Sanctity of marriage and marital quality

Abstract

Mahoney and colleagues’ theorizing about the potential role of sanctity as a central feature of religion/spirituality is invoked to examine the relationships among sanctity of marriage, (un)forgiveness, sacrifice, and both positive and negative marital satisfaction. The study examined the perspectives of both members of 342 marital dyads using an Actor–Partner Interdependence Model and a multilevel path modeling. The results indicate that sanctity is related positively to marital satisfaction and negatively to martial dissatisfaction. Sanctity emerged as a strong predictor of marital quality even after accounting for forgiveness, unforgiveness, and sacrifice. Though sanctity is directly linked to positive marital satisfaction, the mediation effects via (un)forgiveness were not significant; however, a mediation effect via sacrifice was significant, which was related to negative marital quality.

Keywords

Forgiveness marital satisfaction religion/spirituality sacrifice sanctity

Introduction

Understanding what predicts marital quality has become central to the study of marriage (Fincham, Stanley, & Beach, 2007). The role that religion or spirituality might play in marital satisfaction is beginning to receive attention and a positive association between marital satisfaction and religion and spirituality (R/S) has been reported in a number of studies (Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010; Fincham & Beach, 2010; Mahoney, 2010; Wolfinger & Wilcox, 2008). Furthermore, a survey on religion by Pew (2008) found that 92% of Americans believe in God or a universal spirit and 78% self-identify as Christian.

Despite the centrality of religion to marital and family life, it has been predominantly overlooked in social science research (Mahoney, Pargament, Murray-Swank, & Murrary-Swank, 2003). Given such widespread beliefs about God and an often found association between religiousness and marital satisfaction, the role of R/S in marriage warrants continued investigation.

When religion has been considered in social science research, typically, church attendance or denominational affiliation has served as a proxy (Mahoney et al., 2003). Mahoney et al. (2003) argued that efforts to advance an explanatory theoretical framework for the often-found association between religiosity and family functioning, including marital satisfaction, must go beyond relatively peripheral aspects of religion such as church attendance or denomination. Rather, they proposed that a theoretical framework should be grounded in phenomena that are considered sacred, which are “central to the meaning of religion and spirituality” (Pargament & Mahoney, 2005, p. 180).

We have two overarching goals in this study. Our primary goal is to examine the role of sanctity, (un)forgiveness, and sacrifice as predictors of positive and negative marital satisfaction. Our secondary goal is to examine (un)forgiveness and sacrifice as potential mechanisms through which sanctity is related to marital satisfaction. Both objectives are based on the theorizing of Mahoney and colleagues about the potential role of sanctity as a central feature of R/S and marital satisfaction We consider the perspectives of both members of 342 marital dyads using an Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) and multilevel path modeling in the analyses.

Marital satisfaction

The study of martial quality or marital satisfaction has a long history. It is perhaps the most frequently studied aspect of marriage and is often measured on a bipolar scale anchored on positive and negative poles (Fincham & Linfield, 1997). Instead of rating marital satisfaction on a scale from positive to negative, it has been argued that marriage can be seen by partners as simultaneously positive and negative (Fincham & Linfield, 1997). That is, individuals might consider some aspects of their marriage as favorable and others as unfavorable. Indeed this two-dimensional approach has been supported in multiple investigations (e.g., Fincham & Linfield, 1997; Mattson, Palidino, & Johnson, 2007). This approach is considered more informative because findings suggest that different variables contribute to the two dimensions or that the same variable contributes differently to each dimension (Mattson et al., 2007). Though the role of spirituality on both positive marital quality (PMQ) and negative marital quality (NMQ) has been examined (e.g., Fincham, Ajayi, & Beach, 2011), somewhat surprisingly, given the importance placed upon sanctity, the role of sanctity in both PMQ and NMQ has not been considered.

Sanctity

Mahoney et al. (2003) argued that “religion is distinctive because it incorporates peoples’ perceptions of the ‘sacred’ into the search for goals and values” (p. 221). In particular, they proposed that marriage is often valued as sacred and used the term sanctification to refer to the “degree to which partners believe their marriage is a manifestation of their beliefs or experiences with God and their religious faith” (Mahoney et al., 1999, p. 323). Though not limited to Judeo-Christian perspectives, Pargament and Mahoney (2005) noted that a view of marriage as a sacred manifestation of God is emphasized in Judeo-Christian teachings. Thus, in order to understand marriage in a Judeo-Christian culture, especially to understand the role of religion and spirituality in marriage and to extend theoretical perspectives in this domain, we focus on the role of sanctity on marital satisfaction.

