Religion and Relationship Quality Among Cohabiting and Dating Couples

Abstract

Despite research on religion and marriage, little is known about the role of religion in the relationships of nonmarried couples. This study addresses two questions: (a) Do various dimensions of religious involvement—shared religious beliefs, affiliation and attendance, and theistic sanctification—influence the relationship satisfaction and marital expectations of dating and cohabiting individuals? (b) Is the association mediated by positive and negative relationship behaviors by the respondent and/or partner? We investigate these questions using the National Survey of Religion and Family Life, a nationwide sample of working-age adults, aged 18 to 59 years (n = 468) with oversamples of African Americans and Latinos. Various dimensions of religious involvement are positively associated with the relationship satisfaction and expectations to marry among nonmarried individuals. Positive and negative relationship behaviors slightly diminish the link between religion and (a) relationship satisfaction and (b) expectations of marriage. Several implications and promising directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

religion cohabitation dating sanctification and homogamy

Introduction

Since the 1970s, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of unmarried persons in the United States. Numerous works document the growing change in family structure, including a growing popularity of nonmarital cohabitation and childbearing, the rise in age at first marriage, as well as the resulting consequences of those changes (e.g., Amato, Booth, Johnson, & Rogers, 2007; Cherlin, 2010b; Smock & Greenland, 2010). However, despite the marked growth in the diversity of romantic unions, there remains a dearth of research examining what factors affect the relationships of nonmarital unions (Fein, Burstein, Fein, & Lindberg, 2003; Manning, 2013).

Exploring the relationship outcomes of nonmarital couples is timely and important for several reasons. First, the pattern of courtship in the United States has become more complex. Adults are spending more time in nonmarital unions, both cohabiting and noncohabiting. For example, recent estimates suggest two thirds of American adults cohabited before marriage and 27% of all households were defined as single person residences in 2012 (Kennedy & Bumpass, 2008; Klinenberg, 2012; Manning, 2013). Second, although cohabitation is now a typical path to marriage (Bumpass & Lu, 2000), fewer cohabiting unions are resulting in marriage (Guzzo, 2014; Kenney & Bumpass, 2010). Consequently, there is growing recognition that cohabitation may be an alternative form of union formation for many, and not necessarily part of a process that leads to marriage (Smock, 2000; Smock & Greenland, 2010). Despite the marked increase in the number of nonmarital unions, limited work has identified key social and cultural factors that shape the quality and stability of nonmarital unions.

One such factor may be religion. Although a growing body of research focuses on the links between religion and relationship quality and stability, nearly all of this work centers on “traditional” married unions (Myers, 2006; Vaaler, Ellison, & Powers, 2009; Waite & Lehrer, 2003). For some researchers, this emphasis on the connection between religion and traditional “familialism” raises questions regarding how religion and spirituality is used and reshaped among nontraditional couples (Edgell & Docka, 2007; Mahoney & Krumrei, 2010). Recent empirical work suggests religion plays a salient role in the lives of homosexual couples (Oswald, Goldberg, Kuvalanka, & Clausell, 2008; Rostosky, Otis, Riggle, Kelly, & Brodnicki, 2008), dating couples (Freitas, 2008; Irby, 2014), and “fragile” families (Sullivan, 2008; Wilcox & Wolfinger, 2008) by increasing relationship quality and functioning, helping define commitment, and a resource for parenting. This work on religion among nontraditional families suggests lived religion is complex, and religious and spiritual beliefs and practices remains a relevant social fact in a diversity of family life (Chaves, 2010; Denton, 2012; Edgell & Docka, 2007). Despite these empirical gains, more work on the role of religion among nontraditional families, especially nonmarried couples, remains warranted.

Our study augments the literature in this area by examining the links between religion and nonmarital romantic relationships among working-age adults. Specifically, we address two main questions: (a) Is religious involvement (e.g., shared religious beliefs and affiliation, joint attendance at worship services, and theistic sanctification) associated with relationship quality and marital expectations among individuals in cohabiting and dating relationships? and (b) Do acts of kindness and consideration and criticism by the respondent and/or partner mediate the relationship between these various dimensions of religious involvement and relationship outcomes? We explore these questions using data from the National Survey of Religion and Family Life (NSRFL), a nationwide sample of working age adults, aged 18 to 59 years, with oversamples of African Americans and Latinos. Findings are discussed in terms of the research on religion and relationship quality, as well as on the broader research on religion and family life. Study limitations are identified and several fruitful directions for further investigation are proposed.

Theoretical and Empirical Background

Trends in Cohabiting and Dating

Dramatic changes in relationship formation in the United States have occurred since the 1970s. Most notably there has been a dramatic increase in nonmarital cohabitation in the United States, (e.g., Bumpass & Lu, 2000; Cherlin, 2010a, 2010b; Manning, 2013) and cohabitation is now the modal path of entry into marriage (Smock, 2000). Although cohabitation has increased across a variety of sociodemographic characteristics, including race/ethnicity and age, entry into cohabitation and its stability remains closely linked to socioeconomic status, particular mens’ education and employment (Brown & Kawamura, 2010; Bumpass & Lu, 2000; Fein et al., 2003; Kalmijn, Loeve, & Manting, 2007). Additional explanations as the relaxation of sexual and social norms and a rise in the culture of individualism focusing on personal feelings and self-growth (Amato et al., 2007; Cherlin, 2010b; Thornton & Young-DeMarco, 2001) have been posited to explain such changes. Moreover, common motivations for cohabitation prior to marriage reveal financial and convenience-related reasons, but also compatibility testing and increased intimacy (Manning, Longmore, & Giordano, 2007). For many American couples, cohabitation is a stage in the marriage process. However, recent research suggests that the connection between cohabitation and marriage is weakening, with more cohabiting unions ending before marriage formation (Guzzo, 2014; Kenney & Bumpass, 2010). More generally, cohabitation has become normative in the relationship process and is increasingly accepted as an alternative to marriage (Cherlin, 2004).

Until recently, little was known about the relationship quality and stability of cohabiting couples. Work examining the differences between married and cohabiting unions has found cohabitors more likely to suffer from greater relationship instability and lower levels of relationship quality (Brown & Booth, 1996; Burgoyne, 2012; Nock, 1995; Skinner, Bahr, Crane, & Call, 2002). Such findings has led to cohabitation being characterized as an “incomplete institution,” in which the unsettled norms and rules surrounding it result in greater relationship disharmony (Cherlin, 2004; Nock, 1995). For example, research suggests that cohabiting couples are more likely to report higher rates of intimate partner violence (Brownridge & Halli, 2000; Kline et al., 2004), depressive symptoms (Brown, 2000; Marcussen, 2005), and less commitment to their relationship (Forste & Tanfer, 1996; Guzzo, 2014; Stanley, Whitton, & Markman, 2004). However, some of the differences in relationship quality outcomes have been partially explained by important selection characteristics, including various demographic (i.e., economic factors); parental (i.e., the presence of children); and relationship variables (i.e., intentions to marry; Brown & Booth, 1996; Burgoyne, 2012; Hardie & Lucas, 2010; Manning, Smock, & Majumdar, 2004; Marcussen, 2005). Recent research suggests that older cohabiting couples, aged 50 years and older, experience relationship quality and stability similar to married couples (Brown & Kawamura, 2010).

In addition to the increased popularity of cohabitation, adults are spending longer periods of time in singlehood (Klinenberg, 2012). In recent decades, the median age at first marriage increased for both men and women, but particularly for women. Between 1980 and 2012, women’s median age at first marriage rose from 22 to 26.6 years (Arroyo, Payne, Brown, & Manning, 2013). Completion of postsecondary education, economic security, women’s increased labor force participation, and the enjoyment and freedom of not being in a committed relationship (e.g., Amato et al., 2007; Klinenberg, 2012) help explain the extraordinary rise in singlehood. However, a retreat from marriage does not mean a retreat from romantic relationships, and little is known about what factors influence the relationship quality of dating couples. Research suggests that key background characteristics, including age, education, income, and interpersonal skills influence the relationship quality of dating couples, including their marital expectations (Hardie & Lucas, 2010; Lichter, Qian, & Mellott, 2006; Lincoln, Taylor, & Jackson, 2008; Waller & McLanahan, 2005). Despite these important gains, there remains a dearth of knowledge regarding what sociocultural factors influence the relationship quality and expectations of marriage among nonmarried couples.

