Pozzoli, and Shelly Hymel. 2014. Moral disengagement among children and youth: A meta-analytic review of links to aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 40: 56-68.

Gini, Gianluca and Tiziana Pozzoli. 2009. Association between bullying and psychosomatic problems: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 123(3): 1059-1065.

Gini, Gianluca, Tiziana Pozzoli, Francesco Borghi, and Lara Franzoni. 2008. The role of bystanders in students’ perception of bullying and sense of safety. Journal of School Psychology, 46: 617-638.

Gini, Gianluca, Paolo Albiero, Beatrice Benelli, and Gianmarco Altoe. 2007. Does empathy predict adolescents’ bullying and defending behavior? Aggressive Behavior, 33: 467-476.

131

Gladden, R. Matthew, Alana M. Vivolo-Kantor, Merle E. Hamburger, and Corey D. Lumpkin. 2014. Bullying Surveillance Among Youths: Uniform Definitions for Public Health and Recommended Data Elements, Version 1.0. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Education: Atlanta, GA.

Glover, Derek, Gerry Gough, Michael Johnson, and Netta Cartwright. 2000. Bullying in 25 secondary schools: incidence, impact and intervention. Educational Research, 42(2): 141-156.

Goossaert, Vincent. 2005. The concept of religion in China and the West. Diogenes, 205: 13-20.

Graham, Jesse and Jonathan Haidt. 2010. Beyond beliefs: Religion bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1): 140-150.

Greenberg, Anna. 2000. The church and the revitalization of politics and community. Political Science Quarterly, 115(3): 377-394.

Guerra, Nancy G., Kirk R. Williams, and Shelly Sadek. 2011. Understanding bullying and victimization during childhood and adolescence: A mixed methods study. Child Development, 82(1): 295-310.

Hausman, Jerry A. 1978. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46(6): 1251- 1272.

Hawker, David S. J. and Michael J. Boulton. 2000. Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross- sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(1): 441-455.

Held, Mary L. and Sungkyu Lee. 2017. Discrimination and mental health among Latinos: Variation by place of origin. Journal of Mental Health, 26(5): 405-210.

Helms, Sarah W. Michelle Gallagher, Casey D. Calhoun, Sophia Choukas-Bradley, Glen C. Dawson, and Mitchell J. Prinstein. 2015. Intrinsic religiosity buffers the longitudinal effects of peer victimization on adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(3): 471-479.

Hemming, Peter J. and Nicola Madge. 2011. Researching children, youth, and religion: Identity, complexity and agency. Childhood, 19(1): 38-51.

Hertz, Marci Feldman, Sherry Everett Jones, Lisa Barrios, Corinne David-Ferdon, and Melissa Holt. 2015. Association between bullying victimization and health risk behaviors among high school students in the United States. Journal of School Health, 85(12): 833-841.

132

Hill, Peter C. and Kenneth I. Pargament. 2003. Advances in the conceptualization and measurement of religion and spirituality. Implications for physical and mental health research. American Psychologist, 58(1): 64-74.

Hill, Terrence D., Christopher G. Ellison, Amy M. Burdette, and Marc A. Musick. 2007. Religious involvement and healthy lifestyles: Evidence from the Survey of Texas Adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 34(2): 218-222.

Himmelfarb, Harold S. 1979. Agents of religious socialization among American Jews. The Sociological Quarterly, 20: 477-494.

Hinduja, Sameer and Justin W. Patchin. 2010. Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3): 206-221.

Hirschi, Travis and Rodney Stark. 1969. Hellfire and delinquency. Social Problems, 17(2): 202-213.

Holt, Melissa K., Glenda Kaufman Kantor, and David Finkelhor. 2008. Parent/child concordance about bullying involvement and family characteristics related to bullying and peer victimization. Journal of School Violence, 8(1): 42-63.

Hong, Jun Sung and Dorothy L. Espelage. 2012. A review of research on bullying and peer victimization in school: An ecological system analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17: 311-322.

Hong, Jun Sung and James Garbarino. 2012. Risk and protective factors for homophobic bullying in schools: An application of the social-ecological framework. Educational Psychology Review, 24: 271-285.

Hope, Meredith O. and Eric Buhs. 2018. Victimization and religious engagement: Links to school attachment and subsequent adjustment outcomes. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, In press.

Houbre, Barbara, Cyril Tarquinio, Isabelle Thuillier, and Emmanuelle Hergott. 2006. Bullying among students and its consequences on health. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 21(2): 183-208.

Hout, Michael and Claude S. Fischer. 2002. Why more Americans have no religious preference: Politics and generations. American Sociological Review, 67(2): 165-190.

Hunsberger, Bruce, Michael Pratt, and S. Mark Pancer. 2002. A longitudinal study of religious doubts in high school and beyond: Relationships, stability, and searching for answers. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(2): 255-266.

Hunt, Matthew O. and Larry L. Hunt. 2000. Regional religions? Extending the “semi

133

involuntary” thesis of African-American religious participation. Sociological Forum, 15(4): 569-594.

Hymel, Shelly and Susan M. Swearer. 2015. Four decades of research on school bullying: An introduction. American Psychologist, 70(4): 293-299.

Hymel, Shelly and Rina A. Bonanno. 2014. Moral disengagement processes in bullying. Theory Into Practice, 53(4): 278-285.

Iannotti, Ronald J. 2010. “Health Behavior in School-Aged Children (HBSC) 2009-2010: Student Survey”. United States Department of Health and Human Services and Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann Arbor, MI. Retrieved April 13th 2020 at: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/34792?q=health+behavior+in+ school+aged+children.

Janssen, Ian, Wendy M. Craig, William F. Boyce, and William Pickett. 2004. Associations between overweight and obesity with bullying behaviors in school-aged children. Pediatrics, 113(5): 1187-1194.

Jansen, Pauline W., Marina Verlinden, Anke Dommisse-van Berkel, Cathelijne Mieloo, Jan van der Ende, Rene Veenstra, Frank C. Verhulst, Wilma Jansen, and Henning Tiemeier. 2012. Prevalence of bullying and victimization among children in early elementary school: Do family and school neighbourhood socioeconomic status matter. BMC Public Health, 12: 494-504.

Johnson, Byron R., Sung Joon Jang, David B. Larson, and Spencer De Li. 2001. Does adolescent religious commitment matter? A reexamination of the effects of religiosity on delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(1): 22-44.

Johnson, Martin A. 1973. Family life and religious commitment. Review of Religious Research, 14(3): 144-150.

Jordanova, Vesna, Mike J. Crawford, Sally McManus, Paul Bebbington, and Traolach Brugha. 2015. Religious discrimination and common mental disorders in England: A nationally representative population-based study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 50: 1723-1729.

Juvonen, Jaana, Yueyan Wang, and Guadalupe Espinoza. 2011. Bullying experiences and compromised academic performance across middle school grades. Journal of Early Adolescence. 31(1): 152-173.

Juvonen, Janna, Adrienne Nishina, and Sandra Graham. 2006. Ethnic diversity and perceptions of safety in urban middle schools. Psychological Science, 17(5): 393-400.

134

Juvonen, Janna and Sandra Graham. 2001. Peer Harassment in School: The Plight of the Vulnerable and Victimized. The Guilford Press: New York.

Kaltiala-Heino, Riittakerttu, Matti Rimpela, Paivi Rantanen, and Arja Rimpela. 2000. Bullying at school-An indicator of adolescents at risk for mental disorders. Journal of Adolescence, 23: 661-674.