According to the framework offered by Pargament and Mahoney (2005), individuals will go to great lengths to protect what they consider sacred. The view that one’s marriage is sanctified is particularly important as it should motivate one to value and protect one’s marriage. Sanctification then acts as a buffer to marital distress (DeMaris, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2010).

Indeed, some research indicates that those who believe their marriage to be sanctified report higher levels of marital satisfaction than those who do not hold this belief (Ellison, Henderson, Glenn, & Harkrider, 2011; Mahoney et al., 1999). A belief in the sanctity of one’s marriage might be directly associated with marital quality. Mahoney et al. (1999) proposed that “attributing sacred qualities to marriage may draw partners’ attention toward other positive elements of their relationship and thereby heighten spouses’ general evaluation of their marriage” (p. 323). Based on such speculations and findings reported in the literature, we hypothesize that sanctity of marriage will be associated with marital satisfaction.

H1: Sanctity of marriage is positively associated with marital satisfaction and negatively associated with marital dissatisfaction.

It has been proposed that individuals who believe their marriage to be sacred are prone to hold attitudes or act in ways to protect their marriage. For example, those who believe in the sanctity of their marriage have been found to report more positive behaviors, such as engaging in problem-solving, when faced with conflict (Mahoney et al., 1999). Such individuals have also reported less financial strain, which could translate into higher marital satisfaction (Ellison et al., 2011). Beyond these findings, some have speculated as to what these sanctity-driven attitudes and behaviors might be. Mahoney et al. (1999) proposed that those who believe that their marriage is God-centered should be more likely to exhibit more positive communication strategies (such as reasoning and listening) and be less likely to use verbal aggression or blame.

A similar view on the role of sanctification has been espoused by Ellison et al. (2011), who proposed that sanctification might encourage positive communication practices and emotions and thus enhance marital satisfaction. They also proposed that a belief in the sanctity of marriage might promote marital satisfaction by promoting forgiveness and self-sacrificial behavior, though such speculations have not been examined.

Succinctly, the driving premise is that a belief in the sanctity of marriage might inspire a myriad of positive behaviors or attitudes, which in turn facilitate marital quality. In this investigation, we examine two such potential candidates, sacrifice and forgiveness. We consider these constructs because they are secular values central to Western ideals of marriage and are simultaneously of special religious significance in the Judeo-Christian context, which is influential in the United States. In addition, both constructs have been theorized to be pathways through which sanctity is related to marital satisfaction. That is, in line with the thrust of Mahoney’s thesis that individuals will protect what they consider sacred, sanctity has been thought to contribute to marital satisfaction by promoting forgiveness and self-sacrificial behavior (Ellison et al., 2011). Therefore, in this study, we examine the potential roles of (un)forgiveness and sacrifice as underlying mechanisms that link sanctity and marital quality.

Forgiveness

Forgiveness has often been linked to marital satisfaction and is considered foundational for a successful marriage (Fincham et al., 2007). The ability of partners to move past transgressions is critical to marital quality (Gordon & Baucom, 2003; Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder, 2000). Furthermore, R/S has been found to be related to interpersonal forgiveness (McCullough & Worthington, 1999). It is interesting that although both R/S and forgiveness are considered important for marital satisfaction, evidence documenting the conjoint effect of faith and forgiveness in marriage is sparse (Fincham, Hall, & Beach, 2006).

According to Mahoney (2010), those who believe their marriages to be sanctified may sustain and protect their marital bond by being more forgiving and less unforgiving. Indeed, Ellison et al. (2011) noted “the belief that God is a partner in the marriage may also lead spouses to practice unconditional forgiveness” (p. 407).

Many views of forgiveness have been proposed (Worthington, 2006). Fincham and Beach (2002) noted that most prior research focuses on forgiveness as letting go of past transgressions. They argued that forgiveness goes beyond letting go of ill will (or the desire to seek revenge or retaliation), but includes a proactive development of a positive attitude toward the transgressor. Support for this two-component conceptualization has been found many times (Fincham et al., 2006), and an association has been found between both types of forgiveness and marital quality (Fincham et al., 2006). Such a two-factor conceptualization of forgiveness comports with the findings of Waldron and Kelley (2005) who reported that unconditional forgiveness is associated with marital satisfaction, but conditional forgiveness, indicative of holding on to ill will, is associated with marital deterioration.