Religion and Relationship Outcomes

How might religion be linked with the relationship quality and marital expectations of unmarried couples? Several decades of work have embraced the approach of defining religion as a complex multidimensional phenomenon. Under this conceptual framework, religion works through a variety of individual and relational mechanisms, including organizational, nonorganizational and subjective religiosity, as well as relational spirituality (i.e., the religious and/or spiritual processes by which relationships are created, maintained, and transformed), and may exert differential effects on the relationship outcomes of nonmarried couples (Levin, Taylor, & Chatters, 1995; Mahoney, 2010).

One relevant theoretical mechanism may be the role of religious homogamy, that is, partners’ similarities in religious tradition or commitment (Amato et al., 2007; Wilson & Musick, 1996). Religious homogamy may strengthen relationships by reinforcing affective bonds among partners through shared activity, mutually confirming each partner’s behaviors and worldviews, and promoting meaningful interaction and mutual understanding (Curtis & Ellison, 2002; Mahoney, 2010; Wilson & Musick, 1996). In addition, couples from similar belief systems may also hold common views regarding relationship matters, therefore, finding many areas of agreement when making joint decisions on commitment, children, financial, and household issues (Ellison & Sherkat, 1993). A number of studies have demonstrated that spouses in same-faith marriages tend to report higher levels of satisfaction and happiness, and same-faith marriages may be less vulnerable to dissolution as compared with others (Lehrer & Chiswick, 1993; Myers, 2006; Vaaler et al., 2009). Although it is well established that couples tend to marry endogamously, the work of Blackwell and Lichter (2004) affirm that dating and cohabiting couples are also religiously homogamous, and that religious homogamy increases slightly as couples transition from dating to cohabitation to marriage. Therefore, the benefits of religious homogamy, as seen primarily among married couples, may also transfer to dating and cohabiting couples.

A second mechanism may be organizational religious involvement, often measured in the frequency of religious services attendance (Ellison et al., 2011; Wilcox & Wolfinger, 2008). Briefly, the social networks of religious congregations may play an important role in fostering behaviors that influence the quality of nonmarried couples and a transition to marriage through (a) formal means, for example, sermons and official religious directives and (b) informal means, for example, good role models, emotional support and practical guidance from coreligionists. Nonmarried couples may receive messages from religious officials and others regarding the significance of committed relationships and family life for personal development and spiritual growth (Wilcox & Wolfinger, 2008). Although religious involvement has been found to diminish the likelihood of cohabitation among young adults (Lehrer, 2004), recent work among young, “fragile” unions found that embeddedness in religious social networks encourages supportive, nonviolent behaviors that improve relationship quality, particularly for men (Lichter & Carmalt, 2009; Wilcox & Wolfinger, 2008). In addition, among young adults who do cohabit, religiousness has also been found to increases the likelihood of transitioning to marriage (Loyd, 2006).

Although organizational religious involvement and commitment may positively influence the relationship quality of nonmarried unions in the ways outlined above, it is also reasonable to expect that formal religious involvement may also negatively influence individual’s attitudes and values on dating and cohabitation. Religion has been identified as an important source in opposition to nonmarital cohabitation and sex (Barkan, 2006; Lehrer, 2004; McFarland, Uecker, & Regnerus, 2011; Regnerus, 2007). Many religious groups strongly prohibit participation in such activities, and may (in)formally sanction members who transgress such teachings and beliefs. Therefore, religious attendance may not only be inversely related to cohabitation (Lehrer, 2004; Thornton, Axinn, & Hill, 1992) but among those who do cohabit, continued organizational religious involvement may have less (or even a negative) influence on individuals actions and attitudes surrounding cohabitation and dating.

In addition, the influence of organizational religious involvement may vary by religious affiliation. Although few faiths outright permit nonmarital cohabitation, conservative traditions, such as Evangelical Protestantism, may be less favorable to cohabitation than more liberal or tolerant traditions. Rooted in theologically conservative beliefs and understanding, many conservative traditions endorse the view that sexual activity is permissible only within the confines of a marital union, and therefore focus attention on “profamily” issues, including gender traditionalism and attitudes and practices regarding human sexuality (Bartkowski & Hempel, 2009; Regnerus, 2007; Uecker, 2014). Such religiously conservative groups often regulate the attitudes and behaviors of their members regarding sexual norms through the (in)formal sanctions of moral communities (Gault-Sherman & Draper, 2011; Iannaccone, 1994; Putman & Campbell, 2010). Indeed, several works document that Conservative Protestants and Mormons tend to be the most conservative in the areas of marriage and family life, and the least likely to favor or engage in cohabitation (Braithwaite et al., 2013; Lehrer, 2004; Xu, Hudspeth, & Bartkowski, 2005). These results suggest that the relationship between formal religious involvement and relationship quality among nonmarried couples may be varied and complex.

Last, a growing body of work has begun to investigate the role of sanctification on relationship quality. Briefly, sanctification refers to the practice of ascribing sacred significance or qualities to one’s relationship or partner (Mahoney, 2010). With respect to relationships, sanctification may be envisioned in two distinct ways: (a) theistic expressions of sanctification or the belief that God (or a supernatural being) is an active partner in the relationship and (2) nontheistic expressions of sanctification, in which couples tend to ascribe sacred qualities to the relationship or partner, but need not believe God (or any supernatural entity) is involved directly in the relationship (Mahoney et al., 1999; Pargament & Mahoney, 2005). There may be several important consequences to the belief in relationship sanctification. First, this may encourage partners to attend to their relationships in a more conscientious fashion by pursuing joint activities and interests, communicating more effectively, and demonstrating greater willingness to compromise (Sabey, Rauer, & Jensen, 2014). Second, couples may perceive a divine support for, and perhaps intervention in, the success of their relationships. Couples may also believe that by nurturing and protecting their relationship they are carrying out God’s will. The work on marital sanctification suggests that couples who acknowledge a divine purpose in their relationship (a) are more likely to collaborate in resolving challenges or disagreements, (b) have better marital adjustment, (c) perceive more benefits from marriage, and (d) report lower levels of aggression (Ellison & Anderson, 2001; Kusner, Mahoney, Pargament, & DeMaris, 2014; Stafford, 2016). By providing relationships with transcendent significance, religion may sanctify relationships in ways that encourage moral decision making and conflict resolution, as well as strong bonds and commitment (Butler, Stout, & Gardner, 2002; Dollahite, Hawkins, & Parr, 2012; Mahoney, 2010). Although much of the work on sanctification, and its impact on relationship outcomes, has focused on married couples, the qualitative work of Irby (2014) suggests that sanctification, or endowing one’s relationship with religious qualities, is a central theme among young dating Evangelical Christians. Thus, some of the benefits of marital sanctification on relationship quality and satisfaction may transcend relationship type and positively influence both dating and cohabiting couples.

The Mediating Role of Emotion Work

One important way in which religious engagement may promote relationship quality and marital expectations among unmarried couples is by fostering a more positive affective climate within intimate relationships. Briefly, the seminal work of Gottman and others (e.g., Gottman & Silver, 1999), which identifies both positive and negative affect in couple interactions, suggests that expressions of affection, love, interest, and humor are important components to healthy relationships. Indeed, those who shower their partner—or perceive that their partner showers them—with praise, kindness, and love are more likely to be satisfied and committed to their relationship as compared with those for whom these behaviors and feelings are minimal or absent (Gottman & Silver, 1999). Moreover, if partners are able to deal with disagreements in a positive and reinforcing manner, as compared with negativity, insults, and criticism, then relationship satisfaction and commitment are likely to be higher.