Kasen, Stephanie, Kathy Berenson, Patricia Cohen, and Jeffrey G. Johnson. 2004. “The effects of school climate on changes in aggressive and other behaviors related to bullying”. Pp. 187-210 in Bullying in American Schools: A Social-Ecological Perspective on Prevention and Intervention, Eds. D.L. Espelage and S.M. Swearer. Lawrence Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.

Kezdy, Aniko, Tamas Martos, Vivian Boland, and Katalin Horvath-Szabo. 2011. Religious doubts and mental health in adolescence and young adulthood: The association with religious attitudes. Journal of Adolescence, 34: 39-47.

Kim, Young Shin, Bennett L. Leventhal, Yun-Joo Koh, Alan Hubbard, and W. Thomas Boyce. 2006. School bullying and youth violence: Causes or consequences of psychopathologic behavior? Archives of General Psychiatry, 63: 1035-1041.

Klein, Jennifer, Dewey Cornell, and Timothy Konold. 2012. Relationships between bullying, school climate, and student risk behaviors. Social Psychology Quarterly, 27(3): 154-169.

Koenig, Harold G. 2012. Religion, spirituality, and health: The research and clinical implications. ISRN Psychiatry, 2012: 1-33. doi:10.5402/2012/278730.

Koenig, Harold G., Dana E. King, and Verna Benner Carson. 2012. Handbook of Religion and Health, 2nd Edition. Oxford: New York.

Krause, Neal, Berit Ingersoll-Dayton, Christopher G. Ellison, and Keith M. Wulff. 1999. Aging, religious doubt, and psychological well-being. The Gerontologist, 39(5): 525- 533.

Kroger, Jane. 2007. Identity Development: Adolescence through Adulthood, 2nd Edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Kurtz, Lester R. 2015. Gods in the Global Village: The World’s Religions in Sociological Perspective, 4th edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Landor, Antoinette, Leslie Gordon Simons, Ronald L. Simons, Gene H. Brody, and Frederick X. Gibbons. 2011. The role of religiosity in the relationship between parents, peers, and adolescent risky sexual behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40: 296-309.

135

Lereya, Suzet Tanya, William E. Copeland, Stanley Zammit, and Dieter Wolke. 2015. Bully/victims: A longitudinal, population-based cohort study of their mental health. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 24: 1461-1471.

Lester, Leanne, Donna Cross, Therese Shaw, and Julian Dooley. 2012. Adolescent bully- victims: Social health and the transition to secondary school. Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(2): 213-233.

Lim, Chaeyoon and Robert D. Putnam 2010. Religion, social networks, and life satisfaction. American Sociological Review, 75(6): 914-933.

Lincoln, C. Eric and Lawrence H. Mamiya. 1990. The Black Church in the African American Experience. Duke University Press: Durham, NC.

Link, Bruce G. and Jo C. Phelan. 2001. Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 363-385.

Low, Sabina and Dorothy Espelage. 2013. Differentiating cyber bullying perpetration from non-physical bullying: Commonalities across race, individual, and family predictors. Psychology of Violence, 3(1): 39-52.

Ma, Xin. 2002. Bullying in middle school: Individual and school characteristics of victims and offenders. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(1): 63-89.

Markstrom, Carol A. 1999. Religious involvement and adolescent psychosocial development. Journal of Adolescence, 22: 205-221.

McCullough, Michael E. and Brian Willoughby. 2009. Religion, self-regulation, and self- control: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135: 69-93.

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. “Mind, Self, & Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist”, Charles W. Morris, Ed. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Modecki, Kathryn L., Jeannie Minchin, Allen G. Harbaugh, Nancy G. Guerra, and Kevin C. Runions. 2014. Bullying prevalence across contexts: A meta-analysis measuring cyber and traditional bullying. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55: 602-611.

Moon, Byongook and Sung Joon Jang. 2014. A general strain approach to psychological and physical bullying: A study of interpersonal aggression at school. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(12): 2147-2171.

Murray-Close, Dianna and Jamie M. Ostrov. 2009. A longitudinal study of forms and functions of aggressive behavior in early childhood. Child Development, 80(3): 828- 842.

136

Myers, Scott M. 1996. An interactive model of religiosity inheritance: The importance of family context. American Sociological Review, 61(5): 858-866.

Nadal, Kevin L., Marie-Anne Issa, Katie E. Griffin, Sahran Hamit, and Oliver B. Lyons. 2010. “Religious Microaggressions in the United States: Mental Health Implications for Religious Minority Groups”. Pp. 287-310 in Microaggression and Marginality: Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact. Donald Wing Sue, Editor. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ.

Nadimpalli, Sarah B. and M. Katherine Hutchinson. 2012. An integrative review of relationships between discrimination and Asian American health. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 44(2): 127-135.

Nansel, Tonja R., Mary Overpeck, Ramani S. Pilla, W. June Ruan, Bruce Simons- Morton, and Peter Scheidt. 2001. Bullying behaviors among US youth: Prevalence and association with psychosocial adjustment. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(16): 2094-2100.

Nation, Maury, Alessio Vieno, Douglas D. Perkins, and Massimo Santinello. 2008. Bullying in school and adolescent sense of empowerment: An analysis of relationships with parents, friends, and teachers. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18: 211-232.

National Center for Educational Statistics. 2019. “Student Reports of Bullying: Results from the 2015 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey”. Institute of Education Sciences: United States Department of Education.

National Center for Educational Statistics. 2018. “Indicator 7: Discipline Problems Reported by Public Schools.” Institute of Education Sciences. United States Department of Education. Retrieved April 13th 2020 at https://nces.ed.gov/programs/crimeindicators/ind_07.asp.

National Center for Educational Statistics. 2016. “Student Reports of Bullying: Results from the 2015 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey”. Institute of Education Sciences: United States Department of Education.

National Study of Youth and Religion. 2001-2015. “Methodological Design and Procedures for the National Study of Youth and Religion (NSYR) Longitudinal Telephone Survey (Waves 1, 2, & 3)”. University of Notre Dame: Notre Dame, IN.

Natvig, Gerd Karin, Grethe Albrektsen, and Ulla Qvarnstrom. 2001. Psychosomatic symptoms among victims of school bullying. Journal of Health Psychology, 6(4): 365-377.

Newman, Matthew L., George W. Holden, and Yvon Delville. 2005. Isolation and the stress of being bullied. Journal of Adolescence, 28: 343-257.

137

Nooney, Jennifer G. 2005. Religion, stress, and mental health in adolescence: Findings from Add Health. Review of Religious Research, 46(4): 341-354.

O’Brennan, Lindsey M., Catherine P. Bradshaw, and Anne L. Sawyer. 2009. Examining developmental differences in the social-emotional problems among frequent bullies, victims, and bully/victims. Psychology in the Schools, 46(2): 100-115.

Obermann, Marie-Louise. 2011. Moral disengagement in self-reported and peer- nominated school bullying. Aggressive Behavior, 37: 133-144.

Olweus, Dan. 1997. Bully/victim problems in school: Facts and intervention. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 12(4): 495-510.

Pachter, Lee M., Cleopatra Caldwell, James S. Jackson, and Bruce A. Bernstein. 2018. Discrimination and mental health in a representative sample of African-American and Afro-Caribbean youth. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 5(4): 831- 837.

Pan, Stephen W. and Patricia M. Spittal. 2013. Health effects of perceived racial and religious bullying among urban adolescents in China: A cross-sectional national study. Global Public Health, 8(6): 685-697.

Paez, Gabriel R. 2018. Cyberbullying among adolescents: A general strain theory perspective. Journal of School Violence, 17(1): 74-85.

