Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God: Fundamentalist Fears about Drunken Driving Author(s): Charles W. Peek, H.

Paul Chalfant, Edward V. Milton Source: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 29-39 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1385375 . Accessed: 13/01/2011 16:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and Society for the Scientific Study of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God: Fundamentalist Fears about Drunken Driving*
CHARLES W. PEEKt H. PAUL CHALFANTt EDWARD V. MILTONt
Using data from four yearly probability surveys (1972-1975)in a deep-south city, an effort is made to explore the feasibility of deterrence theory for understanding how involvement in Protestant religious subcultures affects drunken driving. Among the more religious respondents, fundamentalists are more likely than others to believe there is a higher risk of receiving specific sanctions for dunken driving. This relationship is strongest among males, the better educated, and respondents over 35. To the extent that these differences in fear of sanctions are linked to variations in deviant conduct, deterrence theory is a promising approach for understanding the consequences of religion for deviance.

D oes involvement in religious subcultures deter deviance? The widely recognized role of religion in reinforcing group values, as well as its emphasis on moral conduct, make a positive response seem obvious. However, in spite of extensive research on this question,1 a clear answer has yet to emerge.2 While its failure to do so is partly owing to methodological shortcomings in this research, we believe the main reason is the neglect of a major theoretical approach to deviance-deterrence theory. Our objective is to explore this approach in understanding whether involvement in religious subcultures prevents deviance. Although a few researchers have examined the deterrent effects of very general religious beliefs (e.g., about the possibility of being sanctioned for deviance, Hirschi
*Collection of the data on which this study is based was funded by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, United States Department of Transportation; obviously, however, we accept full responsibility for this analysis. We would like to thank the Texas Tech University Computer Center for providing the facilities to analyze these data. We also appreciate the comments of Richard Gorsuch, George Lowe, Ben Johnson, Hart Nelsen, and anonymous reviewers on various versions of this paper. tCharles W.Peek is AssociateProfessor of Sociology, Texas Tech University. H. Paul Chalfant is Chairman of Department of Sociology, Texas Tech University. Edward V. Milton is with Center for Aging Studies, University of Missouri-Columbia. 1. The extensiveness of this research is illustrated by the 181 references contained in a review of the literature on religion, crime, and delinquency prior to 1969 (Knudten & Knudten, 1971). Less ambitious listings of research relating religion to other types of deviance are Bell (1966),Clayton (1969),and McLuckie et al., (1975). 2. In the area of delinquency, findings of the three "hellfire and delinquency" studies nicely illustrate this lack of clarity. The first reports no association between involvement in religious subcultures as indicated by church attendance and several types of deviant behavior (Hirschi & Stark, 1969);the second demonstrates that church attendance only reduces ascetic deviance, such as use of alcohol and drugs (Burkett & White, 1974-also see Middleton & Putney, 1962); and the third shows that church attendance moderately suppresses all seventeen categories of deviant conduct examined (Higgins & Albrecht, 1977). Findings of other studies of religion and delinquency, less dramatically titled, also reflect this lack of clarity (Albrechtet al., 1977: 263-264. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1979, 18 (1): 29-39 29