H2: Sanctity of marriage is positively associated with forgiveness and negatively associated with unforgiveness.

H3a: Forgiveness is positively associated with positive marital quality and negatively associated with negative marital quality.

H3b: Unforgiveness is negatively associated with positive marital quality and positively associated with negative marital quality.

Sacrifice

A positive correlation between attitudes of sacrifice and marital satisfaction is reported in the literature (Stanley, Whitton, Sadberry, Clements, & Markman, 2006). Positive sentiments about sacrifice are indicative of placing the marriage above individual self-interest (Whitton, Stanley, & Markman, 2007), which is consistent with the idea of sanctity protecting marriage. While a positive attitude about self-sacrifice or the willingness to engage in self-sacrifice can be beneficial to a marriage, engagement in sacrifice, or the behavioral aspect of sacrifice, has been identified as a positive defining characteristic of intimate relationships (Whitton et al., 2007). Here, we consider not attitudes about sacrifice, but individuals’ self-reports of their own behaviors and of their partners’ self-sacrificial behaviors in routine aspects of married life.

H4: Sanctity of marriage is positively associated with self-sacrifice.

H5: Self-sacrifice is positively associated with positive marital quality and negatively associated with negative marital quality.

Joint religious activity and religious homogamy

In exploring the relationship between sanctity and marital functioning, we also include two important covariates, joint religious activity (JRA) and religious homogamy. Mahoney et al. (1999; see also Mahoney, 2010) proposed that JRAs are intimately tied to couples’ views on their marriages. JRAs include both organized or formal activities, such as joint church attendance as well as more private experiences such as praying together or discussing God’s will for their marriage. Indeed, JRA has been found to be related to marital satisfaction (Lichter & Carmalt, 2009). Thus, it is included as a covariate here. Finally, religious homogamy has been reported as a predictor of marital satisfaction (Call & Heaton, 1997; Curtis & Ellison, 2002; Ellison, Bartkowski, & Anderson, 1999) and therefore is also controlled for.

In sum, sanctity has been linked to marital satisfaction in prior research. Many speculations about the mechanisms that underlie this link have been made; yet, these have not been empirically examined. These speculations rest on the idea that when a marriage is considered sanctified, individuals are motivated to engage in behaviors and attitudes that protect the marriage. First, using APIM, we examine whether sanctity explains the variance in PMQ and NMQ after accounting for religious homogamy, JRAs, forgiveness, unforgiveness, and sacrifice. Then, we conducted follow-up analysis using multilevel path modeling to examine the role of (un)forgiveness and sacrifice as potential mediators between sanctity of marriage and marital quality.

Method

Married couples were recruited by undergraduate students enrolled in communication classes at a large Midwestern university. Students were given extra credit for e-mailing the links to the survey to their parents or married relatives. Separate links were created for husbands and wives, along with a unique couple identifier to link partners. The study and consent procedures were approved by the university’s Internal Review Board.

Measures

Five instruments were employed. All scales were 7-point Likert-type indices with anchor poles of “strongly disagree” and “strongly agree.” The first measure was one of PMQ and NMQ (Fincham & Linfield, 1997). Sample items include “Considering only the negative qualities of your marriage, and ignoring the positive ones, evaluate how negative these qualities are” and “Considering only the positive qualities of your marriage, and ignoring the negative ones, evaluate how positive these qualities are” for NMQ and PMQ, respectively. A measure of sanctity of marriage (Mahoney et al., 1999) was also used. Sample items include “My marriage is a reflection of God’s will” and “My marriage is an expression of my spirituality or religiousness.” Fincham and Beach’s (2002) measure of unforgiveness and forgiveness was also administered. Sample items include “When my partner wrongs me, I think of ways to make them regret it” and “When my partner wrongs me, I just accept partner’s humanness, flaws and failures” for unforgiveness and forgiveness, respectively. A modified version of Whitton et al.’s (2007) measure of sacrifice included items such as “I perform household chores that neither of us enjoys,” and “I watch TV shows that are not my first choice.” Finally, a measure of JRAs was administered (Mahoney et al., 1999). The items used in this scale are explained in detail in the Results section. In addition, participants provided demographic information including their religion by choosing from a list of choices.