Shared religious involvement, homogamy, and sanctification may have a salutary effect on nonmarried couples’ relationship quality and expectations to marry in part by encouraging acts of kindness and consideration, and by curbing criticism and negativity in daily interactions. Why might this be the case? First, religion may foster greater empathy and altruism within relationships, leading individuals to display greater affection, patience, and forgiveness toward their romantic partners (Dollahite & Marks, 2009; Stafford, 2016). Data from the NORC General Social Survey indicate that religious involvement—measured in terms of attendance at services and self-reported religiousness—is one of the strongest predictors of empathetic and altruistic values and behaviors (Smith, 2006), and the link between religion and these prosocial behaviors were found to be constant across country, religious affiliation, and cohort (McCullough, Tsang, & Brion, 2003; Saroglou, 2002). Several studies report that individuals in religious marriages may be more prone to forgiveness, compassionate love, and self-sacrifice which are linked to greater marital quality and stability (David & Stafford, 2015; McCullough & Willoughby, 2009; Sabey et al., 2014). In addition, religious people tend to be—or at least perceive themselves as—prosocial, agreeable, and valuing benevolence (Saroglou, 2002; Saroglou, Delpierre, & Dernelle, 2004). Studies have suggested that relationship commitment and quality are strengthened when individuals forego personal desires and preferences to enhance the happiness and well-being of their partner and the relationship as a whole, and religion may be a key impetus to such selflessness (e.g., Fincham & Beach, 2014; Sabey et al., 2014).

Second, conveyed through religious dogma and institutional structures, sacred texts put forth specific ideals and guidelines about how to treat partners in intimate relationships (Ellison et al., 2011; Marks, 2004; Wilcox & Wolfinger, 2008). Such principles may influence religious individuals to measure their relationships against such demanding standards, and redouble their efforts to act with kindness, consideration, patience, and understanding. For instance, using experimental methods, Saroglou, Pichon, Trompette, Verschueren, and Dernelle (2005) found a positive association between subjective religiousness and a likelihood of helping a (hypothetical) family member or close friend in need. Finally, religious cognitions and practices may aid in the cultivation of personal regulation and self-control (McCullough & Willoughby, 2009). This may be important in the context of intimate relationships, because religion may facilitate the monitoring of personal thought and behavior, as well as the emotions and reactions of intimate partners (Watterson & Giesler, 2012). Reflecting on the feelings of loved ones, individuals may be disinclined toward impulsive behaviors and expressions of negative feelings that could damage their relationships. Here again, experimental work suggest that the more people valued God and religion in their life, the less they reacted in an aggressive way when faced with hypothetical daily hassles that occur within interpersonal relationships (Saroglou, 2002; Saroglou et al., 2005).

The Present Study

Our work examines the links between multiple dimensions of religion and two outcomes among dating and cohabiting couples: (a) relationship satisfaction and (b) expectations that the partners will eventually marry. The preceding discussion suggests several expectations that guide the remainder of the study. First, we expect that persons who share (a) denominational affiliation and (b) religious and spiritual beliefs with their partners will be more satisfied, and more prone to expect to marry their partners, than other persons. Second, we anticipate that individuals who attend religious services regularly with their partners will report greater relationship quality and marital expectations than others. However, couples in which only one partner attends regularly will exhibit relatively low levels of relationship quality, and will be unlikely to anticipate marrying their current partner. We also anticipate that conservative affiliation will moderate the relationship between religious involvement and the relationship outcomes among nonmarried couples. Third, we anticipate that theistic sanctification, or the perception that God is at the center of the relationship, will be positively associated with assessments of relationship quality and marital expectations. Finally, we expect that these associations between shared religiousness and relationship outcomes will be reduced or eliminated with statistical controls for acts of kindness and consideration (i.e., compliments, acts of thoughtfulness) and criticism by the respondent and by the partner.

Data

Data come from the NSRFL, a 2006 telephone survey of adults, ages 18 to 59 years, residing in the continental U.S. households were selected using a random digit dialing design, and one respondent was chosen at random within each household. The survey took, on average, approximately 30 minutes to complete, and if desired could be conducted in Spanish (Burdette, Haynes, & Ellison, 2012). An oversample of African Americans and Latinos were taken by dialing within telephone area codes containing at least 10% concentrations of the respective ethnic subgroups. The response rate for the NSRFL was 36% (33% in the cross-sectional sample, 41% and 34% in the African American and the Latino oversamples, respectively); the overall cooperation rate was 54% with higher cooperation rates among the race/ethnic subsamples.

Although the NSRFL response rates are low by traditional standards, the rate recorded by the survey is almost identical to that recorded by other influential projects, such as the American Mosaic Project (see Council for Market & Opinion Research, 2003; Edgell, Gerteis, & Hartmann, 2006). In addition, evidence indicates that the relationship between response rates and data quality is weak (Keeter, Miller, Kohut, Groves, & Presser, 2000). According to a post by the American Association for Public Opinion Research, who compared small scale surveys and U.S. census data or very large governmental sample surveys, questioned the positive association between response rates and survey quality. They suggest that in some cases, the least bias have come from surveys with less than optimal response rates (American Association for Public Opinion Research, 2008). Much of the relevant evidence is in a special issue of the Public Opinion Quarterly devoted to survey nonresponse (Singer, 2006).

Given the substantive focus of the article, the analyses were confined to respondents in either a cohabiting or dating relationship at the time of the interview (n = 468). Data in these analyses are not weighted. Data weights are designed to make the full NSRFL sample representative of the U.S. working-age (18-59 years old) population; however, they are problematic when used with subsamples such as respondents in nonmarital unions. Missing cases were handled using the multiple imputation technique suggested by Allison (2002) using PROC MI in SAS with 10 imputations.

Dependent Variables

Relationship Satisfaction

Relationship satisfaction was measured via two questions: “Taking all things considered, how would you describe your relationship?” and “How happy are you with the love and affection you receive from your partner?” Responses for both questions ranged from 1 = very unhappy to 6 = very happy, and the average of the two items was created. The alpha reliability coefficient for this scale is .86 and the Pearson correlation coefficient is .76, p < .001, with higher scores indicating greater relationship satisfaction.

Expectations to Marriage

To assess marital expectations respondents’ were asked (a) Are you engaged? and/or (b) “What do you think the chances are that you will marry your [current] partner in the future?” Original responses were “yes or no” to engagement, and 1 = no chance to 5 = an almost certain chance concerning the likelihood of marriage. The items were recoded to 1 = almost certain chance of marrying/engaged versus 0 = all others.

Key Independent Variables

Religion.¹

Several distinct aspects of the couples’ religious involvement were included in the analyses. First, shared religious beliefs was measured by asking how much the respondent (dis)agreed with the following statement: “You feel that your partner shares your core religious or spiritual values.” Responses to this item ranged from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. The item was reversed coded so that higher scores indicate stronger shared religious beliefs. In addition to shared religious beliefs, respondents were also asked to report if his or her partner shared his or her religious affiliation. This item was constructed with a dummy variable 1 = “yes” (i.e., partners share religious affiliation) versus 0 = “no” (i.e., partners do not).

Second, shared organizational religious involvement was assessed by asking the respondent: “How often do you attend religious services?” Respondents were also asked to report how often his or her partner attends religious services. Responses for both of these items ranged from 1 = never to 6 = more than once a week. A series of dummy variables were constructed using these questions: (a) respondent and partner attend weekly (i.e., weekly and more than once a week); (b) the respondent attends weekly, partner does not; and (c) the partner attends weekly, respondent does not. Respondents and/or their partners that attend less than once a week, including those that never attend religious services, serve as the reference category. Additionally, a dichotomous measure of religious conservativism was also constructed (1 = religiously conservative vs. 0 = all others). Based on prior research on religion and family formation processes and the relationship between sexual attitudes and behaviors specifically (Lehrer, 2004; Regnerus, 2007), the following groups were classified as religiously conservative: Evangelical Protestant, Muslim, and Mormon (Steensland et al., 2000).

Last, respondents were asked the degree to which they (dis)agreed with the following statement: “God is at the center of my relationship.” Responses to this item also ranged from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree. The item was reverse coded so that higher scores indicate strong agreement that his or her relationship was God-centered (i.e., theistic sanctification).

Mediating Factors

We examined four possible mediating variables in the analysis. First, the respondent was asked to report how often both the respondent and the partner performed various acts of kindness and consideration, including (a) expresses affection or love, (b) compliments the work done around the house or as a parent, and (c) performs small acts of kindness. Original response categories ranged from 1 = always to 5 = never, and items were reverse coded where necessary so that higher scores reflect more frequent acts of kindness and consideration by the respondent and the partner. The alpha reliability coefficients for the respondent measure and the partner measure are .63 and .67, respectively. Second, respondents were asked how often the respondent and the partner engages in “criticisms or insults.” Here again, the original response categories ranged from 1 = always to 5 = never, and items were reverse coded so that higher scores denote more frequent criticisms or insults.