Page, Matthew J.L., Kristin M. Lindahl, and Neena M. Malik. 2013. The role of religion and stress in sexual identity and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23(4): 665-677.

Pargament, Kenneth I., Harold G. Koenig, and Lisa M. Perez. 2000. The many methods of religious coping: Development and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(4): 519-543.

Patchin, Justin W. and Sameer Hinduja. 2011. Traditional and nontraditional bullying among youth: A test of general strain theory. Youth & Society, 43(2): 727-751.

Pearlin, Leonard I., Scott Schieman, Elena M. Fazio, and Stephen C. Meersman. 2005. Stress, health, and the life course: Some conceptual perspectives. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46: 205-219.

Pearlin, Leonard I. 1989. The sociological study of stress. Journal of Health and Social

138

Behavior, 30(3): 241-256.

Pellegrini, A.D. and Jeffery D. Long. 2002. A longitudinal study of bullying, dominance, and victimization during the transition from primary school through secondary school. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20: 259-280.

Pellegrini, A.D. and Maria Bartini. 2000. A longitudinal study of bullying, victimization, and peer affiliation during the transition from primary school to middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3): 699-725.

Pellegrini, Anthony D., Maria Bartini, and Fred Brooks. 1999. School bullies, victims, and aggressive victims: Factors relating to group affiliation and victimization in early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2): 216-224.

Pepler, Debra, Wendy Craig, Depeng Jiang, and Jennifer Connolly. 2008. Developmental trajectories of bullying and associated factors. Child Development, 79(2): 325-338.

Perren, Sonja and Rainer Hornung. 2005. Bullying and delinquency in adolescence: Victims’ and perpetrators’ family and peer relations. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 64(1): 51-64.

Petts, Richard J. 2014. Family, religious attendance, and trajectories of psychological well-being among youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6): 759-768.

Petts, Richard J. 2009a. Trajectories of religious participation from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(3): 552-571.

Petts, Richard J. 2009b. Family and religious characteristics’ influence on delinquency trajectories from adolescence to young adulthood. American Sociological Review, 74: 465-483.

Pew Research Center. 2019. “For a Lot of American Teens, Religion is a Regular Part of the Public School Day”. Retrieved April 13th 2010 at https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/03/for-a-lot-of-american-teens-religion-is-a- regular-part-of-the-public-school-day/.

Pew Research Center. 2018. “’New Age’ Beliefs Common among Both Religious and Nonreligious Americans”. Retrieved April 13th 2020 at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/01/new-age-beliefs-common-among- both-religious-and-nonreligious-americans/.

Pew Research Center. 2018. “Young adults around the world are less religious by several measures”. Retrieved April 13th 2020 at https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less- religious-by-several-measures/.

139

Pew Research Center. 2015. “Millennials increasingly are driving growth of ‘nones’”. Retrieved April 13th 2020 at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact- tank/2015/05/12/millennials-increasingly-are-driving-growth-of-nones/.

Pew Research Center. 2014. “Religious Landscape Study: Younger Millennials.” Retrieved April 13th 2020 at https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape- study/generational-cohort/younger-millennial/.

Polanin, Joshua R., Dorothy L. Espelage, and Therese D. Pigott. 2012. A meta-analysis of school-based bullying prevention programs’ effects on bystander intervention behavior. School Psychology Review, 41(1): 47-65.

Poole, Thomas G. 2017. “Black Families and the Black Church: A Sociohistorical Perspective. Pp. 33-38 in Black Families: Interdisciplinary Perspectives 2nd edition, Harold E. Cheatham and James B. Stewart, eds. London: Routledge.

Priest, Naomi, Anne Kavanagh, Laia Becares, and Tania King. 2019. Cumulative effects of bullying and racial discrimination on adolescent health in Australia. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 60(3): 344-361.

Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Anthony S. Byrk. 2002. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Regnerus, Mark D. and Jeremy E. Uecker. 2006. Finding faith, losing faith: The prevalence and context of religious transformations during adolescence. Review of Religious Research, 47(3): 217-237.

Regnerus, Mark D. 2003. Moral communities and adolescent delinquency: Religious contexts and community social control. The Sociological Quarterly, 44(4): 523-554.

Regnerus, Mark D. and Glen H. Elder. 2003. Staying on track in school: Religious influences in high- and low-risk settings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(4): 633-649.

Reynolds, Nina, Sylvie Mrug, Kelly Wolfe, David Schwebel, and Jan Wallander. 2016. Spiritual coping, psychosocial adjustment, and physical health in youth with chronic illness: A meta-analytic review. Health Psychology Review, 10(2): 226-243.

Rigby, Ken. 2003. Consequences of bullying in schools. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 48(9): 583-590.

Rigby, Ken. 2000. Effects of peer victimization in schools and perceived social support on adolescent well-being. Journal of Adolescence, 23: 57-68.

Rippy, Alyssa E. and Elena Newman. 2006. Perceived religious discrimination and its

140

relationship to anxiety and paranoia among Muslim Americans. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 1: 5-20.

Rivers, Ian, V. Paul Poteat, Nathalie Noret, and Nigel Ashurst. 2009. Observing bullying at school: The mental health implications of witness status. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(4): 211-223.

Rubin-Vaughan, Alice, Debra Pepler, Steven Brown, and Wendy Craig. 2011. Quest for the golden rule: An effective social skills promotion and bullying prevention program. Computers & Education, 56: 166-175.

Salas-Wright, Christopher, Michael G. Vaughn, and Brandy R. Maynard. 2014. Religiosity and violence among adolescents in the United States: Findings from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health 2006-2010. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(7): 1178-1200.

Salas-Wright, Christopher P., Michael G. Vaughn, David R. Hodge, and Brian E. Perron. 2012. Religiosity profiles of American youth in relation to substance use, violence, and delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41: 1560-1575.

Salmivalli, Christina. 2014. Participant roles in bullying: How can peer bystanders be utilized in interventions? Theory Into Practice, 53(4): 286-292.

Salmivalli, Christina. 2010. Bullying and the peer group: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15: 112-120.

Sapolsky, Robert M. 2004. Social status and health in humans and other animals. Annual Review of Anthropology, 33: 393-418.

Sawyer, Anne L., Catherine P. Bradshaw, and Lindsey M. O’Brennan. 2008. Examining ethnic, gender, and developmental differences in the way children report being a victim of “bullying” on self-report measures. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43: 106- 114.

Schieman, Scott, Alex Bierman, and Christopher G. Ellison. 2013. “Religion and Mental Health”. Pp. 457-478 in Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health, 2nd edition, Carol S. Aneshensel, Jo C. Phelan, and Alex Bierman, eds. Springer: New York.

Schieman, Scott, Christopher G. Ellison, and Alex Bierman. 2010. Religious involvement, beliefs about God, and the sense of mattering among older adults. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49(3): 517-535.

Schlundt, David G., Monica D. Franklin, Kushal Patel, Linda McClellan, Celia Larson, Sarah Niebler, and Margaret Hargreaves. 2008. Religious affiliation and health behaviors and outcomes: Data from the Nashville REACH 2010 Project. American Journal of Health Behavior, 32(6): 714-724.

141

Schwartz, David. 2000. Subtypes of victims and aggressors in children’s peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28(2): 181-192.

Seals, Dorothy and Jerry Young. 2003. Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38(152): 735-747.

Shariff, Azim F. and Ara Norenzayan. 2007. God is watching you: Priming God concepts increases prosocial behavior in an anonymous economic game. Psychological Science, 18(9): 803-809.