Participants

A total of 342 married heterosexual couples participated in the study. The average age of males was 48.41 (SD = 9.74) years and the average for females was 46.29 (SD = 9.41) years. Approximately, eight out of 10 participants (82.7%) were Whites and two-thirds were college graduates or post graduates (66.2%). The household income for the majority (56.8%) of the sample was greater than $100K. On average, the couples were married for 20.38 (SD = 9.87) years and had two children (M = 2.25, SD = 1.28).

A majority of the participants were Christian (77.6%), including Catholics (38.4%), Protestants (29.2%), and other Christians (10%). The remaining 22.4% included Atheists/Agnostics (7.4%), Jews (5.8%), Buddhists (1.0%), Hindus (0.6%), Muslims (0.4%), and other (7.1%). Couples were categorized as Christian (239 couples, 69.8%) when both partners were Christian, and as non-Christian when one or both partners were non-Christian (103 couples, 30.2%). To control for homogamy, a new dichotomous variable was created to differentiate between same-faith (249 couples, 72.8%) and mixed-faith couples (93 couples, 27.2%).

Results

For all measures, principal axis factor analysis with Promax rotation was employed. Conditions for identification of a factor included an eigenvalue of >1.0 for the factor, factor loadings of at least .50 for the items in a factor, and a difference of at least .2 between loadings on the primary and secondary factors. Item-level descriptive statistics and correlations were examined before factor identification. After identification, items within a factor were averaged.

Forgiveness

As expected, two factors (unforgiveness and forgiveness) emerged. The first factor (unforgiveness) accounted for 44% of the variance. The second factor (forgiveness) explained 29% of the variance. The three items of the forgiveness scale and the three items of the unforgiveness scale were averaged. The mean of forgiveness reported by husbands (M = 5.11, SD = 1.05, α = .86) was slightly higher than the mean reported by wives (M = 4.93, SD = 1.15, α = .86), t(341) = 2.28, p = .02, and the correlation (r = .09) for forgiveness between husbands and wives was not significant. Unforgiveness reported by husbands (M = 2.20, SD = 1.29, α = .74) and wives (M = 2.13, SD = 1.29, α = .75) was not statistically significant, though the correlation for unforgiveness between husbands and wives was significant (r = .38, p < .001).

Sacrifice

The six items from the sacrifice scale loaded on one factor accounting for 42% of the variance. These items were averaged to create a measure of sacrifice. The correlation between husbands and wives was significant (r = .29, p < .001), but the difference between husbands (M = 4.68, SD = 1.09, α = .71) and wives (M = 4.76, SD = 1.10, α = .73) was not significant.

Sanctity

The 14 items loaded on one factor accounting for 83% of the variance. These items were averaged to create a measure of sanctity. The correlation between the husband and wife scores was .67 (p < .001) was significant, and the difference between husbands (M = 4.57, SD = 1.73, α = .98) and wives (M = 4.86, SD = 1.71, α = .98) was also significant, t(341) = 3.81, p < .001.

Joint religious activity

The original JRA measure was better suited for Christians, with items including joint Bible study and retreat attendance. Factor analysis was conducted to examine whether the more general JRAs can be differentiated from activities more specific to Christians, particularly evangelicals. Summary statistics and Cronbach’s α were examined separately for males and females. When the 13-item JRA scale was the factor analyzed, two factors emerged, explaining a total of 64% of the variance. The first factor accounted for 53% of the variance and captured activities such as praying for one another, praying together, and discussing the role of God in their marriage. The second factor explained 10% of the variance and was comprised mainly of items that focused on religious education, such as joint Bible study, taking religious education classes together, and jointly reading books or articles about faith. Given the lower incidence of activities in the second factor, especially among non-Christians, only the first factor was retained in this analysis. After dropping one item, celebrating religious holidays together, which was rated highly by all respondents, seven of the 13 items from the first factor were averaged to create a measure of JRA. Items retained were: my spouse and I pray together, pray for each other, talk about how to live out God’s will, talk about personal moral and spiritual issues, attend church together, talk about God’s role in our marriage, and engage in spiritual practices together. The correlation between husband and wife scores was .83 (p < .001) was significant, but difference in JRA between husbands (M = 3.31, SD = 1.65, α = .92) and wives (M = 3.43, SD = 1.71, α = .92) was not.