Covariates

All the models control for: relationship status (1= cohabiting, 0 = dating); race/ethnicity (1 = African American, 1 = Latino, and non-Hispanic White serving as the reference category); gender (1 = female, 0 = male); age (in years); education (1 = less than high school, 1 = some college, 1 = bachelor’s degree, 1 = advance degree, and high school diploma serving as the reference category); employment status (1 = employed full-time, 0 = other work status); income (eight categories ranging from less than $15,000 to more than $100,000); and child(ren) present in home (1 = 1 or more child(ren) present, 0 = no children present).

Analytical Approach

The data analysis progressed in several steps. First, Table 1 displays the descriptive statistics of the key variables of interest. Second, a series of ordinary least squares (OLS; for the relationship satisfaction scale²) and LR models (for expectations to marry) were run to test the association between religion and relationship quality among unmarried couples. These results are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Separate models were run for each of the four religion measures (Models 1-4), and in Model 5 all variables were entered simultaneously. Last, Model 6 investigates whether the emotion–work (i.e., acts of kindness/consideration and criticism) of both partners mediates the relationship between religion and the relationship outcomes by examining whether and how the inclusion of these variables change the coefficients of the religion measures. In addition to the models described above, we also examine the moderating role of relationship type, religious conservatism, gender, and race using cross-product interaction terms.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

	Range	Total (n = 468)	Cohabitors (n = 205)	Daters (n = 242)
Dependent variables
Relationship satisfaction	1-6	4.57 (1.05)	4.55 (1.12)	4.61 (0.99)
Expectations of marriage	0-1	0.37	0.54*	0.23
Religion variables
Partner shares affiliation	0-1	0.69	0.69	0.68
Partners share similar religious beliefs	1-5	4.07 (1.31)	4.06 (1.36)	4.07 (1.28)
Respondent and partner attend weekly	0-1	0.13	0.12	0.14
Respondent attends weekly, partner does not	0-1	0.25	0.20*	0.28
Partner attends weekly, respondent does not	0-1	0.25	0.19*	0.31
Theistic sanctification	1-5	3.98 (1.42)	4.02 (1.38)	3.94 (1.36)
Religious conservative	0-1	0.29	0.24*	0.33
Mediating variables
Acts of kindness and consideration by respondent	1-5	4.03 (0.81)	4.07 (0.84)	3.99 (0.79)
Criticism by respondent	1-5	2.01 (1.06)	2.06 (1.06)	1.98 (1.05)
Acts of kindness and consideration by partner	1-5	3.79 (0.93)	3.73 (0.98)	3.84 (0.88)
Criticism by partner	1-5	1.92 (1.05)	2.04* (1.05)	1.82 (1.04)
Covariates
Cohabitors (reference daters)	0-1	0.45	—	—
Female	0-1	0.63	0.70*	0.57
Non-Hispanic White	0-1	0.24	0.25	0.24
Black	0-1	0.42	0.29*	0.52
Latino	0-1	0.34	0.47*	0.24
Age	18-59	34.67 (11.60)	34.89 (10.65)	34.49 (12.35)
Income	1-8	3.69 (1.96)	3.71 (1.93)	3.68 (1.99)
Less than high school (reference high school diploma)	0-1	0.15	0.21*	0.11
Some college	0-1	0.32	0.32	0.33
College degree	0-1	0.14	0.11	0.17
Advanced degree	0-1	0.08	0.09	0.07
Child(ren) in household	0-1	0.52	0.66*	0.40
Employed full time	0-1	0.56	0.56	0.57

Note. Data come from the National Survey of Religion and Family Life. Means and proportions are presented and standard deviations are in parentheses. *p < .05 for t-test comparing means for cohabitors versus daters.

Table 2.

The Estimated Net Effects of Religion and Other Covariates on Relationship Satisfaction: Ordinary Least Squares Regression.

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Partners share affiliation	−0.062 (0.114)				−0.258* (0.118)	−0.164 (0.101)
Partners share similar beliefs		0.140*** (0.038)			0.137** (0.041)	0.061 (0.036)
Respondent and partner attend weekly			0.469+ (0.254)		0.479+ (0.253)	0.348 (0.222)
Respondent attends weekly, partner does not			−0.111 (0.156)		−0.169 (0.156)	−0.225 (0.136)
Partner attends weekly, respondent does not			0.068 (0.161)		−0.015 (0.159)	0.060 (0.142)
Theistic sanctification				0.103** (0.038)	0.078* (0.039)	0.046+ (0.034)
Acts of kindness and consideration by respondent						0.109+ (0.061)
Criticism by respondent						−0.021 (0.045)
Acts of kindness and consideration by partner						0.431*** (0.055)
Criticism by partner						−0.149** (0.048)
Relationship status (cohabitation = 1)	−0.034 (0.105)	−0.035 (0.105)	−0.053 (0.104)	−0.042 (0.104)	−0.059 (0.104)	−0.022 (0.091)
Sex (female = 1)	0.096 (0.105)	0.071 (0.105)	0.089 (0.104)	0.056 (0.104)	0.088 (0.104)	0.011 (0.092)
Black	0.162 (0.131)	−0.150 (0.130)	−0.186 (0.128)	−0.277* (0.136)	−0.242+ (0.135)	−0.216+ (0.118)
Latino	−0.240+ (0.135)	−0.226+ (0.137)	−0.282* (0.134)	−0.329* (0.139)	−0.307* (0.138)	−0.245* (0.120)
Age	−0.014*** (0.004)	−0.014** (0.028)	−0.014** (0.004)	−0.015*** (0.004)	−0.017*** (0.004)	−0.013*** (0.004)
Income	0.041 (0.028)	0.040 (0.028)	0.040 (0.028)	0.041 (0.028)	0.035 (0.028)	0.012 (0.024)
Less than high school	0.107 (0.157)	0.129 (0.159)	0.111 (0.156)	0.094 (0.158)	0.094 (0.155)	0.130 (0.135)
Some college (<4 years)	−0.210+ (0.126)	−0.166 (0.126)	−0.193 (0.124)	−0.162 (0.125)	−0.229+ (0.124)	−0.085 (0.109)
College degree	0.034 (0.161)	0.101 (0.161)	0.031 (0.159)	0.122 (0.160)	0.030 (0.160)	0.116 (0.139)
Advanced degree	0.127 (0.208)	0.108 (0.210)	0.111 (0.207)	0.212 (0.211)	0.156 (0.208)	0.303+ (0.181)
Child(ren) in household	−0.077 (0.108)	−0.079 (0.108)	−0.005 (0.108)	−0.090 (0.105)	−0.045 (0.108)	0.023 (0.094)
Employment status	0.058 (0.106)	0.025 (0.106)	0.062 (0.105)	0.053 (0.103)	0.090 (0.104)	0.045 (0.091)
Intercept	5.04***	5.098***	4.491***	4.763***	4.518***	3.020***
Adjusted R²	.035	.020	.049	.035	.069	.300

Note. Standard errors are in parentheses.

+p < .10. *

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

Table 3.

The Estimated Net Effects of Religion and Other Covariates on Expectations to Marry: Logistic Regression (LR).