Sharp, Shane. 2010. How does prayer help manage emotions? Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(4): 417-437.

Sheridan, Lorraine P. 2006. Islamophobia pre- and post-September 11th, 2001. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21(3): 317-336.

Sherkat, Darren. 2003. “Religious socialization: Sources of influence and influences of agency”. In Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, ed. Michele Dillon. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK.

Singh, Winty. 2018. “This is what a Sikh child faces in America”. CNN June 25th 2018. Retrieved April 6th 2020 at https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/opinions/sikh-faith- bullied-winty-singh-opinion/index.html.

Sinha, Jill W., Ram A. Cnaan, and Richard W. Gelles. 2007. Adolescent risk behaviors and religion: Findings from a national study. Journal of Adolescence, 30: 231-249.

Smith, Christian and Melina Lundquist Denton. 2005. Soul-searching: The religious and spiritual lives of American teenagers. Oxford University Press: New York.

Smith, Christian, Robert Faris, Melinda Lundquist Denton, and Mark Regnerus. 2003. Mapping American adolescent subjective religiosity and attitudes of alienation toward religion: A research report. Sociology of Religion, 64(1): 111-133.

Smith, Christian 2003a. Research note: Religious participation and parental moral expectations and supervision of American youth. Review of Religious Research, 44(4): 414-424.

Smith, Christian. 2003b. Theorizing religious effects among American adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(1): 17-30.

Smith, Christian. 2003c. Religious participation and network closure among American adolescents. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42(2): 259-267.

142

Snell, Patricia. 2009. What difference does youth group make? A longitudinal analysis of religious youth group participation outcomes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(3): 572-587.

Sourander, Andre, John Ronning, Anat Brunstein-Klomek, David Gyllenberg, Kirsti Kumpulainen, Solja Niemela, Hans Helenius, Lauri Sillanmaki, Terja Ristkari, Tuula Tamminen, Irma Moilanen, Jorma Piha, and Fredrik Almqvist. 2009. Childhood bullying behavior and later psychiatric hospital and psychopharmacologic treatment. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66(9): 1005-1012.

Sourander, Andre, Peter Jensen, John A. Ronning, Solja Niemela, Hans Helenius, Lauri Sillanmaki, Kirsti Kumpulainen, Jorma Piha, Tuula Tamminen, Irma Moilanen, and Fredrik Almqvist. 2007. What is the early adulthood outcome of boys who bully or are bullied in childhood? The Finnish “From a Boy to a Man” study. Pediatrics, 120(2): 397-404.

Spriggs, Aubrey L., Ronald J. Iannotti, Tonja R. Nansel, and Denise L. Haynie. 2007. Adolescent bullying involvement and perceived family, peer and school relations: Commonalities and differences across race/ethnicity. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(3): 283-293.

Stark, Rodney. 1996. Religion as context: Hellfire and delinquency one more time. Sociology of Religion, 57(2): 163-173.

Steensland, Brian, Jerry Z. Park, Mark D. Regnerus, Lynn D. Robinson, W. Bradford Wilcox, and Robert D. Woodberry. 2000. The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79(1): 291-318.

Stein, Judith A., Richard L. Dukes, and Jazmin I. Warren. 2006. Adolescent male bullies, victims, and bully-victims: A comparison of psychosocial and behavioral characteristics. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 32(3): 273-282.

Stets, Jan E. and Peter J. Burke. 2000. Identity theory and social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63(3): 224-237.

Swearer, Susan M. and Shelly Hymel. 2015. Understanding the psychology of bullying: Moving toward a social-ecological diathesis-stress model. American Psychologist, 70(4): 344-353.

Swearer, Susan M., Dorothy L. Espelage, Tracy Vaillancourt, and Shelly Hymel. 2010. What can be done about school bullying? Linking research to educational practice. Educational Researcher, 39(1): 38-47.

Swearer, Susan M. and Paulette Tam Cary. 2003. Perceptions and attitudes toward bullying in middle school youth: A developmental examination across the bully/victim continuum. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(2): 63-79.

143

Takizawa, Ryu, Barbara Maughan, and Louise Arseneault. 2014. Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization: Evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(7): 777-784.

Taylor, Robert Joseph, and Linda M. Chatters. 2010. Importance of religion and spirituality in the lives of African Americans, Caribbean Blacks, and non-Hispanic Whites. The Journal of Negro Education, 79(3): 280-294.

Taylor, Robert Joseph, Linda M. Chatters, Rukmalie Jayakody, and Jeffrey S. Levin. 1996. Black and White differences in religious participations: A multisample comparison. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(4): 403-410.

Tepper, Leslie, Steven A. Rogers, Esther M. Coleman, and H. Newton Malony. 2001. The prevalence of religious coping among persons with persistent mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 52(5): 660-665.

Tharp-Taylor Shannah, Amelia Haviland, and Elizabeth J. D’Amico. 2009. Victimization from mental and physically bullying and substance use in early adolescence. Addictive Behaviors, 34(6-7): 561-567.

Thoits, Peggy A. 2013. “Self, Identity, Stress, and Mental Health”. Pp. 357-377 in Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health, Second Edition. Carol S. Aneshensel, Jo C. Phelan, and Alex Bierman, Eds. Springer: New York.

Thoits, Peggy A. 2011. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2): 145-161.

Thoits, Peggy A. 2006. Personal agency in the stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47(4): 309-323.

Thornberg, Robert. 2015a. School bullying as a collective action: Stigma processes and identity struggling. Children & Society, 29: 310-320.

Thornberg, Robert. 2015b. Distressed bullies, social positioning and odd victims: Young people’s explanations of bullying. Children & Society, 29: 15-25.

Thornberg, Robert, Tiziana Pozzoli, Gianluca Gini, and Tomas Jungert. 2015. Unique and interactive effects of moral emotions and moral disengagement on bullying and defending among school children. The Elementary School Journal, 116(2): 322-337.

Thornberg, Robert and Tomas Jungert. 2014. School bullying and the mechanisms of moral disengagement. Aggressive Behavior, 50: 99-108.

Thornberg, Robert. 2011. ‘She’s weird!’ – The social construction of bullying in school: A review of qualitative research. Children & Society, 25: 258-267.

144

Thornberg, Robert and Sven Knutsen. 2011. Teenagers’ explanations of bullying. Child Youth Care Forum, 40: 177-192.

Thunfors, Peter and Dewey Cornell. 2008. The popularity of middle school bullies. Journal of School Violence, 7(1): 65-82.

Trevino, Kelly M., Kenneth I. Pargament, Sian Cotton, Anthony C. Leonard, June Hahn, Carol Ann Caprini-Faigain, and Joel Tsevat. 2010. Religious coping and physiological, psychological, social, and spiritual outcomes in patients with HIV/AIDS: Cross-sectional and longitudinal findings. AIDS and Behavior, 14: 379- 389.

Uchino, Bert N., John T. Cacioppo, and Janice K. Kiecolt-Glaser. 1996. The relationship between social support and physiological processes: A review with emphasis on underlying mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119(3): 488-531.

Uecker, Jeremy E., Mark D. Regnerus, and Margaret L. Vaaler. 2007. Losing my religion: The social sources of religious decline in early adulthood. Social Forces, 85(4): 1667-1692.

Vang, Zoua M., Feng Hou, and Katharine Elder. 2019. Perceived religious discrimination, religiosity, and life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20: 1913-1932.

Vervoort, Miranda H. M., Ron H. J. Scholte, and Geertjan Overbeek. 2010. Bullying and victimization among adolescents: The role of ethnicity and ethnic composition of school class. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39: 1-11.

