Religious Socialization: How Families Pass on Beliefs
Author: Angela Bogdanova · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Research cluster: Religion, Spirituality & Meaning-Making · Written by Artificial Sapiens
Religious socialization is the developmental and social process through which people learn, interpret, practice, question, retain, revise, or leave religious beliefs and identities in relation to the people and institutions around them. Within families, it includes what parents and caregivers say about religion, the practices they share, the values they model, the communities they make available, and the emotional climate in which children encounter faith. Contemporary scholarship treats this as an active, contextual process rather than a simple transfer of a fixed package of beliefs from one generation to the next. A 2026 Cambridge synthesis of intergenerational religious transmission identifies parents as the most important agents of religious socialization while also emphasizing peers, schools, religious communities, national context, and the Internet.
The central finding across this literature is probabilistic rather than deterministic: parents and children often resemble one another in religiosity, but family resemblance varies across dimensions of religion, developmental periods, cultures, family relationships, and historical cohorts. A meta-analysis of 30 studies found a reliable association between parent and child religiosity, and a 2026 four-generation longitudinal study involving 8,341 parent-child dyads showed that the strength of transmission differed by historical cohort, relationship type, and emotional closeness. Children remain participants in their own development; they can endorse, reinterpret, combine, question, or reject what they were taught.
Psychology can study how religious ideas are learned, remembered, discussed, practiced, and integrated into identity. It does not determine whether a religious belief is true or false, whether a sacred claim is valid, or whether a family's theological interpretation is correct. Religious commitment, prayer, worship, ritual, doubt, and change all require cultural and personal context. This article therefore examines mechanisms of family religious socialization without treating faith, nonfaith, continuity, or change as a psychological defect.
What Is Religious Socialization?
Religious socialization refers to the processes through which a person develops preferences, commitments, practices, interpretations, and identities concerning what a surrounding culture understands as religious. The term is used across psychology, sociology, religious studies, and family research. A critical theoretical review by Klingenberg and Sjö argues for a broad conception that includes multiple settings, individual agency, contextual variation, and people outside formal religious institutions. This broader approach fits contemporary families better than a one-way model in which adults simply imprint beliefs on children.
The related phrase intergenerational religious transmission usually refers more specifically to similarity or continuity between generations. Researchers may compare parent and child religious affiliation, worship attendance, prayer, subjective importance of religion, religious identity, beliefs, or several of these at once. Those outcomes are not interchangeable. A family may transmit a strong religious identity while a young adult participates less often in organized worship; another family may maintain ritual participation while beliefs become more individualized. For that reason, a single measure such as attendance cannot stand in for the whole of religious life.
Religious socialization also extends beyond explicit lessons. Children observe how adults use religious language, whether family practices are regular or occasional, how parents respond to questions, which holidays and rituals organize family time, what moral meanings are attached to decisions, how relatives and community members participate, and whether religion appears connected to comfort, obligation, belonging, conflict, service, gratitude, fear, hope, or everyday routine. The Annual Review of Developmental Psychology review of religious cognition emphasizes that children learn many religious concepts through cultural testimony because the entities and claims involved are often not directly available to ordinary observation.
How Families Pass On Religious Beliefs and Practices
Modeling and everyday example
Children encounter religion partly through repeated observation of what important adults actually do. A parent who prays, attends services, marks sacred days, discusses faith, participates in a community, gives to others for religious reasons, or connects decisions to religious values provides a recurring behavioral model. Modeling does not guarantee imitation, yet it makes religion visible as a lived part of family life rather than only a set of propositions. The current Cambridge review places parents at the center of intergenerational transmission precisely because they control so much of a child's early social environment and because their behavior is repeated over long periods.
Qualitative evidence illustrates the same point. In interviews with religious parents, Kelley, Galbraith, and Korth found recurring themes involving parental example, religious community, religious practices, and family rules or boundaries. Because that study drew on parents' accounts, it documents how parents describe their own strategies rather than proving which strategy caused later belief. Its value lies in showing that transmission is experienced as a pattern of ordinary family practices, not only as formal instruction.