30

JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

& Stark, 1969; Burkett & White, 1974; Albrecht et al., 1977), the vast majority of explanations have focused on whether religious norms prevent deviance.3 Specific religious beliefs about the severity, and especially the inevitability, of particular sanctions have not been examined, even though it is just such kinds of beliefs that are critical in deterrence theory if it is to explain differences in deviant behavior (Zimring & Hawkins, 1973; Gibbs, 1975; Tittle, 1977; Erikson et al., 1977). In other spheres, "sanction fear" (beliefs which specify that particular sanctions are likely to result from deviance) seems to be a greater factor in producing conformity than commitment to norms (Shoham et al., 1976; Tittle, 1977). To the extent, then, that differences in sanction fear exist among religious subcultures, a potentially strong theoretical approach for explaining the effects of these subcultures on deviance is possible. In addition to the lack of an adequate theoretical perspective, two methodological difficulties have also hindered understanding of how religious subcultures might deter deviance. The first is the failure adequately to operationalize the mechanisms through which religious subcultures affect deviant conduct (Middleton & Putney, 1962, are an exception). Frequently, these mechanisms are not operationalized because there is little theory to identify them-simply cross tabulations or correlations between religious involvement and deviant conduct, followed by post factum explanations (e.g., Allen & Sandhu, 1967; McLuckie et al., 1975). In other studies subcultural mechanisms which supposedly deter deviance are merely posited, so that their evaluation as elements in the theory is not possible (e.g., Skolnick, 1958; Whitehead, 1970). When such mechanisms are identified and operationalized they are usually only abstract beliefs (e.g., "there is a life after death"), far removed from the specific deviant conduct with which their association is examined (e.g., "taking a car for a ride without the owner's permission"). Use of these strategies makes it difficult to assess the impact of religious subcultures on deviance. The second methodological difficulty is that the two primary measures of involvement in religious subcultures-level of religiosity (usually church attendance) and affiliation-are almost universally used separately. Several studies have used religiosity as the main or single index of involvement (Nye, 1958; Hirschi & Stark, 1969; Burkett & White, 1974; Kandel et al., 1976; Burkett, 1977; Higgins & Albrecht, 1977;Albrecht et al., 1977).While this strategy is one reasonable indication of how much people are involved, it ignores the diversity between religious subcultures, throwing them all in a heap and thus precluding identification of those that may deter deviance the most. Equally problematic is the other widely used strategy-measuring involvement in religious subcultures solely in terms of affiliation (Skolnick, 1958; Mulford & Miller, 1963; Mulford, 1964; Knupfer & Room, 1967; Cahalan & Cisin, 1968; Suchman, 1968; Mauss, 1969; Whitehead, 1970). Although this strategy permits exploration of the degree to which different religious subcultures deter deviance, it precludes comparison of differently committed
3. Even the "hellfire and delinquency" studies focus at least as much on religious norms as religious beliefs about risk of being sanctioned. The beliefs about sanctions these studies do explore contain very little hellfire. That "thereis life after death" or "the devil actually exists" are rather innocuous indicators of the belief that "hellfire" will result from deviance.

FEARS ABOUT DRUNKEN DRIVING

31

participants within these subcultures-or identification of those whose behavior should be most influenced because they are most committed. Finally, a few studies measure both religiosity and affiliation, but only use them as separate, independent indicators of involvement in religious subcultures (Allen & Sandhu, 1967; McLuckie et al., 1975; and Weinberg & Williams, 1975). Quite clearly,joint, simultaneous use of both indices is required to uncover the full impact of religious subcultures on deviance. Separately, each of these problems-the neglect of deterrence theory and the two methodological difficulties-has probably skewed previous research toward an underestimation of the deterrent effect of involvement in religious subcultures. Cumulatively, they force consideration of the possibility that religious subcultures deter deviance more effectively than presently demonstrated.4 Our purpose is to examine this possibility, dealing with each of these problems. Specifically, our focus is on whether involvement in fundamental and nonfundamental religious subcultures-measured jointly by affiliation and religiosity-is associated with fear of specific sanctions for a widespread type of deviance-drunken driving. Available evidence on the general orientation toward punishment of these two religious subcultures suggests such an association. Not only are fundamentalists more likely to perceive God as vindictive and willing to punish (Hill, 1972; Nelson et al., 1973; Driedger, 1974), but they also view God as more active in controlling the universe and thus better able to dispense the "wages of sin" (Goen, 1959; Hill, 1972; Driedger, 1974). Attitudes of fundamental groups toward norms regulating use of alcohol also point in this direction. Since these norms are proscriptive, they eliminate the possibility of responsible alcohol use (Ullman, 1958; Mizruchi & Perrucci, 1962; Blacker, 1966; Larsen and Abu-Laban, 1968), meaning that fundamentalists are more likely to see the consequences of any drinking as disastrous (Chalfant & Beckley, 1977). With such an outlook, they would be particularly inclined to believe that drunken driving would lead to sure negative sanctions. To the extent that beliefs about sanctions for drunken driving vary between these two subcultures, a theoretically well-grounded and thus highly promising potential link between religious subcultures and deviant conduct exists. Additionally, this study should begin to fill the gap in our information about religion and drunken driving, which, unlike religion and the deviant consumption of alcohol, has received no systematic exploration.5
4. They also raise an intriguing question for the sociology of sociologists: the extent to which the negative ideological orientation of sociologists toward religion is responsible for stacking the deck against uncovering its full deterrent effects on deviance. One cannot help but recall Hirschi and Stark's (1969: 203) earlier comment: "There does seem to be a relation between the findings [on religion and deviance] and the religiosity of the researchers." 5. Ourknowledge about religion and drunken driving is contained in three studies, which focus on the more general driving-after-drinking than driving-when-drunk.They show, with few or no control variables, that the proportion of drinking drivers per persons who both drink and drive is about the same for all religious groups (Mulford, 1964; Cosper & Mozersky, 1968). However, religious groups whose subcultures stress abstinence (usually the residual category of other Protestants or sometimes simply non-Catholics) have fewer drinking drivers because they have fewer drinkers (Mulford,1964;Cosper & Mozersky, 1968). Finally, persons more attached to any religious subculture (as indicated by frequency of church attendance),