Waasdorp, Tracy Evian, Elise T. Pas, Lindsey M. O’Brennan, and Catherine P. Bradshaw. 2011. A multilevel perspective on the climate of bullying: Discrepancies among students, school staff, and parents. Journal of School Violence, 10(2): 115- 132.

Wagener, Linda Mans, James L. Furrow, Pamela Ebstyne King, Nancy Leffert, and Peter Benson. 2003. Religious involvement and developmental resources in youth. Review of Religious Research, 44(3): 271-284.

Walden, Laura M. and Tanya N. Beran. 2010. Attachment quality and bullying behavior in school-aged youth. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(1): 5-18.

Wang, Jing, Ronald J. Iannotti, and Tonja R. Nansel. 2009. School bullying among adolescents in the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45: 368-375.

145

White, Ian R., Patrick Royston, and Angela M. Wood. 2011. Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues for guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30: 377- 399.

Williams, Rhys H., Courtney Ann Irby, and R. Stephen Warner. 2016. “Church” in black and white: The organizational lives of young adults. Religions, 90(7): 1-19.

Wolke, Dieter, William E. Copeland, Adrian Angold, and E. Jane Costello. 2013. Impact of bullying in childhood on adult health, wealth, crime, and social outcomes. Psychological Science, 24(10): 1958-1970.

Wong, Y. Joel, Lynn Rew, and Kristina D. Slaikeu. 2006. A systematic review of recent research on adolescent religiosity/spirituality and mental health. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 27: 161-183.

Wu, Zheng and Christoph M. Schimmele. 2019. Perceived religious discrimination and mental health. Ethnicity & Health, doi: 10.1080/13557858.2019.1620176.

Young, Rebekah and David R. Johnson. 2010. “Imputing the missing Y’s: Implications for survey producers and survey users”. Pp. 6242-6248 of the Proceedings of the 64th Annual American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Conference. Chicago, IL.

Youniss, James, Jeffrey A. McLellan, and Miranda Yates. 1999. Religion, community service, and identity in American youth. Journal of Adolescence, 22: 243-253.

Ysseldyk, Renate, Kimberly Matheson, and Hymie Anisman. 2010. Religiosity as identity: Toward an understanding of religion from a social identity perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1): 60-71.

Zeldin, Shepard. 2004. Preventing youth violence through the promotion of community engagement and membership. Journal of Community Psychology, 32(5): 623-641.

Appendix A: Ordinary least squares regression results for potential sources of youth strain on prayer frequency 1 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B SE B SE B SE B SE Bullying measures 2 Victimization .26 .15 .34 * .15 Perpetration -.01 .12 .05 .11 Bully-victimization .00 .13 .06 .13 Religious-related victimization .69 *** .10 .66 *** .10 Parent measures Parental breakup 3 -.27 ** .09 -.24 ** .09 Family stress 4 .03 .05 .05 .05 Unsafe neighborhood 5 -.06 .06 -.08 .05 Youth measures Poor relationships with parents 6 -.42 *** .06 -.41 *** .06 Mended broken friendship 7 .04 .09 .02 .09 Unsatisfied with appearance 8 -.13 *** .04 -.15 *** .04 Feeling sad 9 .00 .05 -.02 .06 Feeling guilty 10 .14 *** .03 .11 *** .03 Controls Age 11 -.03 .03 -.02 .03 -.01 .03 -.03 .03 Female 12 .64 *** .08 .65 *** .08 .70 *** .08 .71 *** .08 Black 13 .78 *** .12 .74 *** .12 .64 *** .11 .72 *** .12 Hispanic/Latino .28 * .13 .28 * .13 .25 .13 .30 * .13 Other race .24 .19 .25 .20 .22 .19 .26 .19 South Census region 14 .56 *** .08 .56 *** .08 .54 *** .08 .53 *** .08 Household income 15 -.01 .01 -.03 .02 -.01 .01 -.02 .02 Constant 4.04 *** .47 4.26 *** .50 4.68 *** .48 4.95 *** .50 1: N=3137 (missing data handled with multiple imputation using chained equations over 10 imputed datasets) 2: Victimization, perpetration, bully-victimization, and religious victimization (1=yes) 3: Youth experienced at least one parental breakup (1=yes) 4: Level of family stress (range 1=none to 4= a lot) 5: Perception of unsafe neighborhood (range 1=very safe to 4=not very safe) 6: Poor relationships with parents (mother and/or father if applicable) (range 1=extremely well to 6=very badly) 7: Worked hard to mend broken friendship over the past year (1=yes)

8: Unsatisfied with appearance (range 1=very happy to 5=very unhappy) 146 9: Feeling sad (range 1=never to 5=almost always)

10: Feeling guilty (range 1=never to 6=very often)

11: Youth age (range 13-17)

Appendix A continued 12: Youth female (1=yes) 13: Youth race (i.e., Black, Hispanic/Latino, other race; White omitted) (1=yes) 14: Youth South Census region (1=yes) 15. Parent household income (range 1=less than $10,000 to 11=more than $100,000) 147

Appendix B: Descriptive statistics – stratified by race/ethnicity Black (N=1961) Hispanic/Latino (N=2068) Other race (N=1594) White (N=5821) Mean SD Min Max Miss 1 Mean SD Min Max Miss Mean SD Min Max Miss Mean SD Min Max Miss F-value Sig. 2 Victimization Religious victimization 1.25 .82 1 5 .13 1.19 .68 1 5 .09 1.24 .80 1 5 .06 1.15 .62 1 5 .05 12.17 *** General peer victimization 1.49 1.04 1 5 .07 1.43 .92 1 5 .06 1.57 1.06 1 5 .03 1.53 1.01 1 5 .02 6.54 *** Mental Health Feeling low 1.95 1.37 1 5 .07 1.86 1.28 1 5 .07 2.06 1.34 1 5 .04 1.90 1.24 1 5 .03 8.00 *** Nervousness 2.24 1.43 1 5 .08 2.19 1.35 1 5 .06 2.41 1.39 1 5 .05 2.31 1.29 1 5 .03 9.32 *** Youth controls Age 13.07 1.82 10 17 .00 12.99 1.70 10 17 .00 12.93 1.77 10 17 .00 12.93 1.73 10 17 .00 3.46 * Female .50 0 1 .00 .47 0 1 .00 .52 0 1 .00 .48 0 1 .00 3.72 * First generation .07 0 1 .06 .20 0 1 .07 .14 0 1 .04 .03 0 1 .02 221.73 *** Number of friends 3.50 .74 1 4 .04 3.52 .74 1 4 .04 3.50 .70 1 4 .01 3.48 .70 1 4 .02 1.93 Time spent with friends 2.71 1.93 0 7 .03 2.56 1.89 0 7 .03 2.34 1.86 0 6.5 .02 2.29 1.73 0 7 .01 31.08 *** Feelings about school 3.02 .88 1 4 .04 3.02 .87 1 4 .04 2.99 .89 1 4 .02 2.99 .87 1 4 .02 .95 Class climate 3.68 .95 1 5 .07 3.70 .83 1 5 .06 3.65 .90 1 5 .03 3.71 .83 1 5 .03 2.11 Both parent family .34 0 1 0 .60 0 1 0 .57 0 1 0 .65 0 1 0 210.02 *** Single parent family .58 0 1 0 .35 0 1 0 .37 0 1 0 .31 0 1 0 158.31 *** Other living arrangement .09 0 1 0 .05 0 1 0 .06 0 1 0 .04 0 1 0 21.29 *** Parent SES 5.64 2.09 0 9 .02 5.22 1.90 0 9 .02 6.04 1.94 0 9 .01 6.32 1.81 0 9 .01 192.40 *** Family relationships 8.92 2.44 1 11 .04 8.80 2.47 1 11 .04 8.49 2.53 1 11 .02 8.97 2.30 1 11 .01 17.00 *** Self-rated health 3.04 .77 1 4 .01 2.88 .79 1 4 .02 2.98 .78 1 4 .01 3.08 .73 1 4 .01 36.06 *** Under or healthy weight .59 0 1 .23 .63 0 1 .27 .69 0 1 .18 .72 0 1 .13 39.27 *** Overweight .23 0 1 .23 .20 0 1 .27 .19 0 1 .18 .16 0 1 .13 14.48 *** Obese .18 0 1 .23 .16 0 1 .27 .13 0 1 .18 .12 0 1 .13 18.25 *** *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444