Conversation, testimony, and explanation
Family talk is another major route. Parents name religious concepts, explain traditions, answer questions, narrate family histories, interpret events, read texts, discuss moral choices, and communicate how certain they are about particular claims. In early childhood, testimony matters because many religious concepts concern agents, places, events, or realities children cannot inspect directly. In a small study of 25 U.S. parent-child dyads, McLoughlin and colleagues found that subtle linguistic cues in parental testimony were associated with 5- to 7-year-old children's judgments about unobservable religious entities. The sample was small, so the study is best treated as mechanistic and preliminary rather than as a universal model of religious learning.
Larger longitudinal work also points to conversation. Using U.S. National Study of Youth and Religion data, Jesse Smith's analysis of faith transmission found that differences in later worship attendance and importance of faith across parental ideological groups were substantially explained by family religious socialization; family religious discussion was the strongest explanatory variable in the study's mediation analyses. These findings concern associations within a specific U.S. historical and ideological context. They do not establish that a particular style of religious discussion will have the same effect across traditions or cultures.
Shared practices, rituals, and family routines
Shared practices give beliefs a temporal and embodied structure. Meals, prayer, worship, fasting, sacred-day observance, pilgrimage, study, service, music, dress, dietary rules, and other practices can connect abstract commitments with recurring experiences. Family routines also coordinate participation: they determine when a child encounters a community, who participates together, and what meanings adults attach to the practice. Repetition can support memory, familiarity, belonging, and identity, while the emotional meaning of a practice depends on the family and tradition in which it occurs.
Longitudinal research on adolescence supports the idea that family religious practices are one pathway among several. Goodman and Dyer's longitudinal study from ages 13 to 19 identified heterogeneous adolescent trajectories rather than a single transmission pattern. Parent religiosity related positively to adolescent development in some groups and weakly or negatively in others, while family religious practices were among the factors associated with stronger continuity. This heterogeneity is important: the same level of parental religiosity does not predict the same trajectory for every adolescent.
Religious communities and social networks
Families also socialize children by shaping access to other people. Congregations, clergy, teachers, peers, camps, schools, relatives, and community organizations can reinforce, elaborate, or sometimes challenge what is learned at home. The family often functions as the gateway: parents decide which communities a young child enters, how regularly the family participates, and which relationships become durable. As children become more independent, peers and institutions gain influence of their own.
A systematic review of 241 studies of religious and spiritual influence in adolescence found that adolescent religious and spiritual development involves multiple individual and ecological processes, including peers, values and attitudes, social norms, and different dimensions of religiosity. The review also noted substantial methodological and cultural gaps. Family influence therefore belongs inside a wider developmental ecology rather than being treated as an isolated cause.
Why Parents Matter So Much
Parents are unusually influential because they combine repeated exposure, emotional significance, authority, opportunity, and long duration. During childhood they organize routines, choose many social settings, introduce language and narratives, and become trusted sources for interpreting experiences. Their influence is therefore not reducible to persuasion. It is built into the architecture of daily life.
The strongest broad evidence for parent-child similarity comes from studies that aggregate or follow families across time. The Stearns and McKinney meta-analysis synthesized 30 studies and found parent-child religiosity associations, with some differences by parent and child gender. Those gender results describe average patterns in the included studies; they should not be turned into a rule that mothers always matter more than fathers or that one parent determines a child's faith. Family roles, caregiving patterns, cultural expectations, measurement choices, and historical context can all change the observed association.
The newer Silverstein and colleagues multigenerational study adds an important relational and historical perspective. Religious-intensity transmission was stronger in emotionally closer relationships and in biological or adoptive relationships than in step-relationships, and it was weaker for baby-boom children than for the previous cohort. The study used observational longitudinal data, so emotional closeness should be understood as part of a relational pattern rather than a simple causal lever. Closeness may support influence, shared religiosity may support closeness, and both may be shaped by other features of family life.