32

JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

METHODOLOGY Survey data collected over a four year period (1972-1975)in a southeastern city of approximately 150,000 provided an opportunity to explore the effect of fundamentalist and nonfundamentalist religious subcultures on beliefs about the risk of sanctions for drunken driving. All four surveys-part of a larger effort to evaluate the effectiveness of a federally-funded, three year program aimed at the drunken driving problem-were based on probability samples stratified by income and race, and were taken in the early spring of each of the four years (N's = 573,500, 498, and 500 respectively). All the surveys contained identical items measuring the variables of interest. Further, year-by-year comparisons of responses to these items revealed no differences which would prohibit combining all four samples. Thus, a merged set of data from all surveys (N = 2071) provided the basis for our analysis. Measurement of Variables Independent Variables. Indices of both affiliation and religiosity were used. Religious affiliation was measured by a standard question on religious preference, responses to which were used to classify respondents as being involved in either fundamentalist or nonfundamentalist subcultures. Persons who identified themselves as Southern Baptists (N = 1043) or as members of one of several smaller groups (e.g., Church of God, Assembly of God, Holiness, Pentecostal-N = 176) were designated fundamentalist. Episcopals, Presbyterians, and Lutherans (N = 146) were designated as nonfundamentalist. Since our interest is in differences among Protestant subcultures in beliefs about sanction risk for drunken driving, respondents identifying themselves as Catholic, other religion, or non-affiliated were excluded. A thorny problem was what to do with Methodists (N = 349). Stark and Glock (1970: 53) suggest that Methodists should be classified as nonfundamentalist, even liberal; but the traditional Methodist position, particularly in the south, of abstinence from alcohol is clearly similar to the fundamentalist position. Since Methodists display important elements of both subcultures, their inclusion in either group could distort our analysis. Thus, we decided to exclude them from analysis. To see what effect this exclusion had on our findings, we re-analyzed our data with Methodists as a middle category. While relationships between affiliation and beliefs about sanction risk for drunken driving were slightly reduced, no statistically significant changes occurred. Combined answers to three questions provided the basis of our measure of religiosity. Respondents who said they had attended religious service in the past seven days, who could name a specific congregation of which they were a member, and who could name the minister of that congregation were classified as "religious;" those who had not attended religious services in the past seven days, but who could name both a specific congregation and the minister were classifed as "fairly religious;" and those who could not name a specific congregation or the minister,
regardless of its content, have a slightly less tendency to drink and drive (Borkenstein, et al., 1964;Cosper& Mozersky, 1968). If there is a paucity of empirical data, there is almost a complete absence of explanation, since all three studies are primarily descriptive.