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
Partners share affiliation	0.952 (0.241)				0.514* (0.277)	0.578+ (0.288)
Partners share similar beliefs		1.436*** (0.241)			1.418** (0.104)	1.347* (0.108)
Respondent and partner attend weekly			3.448* (0.586)		4.001* (0.615)	3.584* (0.628)
Respondent attends weekly, partner does not			0.738 (0.371)		0.569 (0.396)	0.607 (0.402)
Partner attends weekly, respondent does not			1.209 (0.375)		0.968 (0.390)	0.955 (0.409)
Theistic sanctification				1.446*** (0.097)	1.385** (0.102)	1.328* (0.107)
Acts of kindness and consideration by respondent						1.402+ (0.179)
Criticism by respondent						0.762* (0.131)
Acts of kindness and consideration by partner						1.490* (0.162)
Criticism by partner						1.012 (0.136)
Relationship status (cohabitation = 1)	4.391*** (0.238)	4.155*** (0.230)	4.146*** (0.230)	4.390*** (0.236)	4.527*** (0.249)	5.166*** (0.263)
Sex (female = 1)	1.597+ (0.237)	1.485+ (0.232)	1.556+ (0.232)	1.473 (0.237)	1.613+ (0.247)	1.657+ (0.264)
Black	1.377 (0.300)	1.371 (0.290)	1.259 (0.290)	0.914 (0.310)	0.969 (0.324)	1.037 (0.335)
Latino	1.228 (0.303)	1.227 (0.300)	1.062 (0.300)	0.869 (0.318)	0.920 (0.329)	0.960 (0.340)
Age	0.968*** (0.010)	0.971** (0.010)	0.970** (0.010)	0.965** (0.010)	0.959*** (0.011)	0.962*** (0.011)
Income	1.160 (0.062)	1.152* (0.061)	1.151* (0.061)	1.165* (0.063)	1.156* (0.065)	1.128+ (0.067)
Less than high school	1.165 (0.339)	1.204 (0.335)	1.174 (0.335)	1.080 (0.344)	1.101 (0.354)	1.142 (0.373)
Some college (<4 years)	0.736 (0.286)	0.849 (0.277)	0.778 (0.277)	0.849 (0.281)	0.690 (0.297)	0.802 (0.311)
College degree	0.825 (0.363)	0.998 (0.351)	0.863 (0.351)	1.084 (0.358)	0.864 (0.380)	0.973 (0.396)
Advanced degree	2.334+ (0.457)	2.226+ (0.451)	2.215+ (0.451)	3.286* (0.480)	2.943* (0.482)	3.791** (0.490)
Child(ren) in household	0.975 (0.240)	0.989 (0.236)	1.177 (0.236)	0.937 (0.238)	1.001 (0.252)	1.148 (0.263)
Employment status	1.202 (0.236)	1.105 (0.231)	1.215 (0.230)	1.226 (0.236)	1.374 (0.246)	1.372 (0.256)
LR χ²	97.98***	74.09***	74.09***	90.91***	116.40***	147.15***

Note. Odds ratios are presented and standard errors are in parentheses.

+p < .10. *

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

Results

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for all variables used in the analysis by total sample and relationship type. A slight majority of the respondents are in a steady dating relationship (55%). On average, respondents report levels of relationship satisfaction above the midpoint (4.57 on a 6-point scale), and 37% were either currently engaged or almost certain they would marry their current partner. In terms of key religion variables, the majority of respondents strongly agree that their relationship is theistically sanctified (i.e., God-centered), and their partner shares similar religious beliefs (56% and 53%, respectively). Similarly, 69% of the respondents report sharing a similar religious affiliation as their partner. Thirteen percentage of respondents report attending religious services weekly with their partner, and approximately 29% of the analytical sample was classified as religiously conservative. Regarding emotion–work, respondents tend to report doing slightly more acts of kindness and consideration than levels reported for their partners, but they report that their partners are somewhat less critical. Several key differences by relationship type are worth noting: cohabitors report higher levels of marital expectations and partner criticism, but are less likely to identify as religiously conservative than daters. Finally, in terms of sociodemographic characteristics, 42% of the respondents were African American, around 14% have a college degree, and 56% were employed full-time at the time of the interview.

Table 2 presents a series of OLS regression models, estimating the net effects of couples’ religion and covariates on relationship satisfaction. The results presented in Model 1 suggest shared religious affiliation is unrelated to relationship satisfaction. However, in Model 2 shared religious beliefs (b = .140, p < .001) bears a strong positive association with relationship satisfaction net of the covariates. The results of Model 3 reveals a marginally significant, positive association between respondents who attend services regularly with their partners and relationship satisfaction (b = .469, p < .10), compared with persons in unions in which partners attend services sporadically or not at all. Model 4 reveals theistic sanctification is positively assocated with satisfaction (b = .103, p < .01). In the full model, Model 5, the salutary estimated effects of shared religious beliefs (b = .137, p < .01) and theistic sanctification (b = .078, p < .05) remain significant and positively associated with relationship satisfaction. Here again, net of the religion variables and covariates, joint regular service attendance remains positive, but marginally significant (b = .479, p < .10). Additionally, a curious suppressor pattern emerges: When respondents’ perceptions of shared beliefs, couples’ attendance (dis)-similarity, and theistic sanctification are held constant, individuals who share a common religious affiliation with their partners are actually less satisfied with their relationship (b = −.258, p < .05). The reasons for this counterintuitive pattern are uncertain.

In Model 6, we consider the mediating role of (a) acts of kindness and consideration and (b) criticism by both respondent and partner. Here, we note that, the frequency of acts of kindness and consideration by the respondent’s partner is strongly associated with greater relationship satisfaction on the part of the respondent (b = .431, p < .001), while the frequency of criticism by the partner is inversely associated with satisfaction (b = −.149, p < .01). Respondents’ self-reported acts of kindness and criticism are only marginally associated with relationship satisfaction, while criticism by the respondent has no relationship. Comparing the coefficients in Model 5 with those in Model 6 of Table 2, we find that the estimated net effects of three religion measures—shared affiliation and beliefs and joint attendance—are eliminated with controls for these emotion–work variables. The association between theistic sanctification and relationship satisfaction becomes marginally significant.

In Table 3, a parallel set of models, using LR, are estimated to gauge the net effects of shared religion on expectations to marry. Cell entries are odds ratios (ORs). Model 1 reveals no association between shared denominational affiliation and marital expectations. Model 2 reveals that persons who share religious beliefs with their partners have much grater cumulative odds of expecting to marry their partners (OR = 1.44, p < .001). According to Model 3, individuals who attend services regularly with their partners are much more inclined to anticipate eventually marrying than those persons in unions in which partners attend services sporadically or not at all (OR = 3.45, p < .05). The results of Model 4 reveals that those who perceive their relationship to be theistically sanctified are significantly more likely to report expectations of marrying their partner (OR = 1.45, p < .001, respectively). In Model 5, when all religion variables are considered simultaneously, the estimated net effect of shared beliefs (OR = 1.42, p < .01), regular joint attendance (OR = 4.01, p < .05), and theistic sanctification (OR = 1.39, p < .01) remain significant. Here again, net of the other measures of religion and covariates, shared religious affiliation is associated with lower cumulative odds that respondents will anticipate marrying their partner (OR = 0.51, p < .01).

Last, Model 6 examines the role of acts of kindness and consideration and criticism by each partner on the link between religion and expectations to marry. Acts of kindness and consideration by both respondent and partner is positively associated with expectations of eventual marriage, while the frequency of criticism by the respondent is inversely associated with greater marital expectations. Criticism by the partner has no direct bearing on expectations of marriage. Comparing ORs in Model 5 of Table 3 with those in Model 6, we find few meaningful differences. Even with controls for (a) acts of kindness and consideration and (b) criticism by the respondent and partner, expectations to marry remain higher among respondents who report sharing religious beliefs (OR = 1.35, p < .05) and theistic sanctification (OR = 1.33, p < .05). Joint regular service attendance (OR = 3.58, p < .05), as compared with when neither partner attends regularly or not at all, remains strongly predictive of marital expectation. Additionally, when other measures of religion involvement are controlled, respondents who report sharing a religious affiliation with their partner are less inclined to expect that their union will eventuate in marriage and this association approaches statistical significance at conventional levels (OR = .58, p < .10).

Mediation and Moderation Analysis

In addition to the models presented in Tables 2 and 3, a set of ancillary analyses (not shown, but available on request from the corresponding author) were estimated. First, we used the statistical tests proposed by Clogg, Petkova, and Haritou (1995) to assess whether the patterns presented in the mediation models of Tables 2 and 3 satisfy the conditions required for full mediation. The results of these tests reveal no evidence of such mediation. Second, we tested a series of moderation analysis, including whether relationship type (i.e., cohabiting vs. dating couples) and religious affiliation (i.e., conservative vs. all others) moderated the association between religion and our relationship outcomes. To conduct the moderation analysis all ordinal variables were zero centered to minimize collinearity between raw and product terms (Aiken & West, 1991), and a series of cross-product interaction terms (e.g., religion × relationship status) were entered into the full models. Surprisingly, no significant interactions were found for either relationship type or conservative affiliation. Third, mindful that these patterns may vary by gender and race–ethnicity, we added the relevant interaction terms to the exploratory models, but found no meaningful interactions by gender or race–ethnicity.