Children Are Active Participants, Not Passive Recipients
A psychologically adequate model of religious socialization includes children's agency. Children ask questions, notice inconsistencies, compare households, interpret rituals, choose whom to trust, respond emotionally to practices, and gradually build their own account of what religion means. Adolescents and emerging adults encounter expanding peer networks, education, intimate relationships, media, work, and digital environments. These experiences can reinforce family teachings, produce new combinations, or open paths toward doubt and disaffiliation.
The active role of the child is one reason contemporary theory treats socialization as reciprocal. A child's questions can change how a parent talks about faith; a teenager's disagreement can alter family practices; siblings can follow different trajectories in the same household. The Klingenberg and Sjö theoretical assessment explicitly argues against narrow models that assume predefined outcomes and calls for greater attention to agency and context. In this framework, continuity is one possible developmental outcome among several.
The psychology of testimony provides a related insight. Children are capable of selective trust: they attend to who says something, how confidently it is said, whether sources agree, and how claims fit with other information. The Richert and Corriveau review describes religious cognition as a cultural-developmental domain in which adult commitments and testimony are especially important. Learning from testimony is a normal human developmental process and does not imply that children merely copy adults without interpretation.
What Makes Intergenerational Transmission More or Less Likely?
Consistency between what adults say and what they do
Transmission is generally more plausible when religion is salient across several parts of family life rather than appearing only as an isolated message. Consistency can involve alignment between stated beliefs, shared practices, community participation, and everyday behavior. This does not mean parents must display perfect uniformity. It means that children receive a clearer social signal when a family's expressed commitments and recurring practices point in similar directions.
Research using the National Study of Youth and Religion illustrates this pattern. Smith's study of religious ideology and transmission found that stronger transmission in some groups was largely accounted for by more intensive family religious socialization and congregational involvement. The result should be read as a U.S. population pattern, not as evidence that one ideology is psychologically superior or that greater intensity is universally desirable.
Warmth, closeness, and communication
Relationships change how messages are received. Emotional closeness, respectful communication, and a sense that questions can be asked influence whether a parent's religious language is experienced as trusted guidance, routine family identity, unwanted pressure, or something else. The 2026 multigenerational study linked emotional closeness with stronger intergenerational similarity, while studies of family religious transmission repeatedly identify communication as a central process.
A major U.S. mixed-methods synthesis, Smith and Adamczyk's Handing Down the Faith draws on in-depth interviews and nationally representative survey data to argue that parents remain central to contemporary religious transmission. Their work emphasizes conversation, parental example, family relationships, and the organization of children's social worlds. Because the book focuses on the United States, its conclusions should be applied cautiously to settings where religion, extended family, schooling, and communal authority are organized differently.
Parenting style, guidance, and autonomy
Some studies associate authoritative patterns—clear expectations combined with warmth and responsive communication—with stronger religious continuity. Yet parenting style is not a transmission formula, and it should not be reduced to a strategy for producing a predetermined identity. Developmental research distinguishes structure from psychological control. The quality of the relationship, the child's temperament and developmental stage, broader cultural norms, and the meaning attached to parental expectations all matter.
Cross-cultural evidence makes this complexity visible. In a three-year longitudinal study of 1,198 families in nine countries parental religiousness was associated with both higher parental efficacy and greater parental control, and these pathways related differently to child adjustment. The sample included Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, Muslim, and unaffiliated families. The findings are useful precisely because they resist a single positive or negative account of religious parenting: different parenting processes can coexist within the same broad measure of religiosity.
Parental agreement, mixed-faith families, and family structure
Children in interfaith, mixed-belief, or religiously heterogeneous families may encounter more than one coherent tradition, a combination of practices, explicit negotiation between adults, or a family decision to emphasize shared values while allowing different affiliations. Psychological outcomes cannot be inferred from heterogeneity itself. Population research mainly shows that parental similarity changes the probability of later religious continuity.
A 37-country analysis of religious heterogamy found that adults raised by interreligious parents or parents with dissimilar attendance patterns reported lower average religiosity on several measures than adults whose parents were more religiously similar. These are observational population averages based on 2008 survey data. They do not imply that interfaith families are deficient, nor do they tell us how any particular child will develop. Mixed-faith families can create stable, respectful arrangements in many different ways.