FEARS ABOUT DRUNKEN DRIVING

33

regardless of whether they had attended religious services in the past seven days, were classified as "not religious." While this measure taps only ritualistic or organizational religiosity, it is appropriate as a measure of behavioral involvement in the religious subculture. Dependent Variable. Respondents were asked what they thought the chances were of three things happening to them "if you drive after drinking too much:" 1) "being stopped by the police," 2) "being involved in an automobile accident," and 3) "being involved in a serious or fatal automobile accident." Answers to these three questions-"low" (a combination of the original first three response categories of "very low," "low," and "slightly low" because of small N's for each), "slightly high," "high," and "very high"-were scored one through four respectively and then summed, producing an index of belief about risk of sanction ranging from three to twelve. This is our measure of sanction fear. Other Variables. Several variables were utilized for the purpose of controls and comparisons-i.e., variables which were simultaneously controlled, the effects of which are compared with effects of the religious variables. These are: 1) sex (male/female); 2) age (in actual years); 3) race (black/white); 4) education (eight categories ranging from 0-4 to college graduate); 5) family income (13 categories ranging from under $1,000 per year to $25,000 or more); 6) occupational prestige scores; 7) marital status (now married/not now married); and 8) relevance of sanction fear (not relevant-does not use alcohol or does not drive a car/relevantuses alcohol and also drives a car). In the effort to make certain that the activities of the project itself did not distort our analysis, three variables were utilized strictly as controls-no comparisons of their effects on beliefs about sanctions with the effects of religious variables are given. They are: 1) year of the survey (1972/1973-75); 2) whether respondents had heard of the project (no/yes); 3) whether respondents had heard or seen any information about the risks of drunken driving (no/yes). Year of the survey is controlled because weak but statistically significant differences in responses to the items measuring beliefs about sanction risk appear between 1972 and the other three years, This was not unexpected, since the project received an inordinate amount of publicity in community media when it began in 1972. The other two variables are controlled in order to adjust for the potentially confounding impact that project activities and publicity might have on the association between religion and beliefs about sanctions for drunken driving. Method of Analysis. Since our task requires assessment of the joint effects of religious affiliation and religiosity on sanction fear, with simultaneous controls for eleven other variables, and since all variables are at least ordinal (or can be treated as such), multiple regression was selected as the most appropriate method of analysis. Attention will be given both to standardized regression coefficients and proportions of explained variance as measures of the effects of these variables on sanction fear. FINDINGS The associations between all variables and fear of sanctions for drunken

34

JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

driving, both before and after controls, are presented in Table 1. As we suggested, neither religious affiliation nor religiosity separately display much of a relationship with fear of these sanctions. Although there is a statistically significant tendency for persons affiliated with fundamental rather than nonfundamental groups to believe that a greater risk of sanctions exists, this tendency is rather small. The association between religiosity and sanction fear is not even statistically significant. However, the entire set of variables is a weak predictor of sanction fear, accounting for only fifteen percent of the variance.
TABLE 1 ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN ALL VARIABLES AND FEAR OF SANCTION FOR DRUNKEN DRIVING, BEFORE AND AFTER CONTROLS (N = 935) Before Controls Zero Order -.284** -.247** .238** -.186** -.157** -.144** -.141** .107** -.063 .005 After Controls Stnd. Reg. Coeff. -.157** -.068 .127** -.048 -.081* -.100** -.020 .036 -.006 .034

Variables Relevance of Sanction Fear Education Age Family Income Religious Affiliation Sex Occupational Prestige Religiosity Race Marital Status

R2 b .152**

Statistical significance of regression coefficients in this and othertwo tables computedfrom unstandardized regression coefficients. The amount of explained variance in this and subsequent tables includes the effects of the three variables used strictly as controls. See the methods section. *Significant at or beyond .05 level. **Significant at or beyond .01 level.

To clarify the conditions under which involvement in religious subcultures is most likely to be associated with fear of sanctions for drunken driving, we ran regression analyses within categories of religiosity and the other four variables in Table 1 exhibiting the greatest association with sanction fear. Results of these analyses are displayed in Table 2.

FEARS ABOUT DRUNKEN DRIVING TABLE 2 STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION AND FEAR OF SANCTIONS FOR DRUNKEN DRIVING, WITHIN CATEGORIES OF KEY VARIABLES ZeroOrder r Stnd. Reg. Coeff.