1: Proportion of missing values 148 2: F-test differences of means/proportions

Appendix C: School-level fixed effects maximum likelihood estimation predicting feeling low by religious victimization – stratified by race/ethnicity (Model 2B) (standardized) Black (N=1961) Hispanic/Latino (N=2068) Other race (N=1594) White (N=5821) B SE B SE B SE B SE Religious victimization .05 .03 .08 *** .03 .00 .03 .04 ** .01 General peer victimization .10 *** .03 .10 *** .03 .12 *** .03 .14 *** .01 Youth controls Age .03 .05 .07 .05 -.05 .06 .06 * .03 Female .14 ** .05 .26 *** .05 .11 * .05 .20 *** .02 First generation .22 .11 .03 .06 -.10 .08 -.01 .07 Number of friends -.04 .02 -.03 .02 .02 .03 -.02 .01 Time spent with friends .06 * .02 -.02 .02 -.01 .03 .01 .01 Feelings about school -.11 *** .03 -.06 * .02 -.13 *** .03 -.08 *** .01 Class climate -.02 .02 -.01 .03 -.04 .03 -.05 *** .01 Single parent family 1 .06 .05 .09 .05 .11 .06 .01 .03 Other living arrangement .22 .10 .21 .12 .04 .12 -.02 .06 Parent SES .00 .02 -.02 .02 -.04 .03 -.01 .01 Family relationships -.24 *** .03 -.27 *** .03 -.25 *** .03 -.27 *** .01 Self-rated health -.13 *** .03 -.11 *** .02 -.19 *** .03 -.11 *** .01 Overweight 2 .07 .07 .12 .07 .17 * .08 .00 .04 Obese .17 * .08 .01 .07 .15 .10 .05 .04 Constant -.17 ** .06 -.26 *** .04 -.09 .05 -.10 *** .02 Variance components Between estimate .66 .58 .57 .40 Within estimate .96 .89 .91 .84 Intraclass correlation .32 .30 .29 .18 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: Living with both parents omitted

2: Under or healthy weight omitted 149

Appendix D: School-level fixed effects maximum likelihood estimation predicting nervousness by religious victimization – stratified by race/ethnicity (Model 2C) (standardized) Black (N=1961) Hispanic/Latino (N=2068) Other race (N=1594) White (N=5821) B SE B SE B SE B SE Religious victimization .03 .03 .03 .03 -.03 .03 .02 .02 General peer victimization .14 *** .03 .11 *** .03 .11 *** .03 .13 *** .01 Youth controls Age .02 .05 -.05 .06 -.11 .06 .06 * .03 Female .16 ** .05 .24 *** .05 .12 * .06 .20 *** .03 First generation .23 * .11 -.02 .06 .00 .08 -.03 .08 Number of friends -.01 .03 .01 .02 .03 .03 -.02 .01 Time spent with friends -.02 .03 .00 .02 -.03 .03 -.02 .01 Feelings about school -.06 * .03 -.01 .03 -.02 .03 -.04 ** .01 Class climate -.03 .03 -.03 .03 -.05 .03 -.04 * .02 Single parent family 1 -.06 .06 .04 .05 -.04 .06 -.08 ** .03 Other living arrangement .04 .10 -.01 .12 -.01 .13 -.03 .07 Parent SES .00 .03 .04 .03 .01 .03 -.01 .01 Family relationships -.13 *** .03 -.14 *** .03 -.12 *** .03 -.13 *** .02 Self-rated health -.13 *** .03 -.11 *** .03 -.14 *** .03 -.11 *** .01 Overweight 2 .11 .07 .09 .08 -.02 .08 -.02 .04 Obese .10 .08 -.12 .08 -.13 .10 -.07 .04 Constant -.14 * .06 -.19 *** .05 .03 .05 -.03 .02 Variance components Between estimate .68 .55 .63 .40 Within estimate 1.00 .97 .97 .90 Intraclass correlation .31 .25 .30 .16 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: Living with both parents omitted

2: Healthy weight omitted 150

151

Appendix E: Random intercept ordered logistic regression predicting religious victimization by race/ethnicity (Model A) Model 1A Model 2A OR 1 OR General peer victimization 1.96 *** Race/ethnicity 2 Black 1.38 ** 1.48 *** Hispanic/Latino .99 1.10 Other race 1.27 * 1.30 * Youth controls Age .86 *** .95 Female .69 *** .73 *** First generation 2.01 *** 1.97 *** Number of friends .89 *** .91 ** Time spent with friends 1.18 *** 1.18 *** Feelings about school .91 * .94 Class climate .73 *** .89 ** Single parent family 3 1.04 .99 Other living arrangement 1.77 *** 1.68 *** Parent SES 1.03 .99 Family relationships .91 * .96 Self-rated health .98 1.01 Overweight 4 1.25 * 1.23 Obese 1.31 * 1.16 Cut points Cut 1 2.55 *** 3.74 *** Cut 2 3.34 *** 4.59 *** Cut 3 3.77 *** 5.05 *** Cut 4 4.23 *** 5.55 *** School-level variance component .20 a .18 b *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: Odds ratio 2: White omitted 3: Living with both parents omitted 4: Under or healthy weight omitted a: Confidence interval (.12, .32) b: Confidence interval (.11, .31)

152

Appendix F: Random intercept ordered logistic regression predicting feeling low by religious victimization and race/ethnicity (Model B) Model 1B Model 2B Model 3B OR 1 OR OR Religious victimization 1.20 *** 1.12 *** 1.11 *** General peer victimization 1.30 *** 1.30 *** Race/ethnicity 2 Black .86 * .88 * .87 * Hispanic/Latino .78 *** .80 *** .80 *** Other race 1.04 1.05 1.05 Youth controls Age 1.07 ** 1.10 *** 1.10 *** Female 1.54 *** 1.57 *** 1.57 *** First generation .96 .97 .96 Number of friends .95 * .95 * .95 * Time spent with friends 1.00 1.00 1.00 Feelings about school .83 *** .83 *** .83 *** Class climate .86 *** .91 *** .92 *** Single parent family 3 1.06 1.05 1.05 Other living arrangement 1.15 1.13 1.13 Parent SES 1.02 1.01 1.01 Family relationships .59 *** .60 *** .60 *** Self-rated health .74 *** .75 *** .75 *** Overweight 4 1.10 1.10 1.10 Obese 1.16 * 1.14 * 1.13 Interactions Black*religious victim 1.06 Hispanic/Latino*religious victim 1.03 Other race*religious victim .92 Cut points Cut 1 .46 *** .46 *** .46 *** Cut 2 1.43 *** 1.45 *** 1.45 *** Cut 3 2.16 *** 2.18 *** 2.18 *** Cut 4 3.08 *** 3.12 *** 3.12 *** School-level variance component .04 a .04 a .04 a *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: Odds ratio 2: White omitted 3: Living with both parents omitted 4: Under or healthy weight omitted a: Confidence interval (.02, .07)