Historical period and surrounding society
Family transmission occurs inside a wider religious environment. A practice that is culturally ubiquitous, a minority marker, a private family commitment, or one identity option among many will carry different social meanings. The strength of intergenerational continuity can therefore change across cohorts even when families remain committed. The 2026 multigenerational evidence of cohort differences is consistent with this principle, and the Cambridge review describes national context, education, peers, communities, and digital environments as additional influences.
Religious Socialization Across Childhood and Adolescence
In early childhood, socialization is closely tied to language, testimony, imitation, family routines, stories, and participation. Children learn labels for religious agents and places, observe who performs particular practices, and infer what trusted adults consider important. The developmental question is broader than whether a child can repeat a belief statement: researchers examine how children understand invisible agents, causal explanations, ritual meanings, moral rules, and group identities.
The Annual Review on religious cognition explains why cultural testimony is especially important for religious concepts, while McLoughlin and colleagues' parent-child study demonstrates one possible micro-level mechanism: parents' confidence and linguistic framing can covary with children's judgments. The second study's very small sample means it cannot establish a universal developmental pathway, but it shows how ordinary conversation can be studied empirically.
Adolescence brings increasing capacity for abstract reflection and identity exploration, together with greater independence from family routines. Peers, schools, communities, relationships, and digital environments become more influential. The Hardy and colleagues systematic review found complex, multidimensional processes of religious and spiritual influence during adolescence and called for more culturally diverse and methodologically rigorous research. Family influence continues, but it operates alongside a widening social ecology.
This article does not attempt to own the full lifespan question. Religious development continues through emerging adulthood, partnership, parenthood, migration, loss, aging, conversion, deconversion, and other transitions. Within EN-47, the broader lifespan trajectory belongs to the separate canonical topic Religious Development Across the Lifespan; the present article remains focused on family socialization and intergenerational transmission.
Cultural, Religious, and Nonreligious Diversity
There is no single family form of religious socialization. Traditions differ in theology, ritual calendars, communal authority, expectations of children, relationships between home and congregation, sacred languages, dietary or dress practices, concepts of adulthood, and the role of extended kin. Families within the same tradition also vary by country, migration history, race and ethnicity, socioeconomic conditions, denomination, political environment, degree of observance, and personal interpretation.
The evidence base remains uneven. Much of the most cited transmission research comes from the United States and from Christian-majority samples. The Bornstein and colleagues nine-country study broadened the evidence to four religious traditions plus unaffiliated families, and the McPhail cross-national analysis included 37 countries, but neither design captures the full diversity of religious family life. Findings from one denomination or national setting should therefore be labeled as context-specific rather than generalized to religion as a whole.
Nonreligious socialization also belongs in the same conceptual landscape. Parents who identify as atheist, agnostic, secular, or unaffiliated can pass on worldviews, moral frameworks, rituals, community identities, approaches to evidence, and attitudes toward religion. The current Cambridge synthesis explicitly treats nonreligious families as informative for understanding intergenerational transmission. Studying religious socialization therefore does not require assuming that continuity with a religious tradition is the expected or preferred outcome.
Religious Socialization and Family Relationships
Family relationships are both a context for socialization and a possible consequence of religious similarity or difference. Closeness can increase receptivity to parental influence, while shared commitments can also contribute to closeness. Conversely, disagreement can become emotionally significant when religion is central to family identity, but disagreement does not inevitably produce conflict. Families vary greatly in how they handle doubt, interfaith relationships, changes in practice, or disaffiliation.
Because directionality is difficult to establish, researchers should avoid turning correlations into moral prescriptions. If religious similarity and closeness are associated, the data do not show that insisting on similarity will create closeness. The same observational association is compatible with several pathways: close families may communicate more, shared religion may support common routines, children may be more receptive to trusted parents, or similarity may partly reflect shared environments and social networks.