35

Variables Relevance of Sanction Fear Not relevant (doesn't drive or doesn't drink) Relevant (drives and also drinks) Age Under 30 30 through 44 45 or over Sex Female Male Religiosity Not religious Fairly religious Religious Education Not HS Graduate HS Graduate, no Coll. At least some Coll. *Significant at or beyond .05 level. **Significant at or beyond .01 level.

R2

494 441 293 254 388 466 469 344 260 331 387 362 166

-.100* -.112*

-.069 -.082 -.085 -.093 -.063 -.081 -.081 .021 -.068 -.165** -.035 -.135* -.044

.110* .073** .157** .153** .124** .141** .146** .108** .183** .211** .146** .099** .124

-.140* -.175** -.109* -.169** -.149** -.082 -.132* -.269** -.040 -.145 -.078

Two statistically significant (but minimal) associations between religious affiliation and sanction fear appear in these thirteen regression analyses after controls for other variables. One is the association among the most religious respondents, among whom religious affiliation is most clearly related to fear of sanctions for drunken driving. As we suggested, differences in sanction fear are most apparent among persons most involved in the two religious subcultures. The other statistically significant association between religious affiliation and sanction fear-among respondents with a medium level of education-is more surprising, since persons with the least education would seem to be those most susceptible to religious belief systems that are rigid and inflexible. The failure of religious affiliation to affect fear of sanctions for drunken driving in all other categories seems to result mainly from the reduction in the number of respondents on which these regression analyses are based, rather than on reduction of the initially weak association. Only three of the remaining eleven non-significant standardized regression coefficients in Table 2 (those for the "not religious" "not HS graduates," and "at least some college") are noticeably below the initial standardized regression

36

JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

coefficient (-.081) in Table 1, while five are at or even slightly above this level. Analyses in Table 2, however, only specify the effects of religious affiliation on sanction fear; they do not clarify conditions under which thejoint effects of religious affiliation and religiosity may be the greatest. To explore this issue, we ran regression analyses with categories of religiosity and each of the other three variables (see Table 3). This procedure produced noticeably stronger associations between affiliation and sanction fear, both before and after controls, within certain categories of the more religious respondents: males, high school graduates, and persons over 35. In each case, those involved in fundamentalist subcultures exhibit a greater fear of sanctions for drunken driving. While still not overpowering in a statistical sense, these three associations are represented by larger standardized regression coefficients than associations with sanction fear displayed by any other
TABLE 3 STANDARDIZED REGRESSION COEFFICIENTS BETWEEN RELIGION AFFILIATION AND FEAR OF SANCTIONS FOR DRUNKEN DRIVING, WITHIN CATEGORIES OF RELIGIOSITY COMBINED WITH OTHER VARIABLE CATEGORIES ZeroOrder r -.145* -.076 -.201** -.366** -.067 -.083 .066 -.286** -.151** -.001 -.207* -.305** -.072 -.138* -.070 -.225* Stnd. Reg. Coeff. -.089 -.007 -.049 -.303** -.075 -.092 .051 -.249** -.094 .025 -.063 -.225** -.026 -.125 -.055 -.152

Variables Relig. and Sex Not/Fairly Relig., Female Not/Fairly Relig., Male Rel., Female Rel., Male Relig. and Education Not/Fairly Rel., Not HS Gr. Not/Fairly Rel., HS Gr. Rel., Not HS Gr. Rel., HS Gr. Relig. and Age Not/Fairly Rel., 35 or less Not/Fairly Rel., over 35 Rel., 35 or less Rel., over 35 Relig. and Relev. for Sanct. Fear Not/Fairly Rel., Not Relev. Not/Fairly Rel., Relev. Rel., Not Relev. Rel., Relev.

N 271 333 195 136 254 234 133 128 293 311 114 217

R2

.122** .112** .180** .320** .171** .070 .121 .182* .129** .111** .260** .163** .145** .112** .060* .151

268 226 336 105

Some variables in the combinations above are categorized differently than in Table 2, for the purposes of avoiding N's too small to permit exploration of these second-orderinteractions. Except for education, all changes are obvious. Since the N of respondents having at least some college was too small to support splitting into the two categories of religiosity, this category was droppedrather than merged with the "high school graduate" category. *Significant at or beyond .05 level. **Significant at or beyond .01 level.