Finally, we were interested in determining whether the observed associations between our religious variables—and especially our indicator of shared religious beliefs and value—and the outcomes of interest may be the spurious result of general homogamy among romantic partners. To investigate this issue, we examined bivariate correlations between the religion variables and the degree of educational similarity among partners. This is a particularly useful measure because education surpassed religion as a key basis of assortative mating in the United States during the mid-20th century (Kalmijn, 1998). However, none of these bivariate correlations was significant except for one, the correlation between educational homogamy and theistic sanctification (i.e., having a God-centered relationship), and this association was actually negative (r = −.19, p < .01). These null patterns seem to suggest that it is the similarity of religious beliefs and values—rather than similarity in general—that is associated with relationship quality and marital expectations among unmarried couples.

Discussion

Patterns and processes of union formation have changed significantly in the United States as indicated by rising rates of cohabitation and delays in the timing of marriage. Despite a significant body of research on religion and marital bonds, surprisingly little is known about the role (if any) of religious factors in shaping the quality, stability, and trajectories of nonmarital unions. Using data on unmarried (i.e., cohabiting and dating) persons drawn from a nationwide sample of working-age adults (ages 18-59 years) that includes oversamples of African Americans and Latinos, our study has addressed this notable gap in the literature. Several key findings warrant discussion.

Nonmarried persons who report sharing core religious or spiritual values with their partners report significantly higher levels of relationship satisfaction than others, and they also express stronger expectations of marrying their current partner than other respondents. This finding is broadly consistent with previous studies that (a) religious and spiritual beliefs are more predictive of family values and practices than affiliation or attendance (Bartkowski & Xu, 2000; Ellison, Bartkowski, & Segal, 1996) and (b) religious (dis)similarities among marital and romantic partners, and among other family members (e.g., between parents and children), often have significant implications for the quality of relationships (Curtis & Ellison, 2002; Lehrer & Chiswick, 1993; Vaaler et al., 2009). In our data, the link between shared religious beliefs and relationship satisfaction is eliminated with statistical adjustments for the frequency of (a) acts of kindness and consideration and (b) criticism by respondents and their partners. One interpretation of this pattern is that shared religious beliefs may foster intimacy, making it easier for couples to treat one another with love, affection, and respect.

The association between shared religious beliefs and marital expectation is only slightly diminished by controls for these potential mediating factors, suggesting that other factors may be responsible for the observed patterns. Religious beliefs may influence, or at least they may be correlated with, a host of other attitudes and preferences, including those related to family life (e.g., childbearing and child rearing, sex, gender roles, etc.) and other domains (e.g., social and political, lifestyle norms). Thus, shared religious orientations may signal broader agreement, or at least lack of overt conflict, over a broad array of issues. In addition, shared religious and spiritual beliefs may also contribute to trust in the commitment and likely fidelity of one’s partner to the family unit, and may build confidence that the couple can withstand whatever challenges may eventually confront them in married life (David & Stafford, 2015).

Theistic sanctification, or the perception that God is active in the relationship, is positively linked with relationship satisfaction and expectations to marriage. Partners who view their relationship as sacred, or as a manifestation of the divine, may be more inclined to think and act in ways that preserve and strengthen the relationship, thereby increasing its resilience even in times of stress or hardship (DeMaris, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2010; Lichter & Carmalt, 2009; Mahoney, 2010). For example, couples who perceive the divine in their union may be more likely to prioritize their relationship and its preservation over short-term interests. In addition, sanctification may lead individuals to focus on positive elements in the relationship and favorable attributes and qualities of their partners. For these persons, their relationships, and their romantic partners, may be viewed as divinely ordained, or part of God’s plan for their lives, thus fueling the expectation of an eventual lifelong union. Studies have linked marital sanctification with a host of desirable relationship processes and outcomes, including greater investment in joint activities, use of healthy coping practices, positive conflict resolution strategies (e.g., reasoning and negotiating), and an avoidance in negative strategies (e.g., verbal aggression, stonewalling; Butler et al., 2002; Mahoney et al., 1999; Stafford, 2016). The antecedents, correlates, and sequelae of sanctification for different types of relationships, and among diverse samples (e.g., in terms of race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation) clearly deserve more sustained investigation in the future.

The relationships between organizational religious involvement and our outcomes are mixed. There appears to be a positive association between satisfaction levels and expectations to marrry among couples in which both partners attend services regularly. However, our analysis reveals little connection between denominational homogamy and either relationship satisfaction or marital expectations among unmarried couples. There is one exception: When other dimensions of couples’ religious life are held constant, same-faith nonmarried couples report lower levels of relationship satisfaction and are less prone to anticipate eventually marrying their partners. There are several possible explanations. First, devoid of belief and practice, same-faith couples may have divergent understandings of the role of religion in the relationship, resulting in tension or cognitive dissonance between partners that results in lower relationship quality. Additionally, couples may face negative sanctions from their religious communities for their nonmarital union that may results in social stigma or a wedge in their relationship. Second, the largely null findings in this area may dovetail results of several recent studies, suggesting that denominational homogamy is becoming less salient for studies of families and relationships (e.g., Myers, 2006). As sociologists of religion have documented, a series of complex changes in the U.S. religious landscape over the past 50 years have diminished social and theological distance among most Christian denominations, and have increased the internal heterogeneity of most denominations. Consequently, denominational labels may be less meaningful or informative indicators of individuals’ or couples’ beliefs or practices than they once were (Wuthnow, 1988).

However, because our data are cross-sectional, the causal nature and direction of associations between religious (dis)similarities and relationship satisfaction and marital expectations cannot be established. We are also not able to directly address differential selection, by controlling for important personality charateristics, and so on, that may be at play. For example, it is possible that couples in unsatisfactory relationships (a) tend to withdraw from joint religious attendance, or indeed, other joint activities; (b) are acutely aware of differences in their religious and spiritual values; and (c) find it difficult to perceive the divine at work in their relationships. Clearly, they may be reluctant to consider marriage as a desirable option under these circumstances. It is also possible that both religious differences and relationship problems may stem from unmeasured variables, ranging from dispositional factors involving one or both partners, or to chasms in lifestyle preferences. Efforts to disentangle such complex causal effects should be a priority for future investigators.

Although this study addresses an important gap in the literature, it is also characterized by several notable limitations. First, these data are cross-sectional, and as we noted earlier, this makes it impossible to establish with certainty the causal direction of the associations reported here. Additionally, we must also acknowledge possible selection effects that may be at play that we are unable to account for. Second, due to concerns over the length of the telephone interviews and concerns over respondent cooperation and fatigue, many of our core constructs are measured using single items. In the future, it would be desirable to incorporate multi-item measures of sanctification, including nontheistic measures of sanctification and relationship quality, acts of kindness and consideration and criticism, and other constructs examined here. Along these same lines, while the NSRFL is one of the few nationally representative data sets available to examine the relationship between religion and relationship outcomes among dating and cohabiting individuals, the data does not allow for us to distinguish between same-sex and opposite-sex couples, determine the timing of a couples’ engagement (i.e., prior to or after cohabiting), nor learn other factors from a couples’ relationship history. These distinctions may be important and future work should attempt to shed light on these differences. Third, we should acknowledge the suboptimal response rate for the overall study sample. Nevertheless, the modest response rate is comparable to many recent nationwide surveys based on random digit dialing (Council for Market & Opinion Research, 2003; Edgell et al., 2006). Fourth, this study relies on the responses of a single partner to report on couples’ religious similarity and relationship quality. Future research should attempt to replicate these findings by collecting data from both partners separately, and triangulating data gathered from multiple sources, for example, in-person interviews, self-administered questionnaires, and observations of couples’ interactions. In addition, given the established differences in religion and cohabitation by race and gender (Burdette et al., 2012), future attention to these important factors should also be given.