A psychologically constructive family stance can therefore distinguish commitment from coercive certainty. Parents may hold and teach strong beliefs while still allowing age-appropriate questions and recognizing that children gradually form their own identities. Respectful communication is relevant whether the family's goal is continuity within a tradition, coexistence across different traditions, or a nonreligious household.
Does Religious Socialization Affect Mental Health?
Religious socialization and mental health are related domains, but one cannot be reduced to the other. A religious upbringing can provide belonging, shared meaning, social support, moral structure, practices of coping, and continuity across generations. It can also coexist with family conflict, rigid control, fear, exclusion, or other stressors. These possibilities depend on specific relationships and contexts rather than on the mere presence or absence of religion.
The Hardy and colleagues systematic review found that adolescent religiosity and spirituality were often associated with adaptive outcomes, while also identifying contexts in which associations could be less favorable and emphasizing complex mediating processes. The Bornstein cross-cultural longitudinal study likewise found both potentially supportive and controlling parenting pathways associated with parental religiousness. Neither body of evidence supports a blanket claim that religious upbringing is inherently protective or inherently harmful.
Mental-health interpretation requires the same discipline used elsewhere in psychology: distinguish ordinary belief and practice from distress, symptoms, impairment, and diagnosable disorders. A child who prays frequently, participates intensively in worship, changes beliefs, questions a tradition, or identifies differently from parents cannot be diagnosed on that basis. Clinical assessment requires context, duration, distress, functioning, and relevant diagnostic criteria.
Clinical Boundaries: Faith, Doubt, and Psychopathology
Religious belief is not a clinical diagnosis. Neither strong faith nor religious doubt is evidence of psychosis, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or psychological immaturity by itself. Clinicians must interpret experiences within the person's cultural and religious context and assess the form and function of symptoms rather than treating religious content as pathology.
A useful example is scrupulosity. In OCD, religious or moral themes can become the content of intrusive obsessions and compulsive certainty-seeking. The clinical issue is the obsessive-compulsive process—unwanted obsessions, compulsions, distress, time consumption, and impairment—not the fact that a person prays or cares about moral or religious questions. The Hub's Scrupulosity OCD guide covers that clinical boundary in detail. Ordinary family religious socialization belongs to a different canonical subject.
The same principle applies when beliefs differ within a family. A young person who adopts another religion, becomes less observant, becomes more observant, or identifies as nonreligious has undergone an identity or belief change, not acquired a disorder by definition. Psychological care becomes relevant when there is significant distress, impairment, coercion, safety risk, or another clinical concern that requires assessment.
What Research Can and Cannot Establish
The evidence that parents and children often resemble one another religiously is comparatively strong. It appears in decades of family studies, meta-analytic synthesis, longitudinal research, national surveys, and multigenerational data. The evidence that any single parenting behavior causes a child to retain a particular belief is much weaker. Most studies are observational, and families cannot be randomly assigned to religions, levels of commitment, or relationship histories.
Confounding is therefore central. Parent and child religiosity can covary because of shared routines, neighborhood and school selection, extended family, congregation, migration history, socioeconomic conditions, personality, cultural identity, political environment, genetics related to broader traits, or historical period. Longitudinal designs improve temporal ordering but do not remove every alternative explanation.
Measurement also matters. Religiosity can mean affiliation, attendance, prayer, belief, salience, identity, orthodoxy, spirituality, or participation in a community. Measures developed in one tradition may not work equivalently in another. Parent reports and child reports can disagree. A parent may describe the home as warm and faith-centered while a child experiences the same environment differently. The Bornstein study's differences between parent and child perspectives demonstrate why multiple informants are valuable.
Cultural coverage remains another limitation. U.S. Christian samples are overrepresented in much of the literature, while many religious traditions, indigenous traditions, syncretic settings, and nonreligious families receive less attention. Cross-national studies improve generalizability but often use broad survey items that cannot capture local meanings. The strongest conclusion is therefore structured rather than universal: family religious socialization is a major pathway of intergenerational influence, and its operation depends on relationships, practices, institutions, culture, historical time, and the agency of children themselves.