153

Appendix G: Random intercept ordered logistic regression predicting nervousness by religious victimization and race/ethnicity (Model C) Model 1C Model 2C Model 3C OR 1 OR OR Religious victimization 1.10 *** 1.03 1.02 General peer victimization 1.28 *** 1.28 *** Race/ethnicity 2 Black .83 *** .85 ** .84 ** Hispanic/Latino .78 *** .80 *** .80 *** Other race 1.00 1.01 1.01 Youth controls Age 1.00 1.03 1.03 Female 1.41 *** 1.43 *** 1.43 *** First generation .95 .95 .95 Number of friends .98 .99 .99 Time spent with friends .97 .97 .97 Feelings about school .94 ** .95 ** .95 ** Class climate .89 *** .93 *** .93 *** Single parent family 3 .93 .92 * .92 * Other living arrangement .93 .92 .91 Parent SES 1.05 * 1.04 * 1.04 * Family relationships .77 *** .78 *** .78 *** Self-rated health .78 *** .78 *** .78 *** Overweight 4 1.03 1.02 1.02 Obese .91 .89 .89 Interactions Black*religious victim 1.09 Hispanic/Latino*religious victim 1.03 Other race*religious victim .93 Cut points Cut 1 -.43 *** -.44 *** -.44 *** Cut 2 .57 *** .57 *** .57 *** Cut 3 1.47 *** 1.48 *** 1.48 *** Cut 4 2.42 *** 2.45 *** 2.45 *** School-level variance component .05 a .05 a .04 a *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: Odds ratio 2: White omitted 3: Living with both parents omitted 4: Under or healthy weight omitted a: Confidence interval (.03, .08)

154

Appendix H: Random intercept ordered logistic regression predicting feeling low by religious victimization and race/ethnicity – stratified by race/ethnicity (Model 2B) Black a Hispanic/Latino b Other race c White d OR 1 OR OR OR Religious victimization 1.12 * 1.19 *** 1.03 1.11 *** General peer victimization 1.23 *** 1.29 *** 1.28 *** 1.35 *** Youth controls Age .93 1.17 ** .95 1.21 *** Female 1.34 ** 1.79 *** 1.35 ** 1.59 *** First generation 1.48 .95 .76 1.04 Number of friends .92 .94 1.04 .94 * Time spent with friends 1.08 .91 .95 1.02 Feelings about school .80 *** .92 .77 *** .83 *** Class climate .95 .95 .94 .88 *** Single parent family 2 1.16 1.18 1.17 .97 Other living arrangement 1.53 * 1.52 1.25 .88 Parent SES 1.03 1.00 .97 1.03 Family relationships .63 *** .60 *** .61 *** .58 *** Self-rated health .74 *** .77 *** .67 *** .77 *** Overweight 3 1.13 1.26 1.52 ** .97 Obese 1.40 * .96 1.18 1.08 Cut points Cut 1 .77 *** .83 *** .40 *** .35 *** Cut 2 1.55 *** 1.76 *** 1.37 *** 1.45 *** Cut 3 2.12 *** 2.38 *** 2.18 *** 2.28 *** Cut 4 2.88 *** 3.28 *** 3.20 *** 3.30 *** School-level variance component .05 .01 .02 .04 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: Odds ratio 2: Living with both parents omitted 3: Under or healthy weight omitted a: N=1961 b: N=2068 c: N=1594 d: N=5821

155

Appendix I: Random intercept ordered logistic regression predicting nervousness by religious victimization and race/ethnicity – stratified by race/ethnicity (Model 2C) Black a Hispanic/Latino b Other race c White d OR 1 OR OR OR Religious victimization 1.06 1.04 .94 1.03 General peer victimization 1.30 *** 1.27 *** 1.26 *** 1.28 *** Youth controls Age .93 .99 .94 1.12 *** Female 1.29 ** 1.60 *** 1.30 ** 1.42 *** First generation 1.34 .89 .91 .89 Number of friends 1.00 1.01 1.05 .95 Time spent with friends .97 1.02 .95 .96 Feelings about school .92 1.01 .94 .94 * Class climate .93 .95 .93 .93 * Single parent family 2 .93 1.14 .96 .84 ** Other living arrangement 1.08 .88 .90 .87 Parent SES 1.01 1.13 ** 1.02 1.04 Family relationships .82 *** .77 *** .78 *** .76 *** Self-rated health .76 *** .81 *** .75 *** .79 *** Overweight 3 1.19 1.20 1.01 .93 Obese 1.13 .82 .81 .85 Cut points Cut 1 -.04 -.02 -.48 *** -.60 *** Cut 2 .76 *** .88 *** .53 *** .54 *** Cut 3 1.50 *** 1.70 *** 1.37 *** 1.57 *** Cut 4 2.30 *** 2.60 *** 2.37 *** 2.62 *** School-level variance component .03 .00 .11 .07 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: Odds ratio 2: Living with both parents omitted 3: Under or healthy weight omitted a: N=1961 b: N=2068 c: N=1594 d: N=5821

156

Appendix J: Random intercept tobit regression predicting religious victimization by race/ethnicity (standardized) (Model A) Model 1A Model 2A B SE B SE General peer victimization .31 *** .01 Race/ethnicity 1 Black .09 ** .03 .12 *** .03 Hispanic/Latino -.02 .03 .02 .03 Other race .08 ** .03 .08 ** .03 Youth controls Age -.05 *** .01 -.01 .01 Female -.10 *** .02 -.08 *** .02 First generation .24 *** .04 .21 *** .04 Number of friends -.06 *** .01 -.05 *** .01 Time spent with friends .06 *** .01 .05 *** .01 Feelings about school -.03 ** .01 -.02 * .01 Class climate -.11 *** .01 -.04 *** .01 Single parent family 2 .01 .02 .00 .02 Other living arrangement .25 *** .05 .21 *** .05 Parent SES .01 .01 .00 .01 Family relationships -.03 ** .01 -.01 .01 Self-rated health .01 .01 .02 .01 Overweight 3 .09 ** .03 .08 * .03 Obese .08 * .04 .04 .04 Constant -.04 .02 -.04 .02

Variance components Low 4 High Low High Between estimate .14 .11 .17 .12 .09 .15 Within estimate .98 .96 .99 .93 .92 .95 Intraclass correlation .02 .02 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: White omitted 2: Living with both parents omitted 3: Under or healthy weight omitted 4: Confidence interval