Despite these limitations, this study has made a significant contribution to the research literature on religion and intimate relationships. Although considerable evidence reveals links between religion and marital quality, the potential influence of religious factors on nonmarital partnerships has been widely neglected by researchers. However, in light of the vast changes in family formation in the United States, the future of the long-standing connection between the social institutions of religion and family—and indeed, the vitality of religious institutions themselves—may depend on the ability and willingness of congregations to adapt to emerging family forms and nonmarital romantic relationships (Edgell, 2006; Edgell & Docka, 2007; Mahoney & Krumrei, 2010). Clearly, the potential influence of religious factors in such relationships is more complex and potentially important than was previously recognized and further investigation along the lines suggested above can clarify the connections between religion and nonmarital relationships in the contemporary United States.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Allison

P. D.

(2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Amato

P. R.

Booth

Johnson

D. R.

Rogers

(2007). Alone together: How marriage in America is changing. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2008). Do response rates matter? Retrieved from http://www.aapor.org/Education-Resources/For-Researchers/Poll-Survey-FAQ/Do-Response-Rates-Matter.aspx

Arroyo

Payne

K. K.

Brown

S. L.

Manning

W. D.

(2013). Crossover in median age at first marriage and first birth: Thirty years of change (FP-13-06). Retrieved from https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-13-06.pdf

Barkan

S. E.

(2006). Religiosity and premarital sex in adulthood. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religon, 45, 407-417.

Bartkowski

J. P.

Hempel

L. M.

(2009). Sex and gender traditionalism among conservative Protestants: Does the difference make a difference? Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48, 805-816.

Bartkowski

J. P.

(2000). Distant patriarchs of expressive dads? The discourse and practice of fathering in conservative protestant families. Sociological Quarterly, 41, 465-485.

Blackwell

D. L.

Lichter

D T

. (2004). Homogamy among dating, cohabiting, and married couples. Sociological Quarterly, 45, 719-737.

10.

Braithwaite

S. R.

Coulson

G. L.

Spjut

Dickerson

Beck

A. R.

Dougal

Jones

(2013). The influence of religion on partner selection strategies of emerging adults. Journal of Family Issues, 34, 295-332.

11.

Brown

S. L.

(2000). The effect of union type on psychological well-being: Depression among cohabitors versus marrieds. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 241-255.

12.

Brown

S. L.

Booth

(1996). Cohabitation versus marriage: A comparison of relationship quality. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 668-678.

13.

Brown

S. L.

Kawamura

(2010). Relationship quality among cohabitors and marrieds in older adulthood. Social Science Research, 39, 777-786.

14.

Brownridge

D. A.

Halli

S. S.

(2000). “Living in sin” and sinful living: Toward filling a gap in the explanation of violence against women. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 565-583.

15.

Bumpass

L. L.

(2000). Trends in cohabitation and implications for children’s family context in the United States. Population Studies, 54, 29-41.

16.

Burdette

A. M.

Haynes

S. H.

Ellison

C. G.

(2012). Religion, race/ethnicity, and barriers to marriage among working–age adults. Sociology of Religion, 73, 429-451.

17.

Burgoyne

(2012). Relationship quality among married and cohabiting couples (FP-12-12). Retrieved from https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-12-12.pdf

18.

Butler

M. H.

Stout

J. A.

Gardner

B. C.

(2002). Prayer as a conflict resolution ritual: Clinical implications of religious couples’ report of relationship softening, healing perspective, and change responsibility. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 19-37.

19.

Chaves

(2010). Rain dances in the dry season: Overcoming the religious congruence fallacy. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 49, 1-14.

20.

Cherlin

A. J.

(2004). The deinstitutionalization of American marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 848-861.

21.

Cherlin

A. J.

(2010a). Demographic trends in the United States: A review of the research in 2000s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 403-419.

22.

Cherlin

A. J.

(2010b). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America today. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

23.

Clogg

C. C.

Petkova

Haritou

(1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal Sociology, 100, 1261-1293.

24.

Council for Market & Opinion Research. (2003). Tracking response, cooperation, and refusal rates for the industry: 2003 Results. Wetherfield, CT: Author.

25.

Curtis

K. T.

Ellison

C. G.

(2002). Religious heterogamy and marital conflict: Findings from the National Survey of Families and Households. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 551-576.

26.

David

Stafford

(2015). A relational approach to religion and spirituality in marriage: The role of couples’ religious communication in marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 232-249.

27.

DeMaris

Mahoney

Pargament

K. I.

(2010). Sanctification of marriage and general religiousness as buffers of the effects of marital inequity. Journal of Family Issues, 31, 1255-1278.

28.

Denton

M. L.

(2012). Family structure, family disruption, and profiles of adolescent religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51, 42-64.

29.

Dollahite

D. C.

Hawkins

A. J.

Parr

M. R.

(2012). “Something more”: The meanings of marriage for religious couples in the America. Marriage & Family Review, 48, 339-362.

30.

Dollahite

D. C.

Marks

L. D.

(2009). A conceptual model of family and religious processes in highly religious families. Review of Religious Research, 50, 373-391.

31.

Edgell

P. A.

(2006). Religion and family in a changing society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

32.

Edgell

P. A.

Docka

(2007). Beyond the nuclear family? Familism and gender ideology in diverse religious communities. Sociological Forum, 22, 25-50.

33.

Edgell

P. A.

Gerteis

Hartmann

(2006). Atheists as “other”: Moral boundaries and cultural membership in American society. American Sociological Review, 71, 211-234.

34.

Ellison

C. G.

Anderson

K. L.

(2001). Religious involvement and domestic violence among U.S. couples. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 269-286.

35.

Ellison

C. G.

Bartkowski

J. P.

Segal

M. L.

(1996). Conservative Protestantism and the parental use of corporal punishment. Social Forces, 74, 1003-1028.

36.

Ellison

C. G.

Sherkat

D. E.

(1993). Conservative protestantism and support for corporal punishment. American Sociological Review, 58, 131-144.

37.

Fein

D. J.

Burstein

N. R.

Fein

G. G.

Lindberg

L. D.

(2003). The determinants of marriage and cohabitation among disadvantaged Americans: Research findings and needs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

38.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2014). I say a little prayer for you: Praying for partner increases commitment in romantic relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 587-593.

39.

Forste

Tanfer

(1996). Sexual exclusivity among dating, cohabiting, and married women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 33-47.

40.

Freitas

(2008). Sex and the soul: Juggling sexuality, spirituality, romance, and religion on America’s college campuses. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

41.

Gault-Sherman

Draper

(2011). What will the neighbors think? The effect of moral communities on cohabitation. Review of Religious Research, 54, 45-67.

42.

Gottman

J. M.

Silver

(1999). The seven principles for making marriage work. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

43.

Guzzo

K. G.

(2014). Trends in cohabitation outcomes: Compositional changes and engagement among never-married young adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, 826-842.

44.

Hardie

J. H.

Lucas

(2010). Economic factors and relationship quality among young couples: Comparing cohabitation and marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 1141-1154.

45.

Iannaccone

L. R.

(1994). Why strict churches are strong? American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1180-1211.

46.

Irby

C. A.

(2014). Dating in the light of Christ: Young evangelicals negotiating gender in the context of religious and secular America culture. Sociology of Religion, 72, 260-283.

47.

Kalmijn

(1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395-421.

48.

Kalmijn

Loeve

Manting

(2007). Income dynamics in couples and the dissolution of marriage and cohabitation. Demography, 44, 159-179.

49.

Keeter

Miller

Kohut

Groves

R. M.

Presser

(2000). Consequences of nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 125-148.

50.

Kennedy

Bumpass

(2008). Cohabitation and children’s living arrangements: New estimates from the United States. Demographic Research, 19, 1663-1692.

51.

Kenney

Bumpass

(2010, September). Cohabitation and trends in the structure and stability of children’s family lives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America. Retrieved from http://paa2011.princeton.edu/papers/111757

52.

Kline

G. H.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

Olmos-Gallo

P. A.

St. Peters

Whitton

S. W.

Prado

L. M.

(2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311-318.

53.