Practical Implications for Families
Families who want to pass on a religious tradition can draw one general lesson from the evidence: transmission occurs through the whole ecology of family life. What adults model, discuss, practice, prioritize, and make available socially tends to matter more than an isolated instruction. Shared practices and communities create repeated opportunities for learning; conversation gives children language for interpreting those practices; relationships shape how guidance is received.
The same research supports humility about outcomes. No scientifically validated parenting technique can guarantee that a child will retain a parent's beliefs in adulthood. Children develop agency, encounter other sources of influence, and live in historical conditions that may differ sharply from those of their parents. Families can create conditions for meaningful transmission, but they cannot convert a probabilistic developmental process into certainty.
Respectful, age-appropriate conversation is especially important because questions are part of development. A parent can explain what the family believes, why a practice matters, how the tradition understands a question, and where uncertainty or interpretive diversity exists without treating the child's curiosity as disloyalty. Families with different parental faiths or levels of observance can make their own explicit arrangements about holidays, services, education, language, dietary practices, and the child's exposure to each tradition.
When family members disagree, preserving the relationship has psychological value independent of whether beliefs converge. The evidence linking closeness and transmission should not be used as a justification for controlling a child's identity. It is more accurately read as evidence that social influence is relational. The content and strength of a family's commitments can remain substantial while communication also recognizes that children become increasingly capable of making meaning for themselves.
For general parenting-development questions outside religion, the Hub's article Parenting and Big Five Personality Development: What Research Can and Cannot Show illustrates a broader principle also relevant here: developmental associations between parenting and later characteristics require careful causal interpretation. EN-47 owns the religion-specific socialization question; generic parenting mechanisms remain with the broader parenting domain.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is religious socialization in psychology?
Religious socialization is the process through which people develop religious beliefs, practices, identities, preferences, and interpretations in relation to social environments. In families it includes parental modeling, conversation, testimony, rituals, routines, community participation, and the emotional meaning surrounding religion. Contemporary theory treats the child as an active participant and socialization as contextual and potentially lifelong.
Do children usually adopt their parents' religion?
Parents and children show meaningful average similarity, and parents are among the strongest predictors of later religiosity. The parent-child religiosity meta-analysis and the 2026 multigenerational study both support intergenerational continuity. The probability varies substantially, however. Some children retain affiliation and practice, some become more or less religious, some reinterpret the tradition, and some disaffiliate.
Is religion inherited genetically?
Religious affiliation, doctrine, ritual practice, and family tradition are cultural phenomena learned in social environments. Individual differences in temperament or broader personality traits may have heritable components that indirectly relate to religious behavior, but parent-child religious similarity cannot be interpreted as simple genetic inheritance. The socialization literature focuses on relationships, modeling, testimony, practices, institutions, and cultural context.
Are mothers more influential than fathers in religious transmission?
The 2019 meta-analysis by Stearns and McKinney reported stronger average associations for mothers and certain parent-child gender combinations across the included studies. That is a population-level finding, not a universal family rule. Caregiving time, family structure, cultural gender roles, measures of religiosity, and the quality of individual relationships can change who is most influential in a particular family.
Does strict parenting make religious transmission stronger?
Research does not support a simple 'stricter is better' rule. Clear expectations can coexist with warmth and responsive communication, while psychological control and coercion are different processes. In the Bornstein cross-cultural study parental religiousness was associated with both parental efficacy and greater control, and those pathways related differently to child adjustment. Transmission and child well-being must therefore be studied as separate outcomes.
What happens in interfaith families?
Interfaith families can raise children within one tradition, both traditions, a blended family culture, or a more open framework, depending on the people involved. Cross-national survey evidence finds lower average adult religiosity when parents differ in religion or participation, but this does not define any individual family's functioning or quality. The most useful psychological questions concern communication, expectations, identity, belonging, and how differences are negotiated.
Can children reject or change the beliefs they were taught?