FEARS ABOUT DRUNKEN DRIVING

37

variable in this study. Hence, certain categories of persons involved in fundamentalist Protestant subcultures do believe that they experience a greater risk of specific sanctions for driving after drinking too much. IMPLICATIONS These findings represent a preliminary effort to explore the feasibility of using deterrence theory for understanding how involvement in religious subcultures affects a particular kind of deviance. We have demonstrated that Protestants involved in fundamentalist subcultures in a deep-South city are more likely to believe that they have a higher risk of receiving specific sanctions for drunken driving than do Protestants involved in nonfundamentalist subcultures. While this association is statistically significant, it is weak among the entire sample. It grows slightly stronger among the more religious respondents, and among certain categories of these more religious respondents-males, persons with at least a high school education, and persons over 35-the relationship of fundamentalism to sanction fear becomes the strongest exhibited by any variable. It is unlikely that this association is an artifact of the confounding effects of other variables, since in each instance it holds with simultaneous controls for ten to twelve other variables. Thus, for certain participants in Protestant subcultures, deterrence theory has promise for explaining differences in driving after drinking too much and probably differences in several other forms of deviance as well. In addition to pointing subsequent research toward a feasible theoretical approach, our findings also provoke several questions for this research to explore. We did not examine actual drunken driving behavior, but is the greater sanction fear among certain categories of fundamentalists in fact associated with less drunken driving? If it is, then are beliefs about sanction-risk more strongly related to drunken driving than are religious norms? Also, why do fundamentalist-nonfundamentalist differences in sanction fear appear only in certain categories of persons? Existence of these differences among the more religious respondents is predictable, since their higher religiosity is indicative of a greater involvement in and more susceptibility to their subculture. But we have no ready answers as to why these differences persist only among males who are highly involved in these two subcultures and not among highly religious females; among highly religious respondents with at least a high school education but not among highly religious persons with less education; and among the highly religious over 35 but not among the highly religious younger respondents. Finally, to what extent are our findings a consequence of the use of an adult sample? With the exception of religion and alcohol abuse, nearly all of the previous research on religion and deviance has used samples of youth. There are also at least two implications that our findings have for subsequent research. To examine effectively the full impact of religion on drunken driving and other forms of deviance, research must first focus on subcultural mechanisms (beliefs, sanctions, norms) specific to the deviant behavior in question; and the joint effects of both religious affiliation and religiosity need to be considered. Second, it is important that subsequent research examine the association of religion and deviance beyond the level of the general sample, since some Protestant