Marital quality

The six items for marital quality loaded onto two factors, NMQ and PMQ. The first factor (NMQ) accounted for 61% of the variance. The second factor (PMQ) explained 30% of the variance. For PMQ, the correlation between husbands and wives (r = .44, p < .001) was significant, but the difference in means between husbands (M = 8.95, SD = 1.24, α = .92) and wives (M = 8.97, SD = 1.36, α = .94) was not. For NMQ, the correlation between husband and wife scores was significant (r = .39, p < .001), but the difference between husbands (M = 3.38, SD = 2.19, α = .96) and wives (M = 3.37, SD = 2.21, α = .96) was not significant.

APIM analysis

The APIM approach advanced by Kenny (1996) was used to address the primary objective, namely, the relationship between sanctity of marriage and marital quality. The dyadic data from spouses were arranged as multilevel data, with partners (Level 1) nested within couple (Level 2). Ratings by partners within a couple were treated as dependent observations and covariance was modeled using heterogeneous compound symmetry (Kenny, Kashy, & Cook, 2006). To account for both the actor and partner effects, data were arranged as recommended by Campbell and Kashy (2002), with each observation as a combination of data provided by the respondent (actor) and the respondent’s spouse (partner). In such a data arrangement, when the husband is an actor in a record, the wife becomes the partner and vice versa. Before rearranging the data for APIM, all continuous variables were grand mean centered and gender (0 = males, 1 = females) and religious homogamy (0 = same-faith couple, 1 = different-faith couple) were dummy-coded. The data were analyzed using mixed models in SPSS 18, and PMQ and NMQ were analyzed as separate dependent variables with both actor and partner effects.

After a preliminary examination of the correlations among key variables (Table 1), the APIM analysis was carried out in two steps. In the first step, the three R/S variables, religious homogamy, JRA, and sanctity were introduced. In the next step, actor and partner components of forgiveness, unforgiveness, and sacrifice were added to the R/S model, and the combined model was reestimated. This procedure was carried out separately with PMQ and NMQ as outcomes. In the final step, mediation analyses were conducted to examine the direct effect of sanctity on marital satisfaction and its indirect effects through sacrifice and (un)forgiveness.

Table 1.

Correlations among key variables with M (SD).

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. JRA
2. Forgiveness	.10**
3. Unforgiveness	−.01	−.19***
4. Sacrifice	.19***	.19***	−.01
5. Sanctity	.76***	.09*	−.06	.17***
6. PMQ	.19***	.21***	−.33***	.10**	.25***
7. NMQ	−.06	−.17***	.30***	.07	−.11**	−.34***
M (SD)	3.37 (1.68)	5.02 (1.01)	2.16 (1.29)	4.72 (1.10)	4.71 (1.73)	8.96 (1.30)	3.38 (2.20)

JRA: joint religious activity; PMQ: positive marital quality; NMQ: negative marital quality.

Note. Love, forgiveness, unforgiveness, sacrifice, sanctity, and JRA were rated on a 7-point scale. PMQ and NMQ were rated on a 10-point scale.

***p ≤ .001; **p ≤ .01; *p ≤ .05.

R/S model

With PMQ as the dependent variable (see R/S column, Table 2), both the actor and the partner components of JRA and sanctity were introduced together with homogamy and gender. Homogamy (−.38, SE = .13) and the actor component of sanctity (0.17, SE = 0.04) were significant. The significant bivariate correlation between JRA and PMQ observed in Table 1 was suppressed in the R/S model. When the same variables were entered with NMQ as the dependent variable, again homogamy (.45, SE = .23) and the actor component of sanctity (−.21, SE = 0.07) were significant. In support of H1, sanctity of marriage was positively related to PMQ and negatively related to NMQ. However, when sanctity and homogamy were in the model, JRA was not significant. In summary, two out of the three R/S variables were significantly associated with PMQ and NMQ.

Table 2.

APIM analysis of PMQ and NMQ with R/S and other predictors.