157

Appendix K: Random intercept tobit regression predicting feeling low by religious victimization and race/ethnicity (standardized) (Model B) Model 1B Model 2B Model 3B B SE B SE B SE Religious victimization .09 *** .01 .05 *** .01 .05 *** .01 General peer victimization .13 *** .01 .13 *** .01 Race/ethnicity 1 Black -.03 .03 -.01 .03 -.02 .03 Hispanic/Latino -.09 *** .03 -.07 ** .03 -.07 ** .03 Other race .02 .03 .03 .03 .03 .03 Youth controls Age .01 .01 .03 ** .01 .03 ** .01 Female .19 *** .02 .20 *** .02 .20 *** .02 First generation .00 .03 .00 .03 .00 .03 Number of friends -.03 ** .01 -.02 * .01 -.02 * .01 Time spent with friends .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 Feelings about school -.09 *** .01 -.09 *** .01 -.09 *** .01 Class climate -.06 *** .01 -.03 *** .01 -.03 *** .01 Single parent family 2 .05 * .02 .04 * .02 .04 * .02 Other living arrangement .09 * .04 .08 .04 .08 .04 Parent SES .00 .01 .00 .01 .00 .01 Family relationships -.27 *** .01 -.26 *** .01 -.26 *** .01 Self-rated health -.13 *** .01 -.12 *** .01 -.12 *** .01 Overweight 3 .05 .03 .05 .03 .05 .03 Obese .09 ** .03 .08 * .03 .08 * .03 Interactions Black*religious victim .02 .03 Hispanic/Latino*religious victim .00 .03 Other race*religious victim -.04 .02 Constant -.12 *** .02 -.12 *** .02 -.12 *** .02

Variance components Low 4 High Low High Low High Between estimate .08 .05 .11 .08 .05 .11 .08 .05 .11 Within estimate .89 .88 .91 .89 .87 .90 .89 .87 .90 Intraclass correlation .01 .01 .01 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: White omitted 2: Living with both parents omitted 3: Under or healthy weight omitted 4: Confidence interval

158

Appendix L: Random intercept tobit regression predicting nervousness by religious victimization and race/ethnicity (standardized) (Model C) Model 1C Model 2C Model 3C B SE B SE B SE Religious victimization .05 *** .01 .02 .01 .01 .02 General peer victimization .13 *** .01 .13 *** .01 Race/ethnicity 1 Black -.05 .03 -.04 .03 -.04 .03 Hispanic/Latino -.10 *** .03 -.09 ** .03 -.09 ** .03 Other race .02 .03 .02 .03 .03 .03 Youth controls Age .00 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 Female .19 *** .02 .19 *** .02 .19 *** .02 First generation -.01 .04 -.01 .04 -.01 .04 Number of friends -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Time spent with friends -.01 .01 -.01 .01 -.01 .01 Feelings about school -.03 ** .01 -.03 ** .01 -.03 ** .01 Class climate -.06 *** .01 -.03 *** .01 -.03 ** .01 Single parent family 2 -.03 .02 -.04 .02 -.04 .02 Other living arrangement -.01 .05 -.02 .05 -.02 .05 Parent SES .02 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 Family relationships -.14 *** .01 -.13 *** .01 -.13 *** .01 Self-rated health -.13 *** .01 -.12 *** .01 -.12 *** .01 Overweight 3 .03 .03 .03 .03 .02 .03 Obese -.03 .03 -.05 .03 -.05 .03 Interactions Black*religious victim .04 .02 Hispanic/Latino*religious victim .01 .03 Other race*religious victim -.04 .03 Constant -.05 ** .02 -.06 ** .02 -.06 ** .02

Variance components Low 4 High Low High Low High Between estimate .10 .08 .13 .10 .07 .13 .10 .07 .13 Within estimate .95 .94 .97 .95 .93 .96 .95 .93 .96 Intraclass correlation .01 .01 .01 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444 1: White omitted 2: Living with both parents omitted 3: Under or healthy weight omitted 4: Confidence interval

Appendix M: Random intercept tobit regression predicting feeling low by religious victimization and race/ethnicity – stratified by race/ethnicity (Model 2B) (standardized) Black (N=1961) Hispanic/Latino (N=2068) Other race (N=1594) White (N=5821) B SE B SE B SE B SE Religious victimization .07 * .03 .10 *** .03 .02 .03 .07 *** .02 General peer victimization .15 *** .04 .15 *** .03 .17 *** .03 .19 *** .02 Youth controls Age -.08 * .03 .06 * .03 -.03 .03 .08 *** .02 Female .17 ** .06 .35 *** .06 .17 ** .06 .26 *** .03 First generation .30 * .13 .00 .07 -.15 .09 -.02 .09 Number of friends -.05 .03 -.04 .03 .02 .03 -.04 * .02 Time spent with friends .06 * .03 -.04 .03 -.02 .03 .01 .02 Feelings about school -.13 *** .03 -.07 * .03 -.16 *** .03 -.11 *** .02 Class climate -.03 .03 -.02 .03 -.03 .03 -.06 *** .02 Single parent family 1 .10 .07 .12 * .06 .14 * .07 .01 .03 Other living arrangement .31 ** .12 .23 .14 .13 .14 -.02 .08 Parent SES .00 .03 -.01 .03 -.02 .03 .00 .02 Family relationships -.31 *** .03 -.33 *** .03 -.31 *** .03 -.34 *** .02 Self-rated health -.17 *** .03 -.13 *** .03 -.23 *** .03 -.14 *** .02 Overweight 2 .07 .09 .13 .09 .24 ** .09 .00 .04 Obese .21 * .09 .03 .08 .15 .11 .06 .05 Constant 1.71 *** .07 1.60 *** .05 1.79 *** .06 1.80 *** .03

Variance components Low 3 High Low High Low High Low High Between estimate .13 .01 .25 .06 -.32 .44 .04 -.72 .79 .08 .02 .15 Within estimate 1.24 1.19 1.28 1.15 1.11 1.19 1.17 1.13 1.21 1.09 1.07 1.11 Intraclass correlation .01 .00 .00 .01 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444

1: Living with both parents omitted 159 2: Under or healthy weight omitted 3: Confidence interval

Appendix N: Random intercept tobit regression predicting nervousness by religious victimization and race/ethnicity – stratified by race/ethnicity (Model 2C) (standardized) Black (N=1961) Hispanic/Latino (N=2068) Other race (N=1594) White (N=5821) B SE B SE B SE B SE Religious victimization .05 .03 .03 .03 -.04 .03 .02 .02 General peer victimization .20 *** .04 .17 *** .04 .18 *** .04 .17 *** .02 Youth controls Age -.06 .03 -.02 .03 -.05 .04 .07 *** .02 Female .19 ** .07 .35 *** .06 .17 * .07 .26 *** .03 First generation .24 .13 -.04 .08 -.07 .10 -.06 .10 Number of friends -.01 .03 .02 .03 .04 .04 -.03 .02 Time spent with friends -.02 .03 .01 .03 -.03 .04 -.02 .02 Feelings about school -.05 .03 .00 .03 -.04 .04 -.05 ** .02 Class climate -.04 .03 -.04 .03 -.06 .04 -.04 * .02 Single parent family 1 -.05 .07 .08 .06 -.03 .07 -.10 ** .04 Other living arrangement .06 .12 -.04 .15 -.07 .15 -.03 .09 Parent SES .00 .03 .07 * .03 .01 .04 .00 .02 Family relationships -.15 *** .04 -.19 *** .03 -.17 *** .04 -.18 *** .02 Self-rated health -.19 *** .03 -.14 *** .03 -.19 *** .04 -.16 *** .02 Overweight 2 .13 .09 .13 .10 .03 .10 -.03 .05 Obese .12 .10 -.13 .10 -.15 .13 -.09 .06 Constant 2.12 *** .07 2.02 *** .06 2.31 *** .07 2.25 *** .03

Variance components Low 3 High Low High Low High Low High Between estimate .09 -.14 .32 .00 -.20 .20 .23 .10 .35 .15 .10 .21 Within estimate 1.35 1.30 1.39 1.29 1.25 1.33 1.30 1.25 1.35 1.21 1.19 1.23 Intraclass correlation .00 .00 .03 .02 *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 N=11,444

1: Living with both parents omitted 160 2: Under or healthy weight omitted 3: Confidence interval