Klinenberg

(2012). Going solo: The extraordinary rise and surprising appeal of living alone. New York, NY: Penguin Press.

54.

Kusner

K. G.

Mahoney

Pargament

K. I.

DeMaris

(2014). Sanctification of marriage and spiritual intimacy predicting observed marital interactions across the transition to parenthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 604-614.

55.

Lehrer

E. L.

(2004). Religion as a determinant of economic and demographic behavior in the United States. Population and Development Review, 30, 707-726.

56.

Lehrer

E. L.

Chiswick

C. U.

(1993). Religion as a determinant of marital stability. Demography, 30, 385-404.

57.

Levin

J. S.

Taylor

R. J.

Chatters

L. M.

(1995). A multidimensional measure of religious involvement for African Americans. Sociological Quarterly, 36, 57-73.

58.

Lichter

D. T.

Carmalt

J. H.

(2009). Religion and marital quality among low-income couples. Social Science Research, 38, 168-187.

59.

Lichter

D. T.

Qian

Mellott

L. M.

(2006). Marriage or dissolution? Union transitions among poor cohabiting women. Demography, 43, 223-240.

60.

Lincoln

K. D.

Taylor

R. J.

Jackson

J. S.

(2008). Romantic relationships among unmarried African Americans and Caribbean Blacks: Findings from the National Survey of American Life. Family Relations, 57, 254-266.

61.

Loyd

(2006). Living in sin no more: Religion and the transition from cohabitation (PAA 2006 Extended Abstract). Retrieved from http://paa2006.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=61801

62.

Mahoney

(2010). Religion in the home from 1999-2010: A decade review from a relational spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 805-827.

63.

Mahoney

Krumrei

(2010). Questions raised by religious familialism: Is spirituality relevant to non-traditional families? In Miller

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the psychology of spirituality (pp. 165-181). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

64.

Mahoney

Pargament

K. I.

Scott

Jewell

Swank

A.B.

Emery

Rye

(1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 321-338.

65.

Mahoney

(2013). The spirituality of us: Relational spirituality in the context of family relationships. In Pargament

Exline

J. J.

Jones

Mahoney

Shafranske

(Eds.), APA handbooks in psychology: APA handbook of psychology, religion, and spirituality (pp. 365-389). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

66.

Manning

W. D.

(2013). Trends in cohabitation: Over twenty years of change, 1987-2010 (FP-13-12). Retrieved from https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-13-12.pdf

67.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

Giordano

P. C.

(2007). The changing institution of marriage: Adolescent expectations to cohabit and to marry. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 559-575.

68.

Manning

W. D.

Smock

P. J.

Majumdar

(2004). The relative stability of cohabiting and marital unions for children. Population Research and Policy Review, 23, 135-159.

69.

Marcussen

(2005). Explaining differences in mental health between married and cohabiting individuals. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 239-257.

70.

Marks

(2004). Sacred practices in highly religious families: Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and Muslim perspectives. Family Process, 43, 217-231.

71.

McCullough

M. E.

Tsang

J.-A.

Brion

(2003). Personality traits in adolescence as predictors of religiousness in early adulthood: Findings from the Terman Longitudinal Study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 980-991.

72.

McCullough

M. E.

Willoughby

B. L. B.

(2009). Religion, self-control, and self-regulation: Associations, explanations, and implications. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 69-93.

73.

McFarland

M. J.

Uecker

J. E.

Regnerus

M. D.

(2011). The role of religion in shaping sexual frequency and satisfaction: Evidence from married and unmarried older adults. Journal of Sex Research, 48, 297-308.

74.

Myers

S. M.

(2006). Religious homogamy and marital quality: Historical and generational patterns, 1980-1997. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 292-304.

75.

Nock

S. L.

(1995). A comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 53-76.

76.

Oswald

R. F.

Goldberg

Kuvalanka

Clausell

(2008). Structural and moral commitment among same-sex couples: Relationship duration, religiosity, and parental status. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 411-419.

77.

Pargament

K. I.

Mahoney

(2005). Sacred matters: Sanctification as a vital topic for the psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 15, 179-198.

78.

Putman

R. D.

Campbell

D. E.

(2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

79.

Regnerus

(2007). Forbidden fruit: Sex and religion in the lives of American teenagers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

80.

Rostosky

S. S.

Otis

M. D.

Riggle

E. D. B.

Kelly

Brodnicki

(2008). An exploratory study of religiosity and same-sex couple relationships. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4, 17-36.

81.

Sabey

A. K.

Rauer

A. J.

Jensen

J. F.

(2014). Compassionate love as a mechanism linking sacred qualities of marriage to older couples’ marital satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 28, 594-603.

82.

Saroglou

(2002). Religion and the five factors of personality: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 15-25.

83.

Saroglou

Delpierre

Dernelle

(2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 721-734.

84.

Saroglou

Pichon

Trompette

Verschueren

Dernelle

(2005). Prosocial behavior and religion: New evidence based on projective measures and peer ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44, 323-348.

85.

Singer

(2006). Introduction: Nonresponse bias in household surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 637-645.

86.

Skinner

K. B.

Bahr

S. J.

Crane

D. R.

Call

V. R. A.

(2002). Cohabitation, marriage and remarriage: A comparison of relationship quality over time. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 74-90.

87.

Smith

T. W.

(2006). Altruism and empathy in America: Trends and correlates. Retrieved from http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/06/060209.altruism.pdf

88.

Smock

P. J.

(2000). Cohabitation in the United States: An appraisal of research themes, findings, and implications. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 1-20.

89.

Smock

P. J.

Greenland

F. R.

(2010). Diversity in pathways to parenthood: Patterns, implications, and emerging research directions. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 576-593.

90.

Stafford

. (2016). Marital sanctity, relationship maintenance, and marital quality. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 119-131.

91.

Stanley

S. M.

Whitton

S. W.

Markman

H. J.

(2004). Maybe I do: Interpersonal commitment and premarital or nonmarital cohabitation. Journal of Family Issues, 25, 496-519.

92.

Steensland

Park

J. Z.

Regnerus

M. D.

Robinson

L. D.

Wilcox

W. B.

Woodberry

R. D.

(2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79, 291-318.

93.

Sullivan

S. C.

(2008). Unaccompanied children in churches: Low-income urban single mothers, religion, and parenting. Review of Religious Research, 50, 157-175.

94.

Thornton

Axinn

W. G.

Hill

D. H.

(1992). Reciprocal effects of religiosity, cohabitation, and marriage. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 628-651.

95.

Thornton

Young-DeMarco

(2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 1009-1037.

96.

Uecker

J. E

. (2014). Religion and early marriage in the United States: Evidence from the Add Health Study. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 53, 392-415.

97.

Vaaler

M. L.

Ellison

C. G.

Powers

D. A.

(2009). Religious influences on marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 917-934.

98.

Waite

Lehrer

(2003). The benefits from marriage and religion in the United States: A comparative analysis. Population and Development Review, 29, 255-275.

99.

Waller

M. R.

McLanahan

S. S.

(2005). “His” and “her” marriage expectations: Determinants and consequences. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 53-67.

100.

Watterson

Giesler

R. B.

(2012). Religiosity and self-control: When the going gets tough, the religious get self-regulating. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 4, 193-205.

101.

Wilcox

W. B.

Wolfinger

N. H.

(2008). Living and loving “decent”: Religion and relationship quality among urban parents. Social Science Research, 37, 828-843.

102.

Wilson

Musick

(1996). Religion and marital dependency. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 30-40.

103.

Wuthnow

(1988). The restructuring of American religion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

104.

Hudspeth

C. D.

Bartkowski

J. P.

(2005). The timing of first marriage: Are there religious variations? Journal of Family Issues, 26, 584-618.

Religion and Relationship Quality Among Cohabiting and Dating Couples

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical and Empirical Background

Trends in Cohabiting and Dating

Religion and Relationship Outcomes

The Mediating Role of Emotion Work

The Present Study

Data

Dependent Variables

Relationship Satisfaction

Expectations to Marriage

Key Independent Variables

Religion. 1

Mediating Factors

Covariates

Analytical Approach

Results

Mediation and Moderation Analysis

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Notes

References

Religion.¹