	PMQ		NMQ
	R/S model	Combined model	R/S model	Combined model
Intercept	9.08 (.07)***	9.06 (.07)***	3.23 (.13)***	3.25 (.13)***
Gender	−.04 (.07)	−.03 (.08)	0.06 (.13)	.01 (.13)
Homogamy^a	−.38 (.13)**	−.33 (.12)**	.45 (.23)*	.46 (.21)*
JRA_A	.01 (.05)	.02 (.05)	.08 (.08)	.03 (.08)
JRA_P	−.03 (.05)	−.01 (.05)	−.01 (.08)	−.02 (.08)
Sanctity_A	.17 (.04)***	.14 (.04)***	−.21 (.07)**	−.16 (.07)**
Sanctity_P	.00 (.04)	−.02 (.04)	.06 (.07)	.09 (.07)
Forgiveness_A		.14 (.04)***		−.24 (.07)***
Forgivenesss_P		.04 (.04)		−.04 (.07)
Unforgiveness_A		−.24 (.04)***		.37 (.06)***
Unforgiveness_P		−.12 (.04)**		.22 (.06)***
Sacrifice_A		.04 (.04)		.24 (.07)***
Sacrifice _P		.00 (.04)		−.07 (.07)

APIM: Actor–Partner Interdependence Model; JRA: joint religious activity; A: actor rating; P: partner rating; PMQ: positive marital quality; NMQ: negative marital quality; R/S: religion and spirituality.

Note. Coefficients (SE) from mixed models.

^aHomogamy coded as 0 and non-homogamy as 1.

*p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001.

Combined model

Next, a combined model was examined after adding forgiveness, unforgiveness, and sacrifice to the R/S model (Table 2, combined model). In the combined model, with PMQ as the dependent variable, homogamy (−.33, SE = .12) and actor components of sanctity (.14, SE = .04), forgiveness (.14, SE = .04), and unforgiveness (−.24, SE = .04) were significant. Among the partner components, only unforgiveness was significant (−.12, SE = .04). In a subsequent analysis, NMQ was entered as the dependent variable, and the combined model was estimated. The results were similar to the PMQ model, but with sign reversals. The effect of homogamy was significant (.46, SE = .21), as were the actor components of the sanctity (−.16, SE = .07), forgiveness (−.24, SE = .07), unforgiveness (.37, SE = .06), and sacrifice (.24, SE = .07). In addition, the partner component of unforgiveness (.22, SE = .06) was significant. The findings from the combined model show that the effects of forgiveness and unforgiveness were as predicted in H3a and H3b. While forgiveness was positively associated with PMQ, it was negatively associated with NMQ (H3a). As expected, unforgiveness was negatively associated with PMQ, but positively associated with NMQ (H3b). Among actor effects, both forgiveness and unforgiveness were significant, but among partner effects, only unforgiveness was significant. Furthermore, findings suggest that self-reported sacrifice adds to NMQ, but is unrelated to PMQ, thus contradicting the prediction in H5.

In summary, religious homogamy and sanctity of marriage were positively associated with PMQ and negatively associated with NMQ. These two R/S variables were significant even after accounting for actor and partner components of forgiveness, unforgiveness, and sacrifice. Furthermore, from the APIM analysis, it was evident that marital quality in our sample was driven primarily by the influences of the actor, with one exception, namely the partner effect of unforgiveness, which had a detrimental effect on marital quality. Forgiveness, on the other hand, had a positive effect on marriage, and actor components of forgiveness were strongly associated with marital quality. In the next step, relationships among the key variables were examined in a path model with the specific aim of examining the role of sacrifice and forgiveness as mediators between sanctity and marital quality.

Mediation analysis

To extend the results from the APIM, a path analysis was pursued to examine potential mediating mechanisms between sanctity and marital quality. Specifically, in this phase of the analysis, we examined the role of (un)forgiveness and sacrifice as mediators. We examined the possibility of an Actor–Partner Interdependence Mediation Model (APIMeM) approach, which deals exclusively with path analysis of dyadic data (Ledermann, Macho, & Kenny, 2011). The challenge with this approach is the complexity that stems from the number of paths involved with multiple mediators and the paucity of established procedures to deal with these complexities.

Besides, the complexity involved in dealing with the three mediators in an APIMeM model, the overwhelming effect of the actor in comparison with the partner (Table 2) in the AIPM analysis suggests that an actor-only path model may be sufficient. Furthermore, because we had not posited any differences between husbands and wives, we opted to use an actor-only approach in the path analysis. However, to adjust for the dependency of the ratings between husbands and wives, we estimated a multilevel path model using Mplus 6.21 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2010). Mplus offers options for developing path models with multilevel data that take into account the dependence between observations within a level, such as the within-couple dependence between husband and wife. Robust maximum likelihood (MLR, which utilizes the “sandwich estimator”) was used to estimate parameters, and standard errors from this estimation procedure are robust to violations of nonnormality or nonindependence, which can also be achieved through bootstrapping (e.g., Hayes, 2009; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Unfortunately, such bootstrapping techniques are not currently available for multilevel data, and MLR was only a viable option.