Yes. Religious socialization influences development without determining it. Children and adolescents interpret what they learn, encounter other people and institutions, and acquire increasing autonomy. Continuity, modification, conversion, deconversion, and nonreligious identity are all possible developmental trajectories. None is, by itself, a mental disorder.
Does religious socialization happen in nonreligious families?
Families without a religious affiliation still socialize children into worldviews, identities, moral frameworks, rituals, community practices, and attitudes toward religion. Contemporary scholarship increasingly includes nonreligious families because they clarify how beliefs and identities are transmitted even when organized religion is absent.
Is religious upbringing good or bad for mental health?
Neither global conclusion is supported. Religious family life can be associated with belonging, meaning, support, and adaptive development, and it can also coexist with controlling parenting, conflict, or distress. Effects depend on specific mechanisms and contexts. Reviews and cross-cultural studies show mixed pathways, substantial heterogeneity, and persistent limits on causal inference.
Can religious behavior itself be a sign of mental illness?
Religious content alone does not establish a disorder. Frequent prayer, worship, fasting, ritual, strong belief, spiritual experience, or doubt must be interpreted within culture and personal meaning. Clinical concern depends on the relevant symptom pattern, distress, impairment, loss of functioning, and professional assessment. When religious or moral themes occur inside an obsessive-compulsive cycle, the canonical clinical topic is Scrupulosity OCD, not ordinary religious socialization.
Related Articles
Scrupulosity OCD: What Is It? Religious Obsessions, Moral Fear, Rituals, Guilt, and Treatment — the clinical OCD boundary for religious and moral obsessions and compulsions.
Parenting and Big Five Personality Development: What Research Can and Cannot Show — a broader example of how parenting-development evidence should be interpreted without deterministic causal claims.
References
American Psychological Association. (2013). APA Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality. American Psychological Association.
Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Lansford, J. E., et al. (2017). ‘Mixed blessings’: Parental religiousness, parenting, and child adjustment in global perspective. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(8), 880–892. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12705
Goodman, M. A., & Dyer, W. J. (2020). From parent to child: Family factors that influence faith transmission. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 12(2), 178–190. https://doi.org/10.1037/rel0000283
Hardy, S. A., Nelson, J. M., Moore, J. P., & King, P. E. (2019). Processes of religious and spiritual influence in adolescence: A systematic review of 30 years of research. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 29(2), 254–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12486
Kelley, H. H., Galbraith, Q., & Korth, B. B. (2021). The how and what of modern religious transmission and its implications for families. Journal of Family Psychology, 35(4), 423–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000673
Klingenberg, M., & Sjö, S. (2019). Theorizing religious socialization: A critical assessment. Religion, 49(2), 163–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/0048721X.2019.1584349
Lewis-Jong, J., & Bullivant, S. (2026). The Intergenerational Transmission of Religion. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009707152
McLoughlin, N., Jacob, C., Samrow, P., & Corriveau, K. H. (2021). Beliefs about unobservable scientific and religious entities are transmitted via subtle linguistic cues in parental testimony. Journal of Cognition and Development, 22(3), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2020.1871351
McPhail, B. L. (2019). Religious heterogamy and the intergenerational transmission of religion: A cross-national analysis. Religions, 10(2), 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10020109
Richert, R. A., & Corriveau, K. H. (2022). Development of religious cognition. Annual Review of Developmental Psychology, 4, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-devpsych-120920-041303
Silverstein, M., Hwang, W., Yoon, J., Zhang, W., Kim, J. H., Cheng, K. J., & Brown, M. T. (2026). Transmission of religiosity across generations: Historical, cohort, and relational dynamics. Sociology of Religion, sraf029. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/sraf029
Smith, C., & Adamczyk, A. (2021). Handing Down the Faith: How Parents Pass Their Religion on to the Next Generation. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190093327.001.0001
Smith, J. (2021). Transmission of faith in families: The influence of religious ideology. Sociology of Religion, 82(3), 332–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/sraa045
Stearns, M., & McKinney, C. (2019). Connection between parent and child religiosity: A meta-analysis examining parent and child gender. Journal of Family Psychology, 33(6), 704–710. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000550