38

JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

fundamentalists are more likely than others to see themselves as "sinners in the hands of an angry God"-at least when it comes to receiving "wages" for the "sin" of drunken driving.
REFERENCES Albrecht, S. L., B. A. Chadwick, and D. S. Alcor 1977 "Religiosity and deviance: Application of behavior contingent an attitude consistency model." Journal for the Study of Religion 16 Scientific (September):263-274. Allen, D. E. and H. S. Sandhu 1967 "A comparative study of delinquents and non-delinquents: Family affect, religion, and personal income." Social Forces 46 (December):263-269. Bell, R. R. 1966 Premarital Sex in a Changing Society. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall. Blacker, E. 1966 "Sociocultural factors in alcoholism." International Psychiatry Clinics 3:51-86. Borkenstein, R. F., R. R. Crowther, R. P. Shumate, W. B. Ziel, and R. Zylman (Allen Dale, ed.) 1964 The Roleof theDrinkingDriver in Traffic Accidents. Bloomington, Indiana: Department of Police Administration, Indiana University. Burkett, S. R. 1977 "Religion, parental influence, and adolescent alcohol and marijuana use." Journal of Drug Issues 7 (Summer):263273. Burkett, S. R. and M. White 1974 "Hellfire and delinquency: Another look." Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 13 (December):455-462. Cahalan, D. and I. H. Cisin 1968 "American drinking practices: Summary of findings from a national probability sample." QuarterlyJournal of Studies on Alcohol 29 (March): 130-151. Chalfant, H. P. and R. E. Beckley 1977 "Beguiling and betraying: The image of alcohol use in country music." Journal of Studies on Alcohol 38 (July): 1428-33. Clayton, R. R. 1969 "Religious orthodoxy and premarital sex." Social Forces 47 (June): 469-474. Cosper, R. and K. Mozersky 1968 "Social correlates of drinking and driving." QuarterlyJournal of Studies on Alcohol, Supplement No. 4 (May):58-117. Driedger, L. 1974 "Doctrinal belief: A major factor in the differential perception of social issues." 66-80. Sociological Quarterly 14 (Winter): Erikson, M. L., J. P. Gibbs, and G. F. Jensen 1977 "The deterrence doctrine and the of legal perceived certainty punishments." American Sociological Review 42 (April): 305-317. Gibbs, J. P. 1975 Crime,Punishment and Deterrence. New York:Elsevier. Goen, C. C. in America." 1959 "Fundamentalism Southwestern Journal of Theology 2 (October):52-62. Higgins, P. C. and G. L. Albrecht 1977 "Hellfire and delinquency revisited." Social Forces 55 (June): 952-958. Hill, S. S. 1972 "TheSouth's two cultures."Pp. 24-56in S. S. Hill, Jr., et al., Religion and the Solid South. Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press. Hirschi, T. and R. Stark 1969 "Hellfire and delinquency." Social Problems 17 (Fall): 202-213. Kandel, D. B., D. Treiman, R. Faust, and E. Single 1976 "Adolescent involvement in legal and illegal drug use: A multiple classification analysis." Social Forces 55 (December): 438-458. Knudten, R. D. and M. S. Knudten 1971 "Juvenile delinquency, crime, and religion." Review of Religious Research 12 (Spring): 130-152. Knupfer, G. and R. Room 1967 "Drinking patterns and attitudes of Irish, Jewish and white Protestant American men." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 28 (December):676-699. Larsen, D. E. and B. Abu-Laban 1968 "Norm qualities and deviant drinking behavior." Social Problems 15 (Spring): 441-450. Mauss, A. L. 1969 "Anticipatory socialization toward college as a factor in adolescent marijuana use." Social Problems 16 (Winter):357-364. McLuckie, B. F., M. Zahn, and R. A. Wilson 1975 "Religious correlates of teenage drug use." Journal of Drug Issues 5 (Spring): 129-139. Middleton, R. and S. Putney 1962 "Religion, normative standards, and behavior." Sociometry 25 (June):141-152.

FEARS ABOUT DRUNKEN DRIVING Mizruchi, E. H. and R. Perrucci 1962 "Norm qualities and differential effects of deviant behavior: An exploratory analysis." American SociologicalReview 27 (June): 391-399. Mulford, H. A. 1964 "Iowa's drinking driver, 1961: With a method for identifying drinking drivers in a survey sample." Social Problems 12 (Fall): 196-211. Mulford, H. A. and D. E. Miller 1963 "The prevalence and extent of drinking in Iowa, 1961: A replication and evaluation of methods." Quarterly Journal of Studies onAlcohol24 (March): 39-54. Nelsen, H. M., T. W. Waldron and K. Stewart 1973 "Image of Godand religious ideology and involvement: A partial test of Hill's Southern culture-religionthesis." Review of Religious Research 15 (Fall): 37-44. Shoham, S. G., N. Geva, R. Markowski and N. Kaplinsky of norms, risk1976 "Internalisation

39 perception and anxiety as related to driving offenses. British Journal of Criminology 16 (April): 142-155. Skolnick, J. H. 1958 "Religious affiliation and drinking behavior." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol 19 (September):452-470. Stark, R. and C. Y. Glock 1970 American Piety: The Nature of Religious Commitment. Berkeley: University of California Press. Suchman, E. A. 1968 "The 'hang-loose' ethic and the spirit of drug use." Journal of Health and Social Behavior 9 (June): 146-155. Tittle, C. R. 1977 "Sanction fear and the maintenance of social order." Social Forces 55 (March): 579-596. Ullman, A. D. 1958 "Sociocultural of backgrounds alcoholism." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 315: 48-54.