Figure 1 represents an actor-based path model that was examined using multilevel path analysis in Mplus. With both NMQ and PMQ as outcomes, JRA as a covariate, and with sacrifice, forgiveness, and unforgiveness as mediators, the model presented in Figure 1 was estimated and found to have good fit, χ ² = 7.465, df = 3, p = .057, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .047, SRMR = .015.

Figure 1.

Actor-only, multilevel path model for relationships between marital quality, forgiveness, unforgiveness, sanctity, and sacrifice. Only significant (p < .05) regression paths are shown (i.e., covariances and nonsignificant regression paths are not shown). PMQ = positive marital quality, NMQ = negative marital quality. ^a p = .06; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Mediation effects

Sanctity was found to have a direct, significant relationship with both PMQ (.14, SE = .05) and NMQ (−.16, SE = .06), which supports H1. Next, the relationships between sanctity and the mediators were examined. Sanctity had a positive association with sacrifice (.12, SE = .03) and forgiveness (.06, SE = .02), but was not related to unforgiveness. These findings support H4 and offer partial support of H2. Next, the indirect effects of sanctity on marital quality were examined through decomposition of indirect effects and only one significant mediational effect was found. The relationship between sanctity and NMQ was mediated by sacrifice (.023, SE = .011), but neither forgiveness nor unforgiveness emerged as significant mediators.

Effects of forgiveness and sacrifice on PMQ and NMQ

In the last step, the paths from the mediators to the outcome variables were examined. Forgiveness was positively associated with PMQ (.16, SE = .06) and negatively associated with NMQ (−.25, SE = .09) and unforgiveness was negatively associated with PMQ (−.29, SE = .05) and positively associated with NMQ (.45, SE = .08). These findings for forgiveness and unforgiveness offer further support to H3a and H3b. Sacrifice, however, was only related to NMQ and this relationship was positive. Higher self-reports of sacrifice were associated with higher self-reports of NMQ, but positive effects of sacrificial behaviors on marital quality were not evident. JRA that was introduced as a covariate did not a show a significant association with either PMQ or NMQ.

Discussion

Previous research has shown that perceived sanctity of one’s marriage is an important contributor to marital satisfaction, which has led to various speculations on the potential mechanisms through which it might operate. Following the speculations of Mahoney et al. (1999) and Ellison et al. (2010, 2011), we examined, forgiveness, unforgiveness, and sacrifice as potential candidates. Though the direct effect of sanctity on marital quality was significant, sanctity was not mediated through forgiveness or unforgiveness. A small indirect effect via sacrifice was significant and contributed to NMQ, but not to PMQ. As expected, the direct effects of sanctity led to increased PMQ and decreased NMQ. The absence of an indirect path for sanctity mediated through forgiveness, considering the priority given to forgiveness in R/S teachings, is somewhat surprising.

We examined PMQ and NMQ as separate outcome variables, which offered a finding on the role of sacrificial behaviors in a marriage that deserves explanation. According to Mahoney’s framework, sanctity of marriage should motivate sacrifice and contribute toward preserving a marriage, a positive outcome. Indeed, attitudes of self-sacrifice have previously been found to be beneficial to marriage. However, we found sacrifice to be associated with NMQ. It is plausible that we found different results because previous research has centered on holding attitudes about sacrifice, whereas we asked about behaviors. That is, we asked about self-sacrificial behaviors in regard to routine aspects of marriage. Impett, Gable, and Peplau (2005) found that when relational partners engaged in daily self-sacrifice out of love, or a desire to make one’s partner happy, self-sacrifice was positively related to relational satisfaction. However, this was not the case when self-sacrifice was enacted based on more negative emotions such as guilt. We did not ask about motivations for the self-sacrifice, which is a topic that deserves attention in future research. Furthermore, it is also possible that perceptions of ongoing self-sacrifice might contribute to feelings of inequity. Though inequity was not explored here, it has been considered as a powerful predictor of marital dissatisfaction (Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher, Utne, & Hay, 1985; Rusbult, & Buunk, 1993; Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978).

Another contribution of this article is the scrutiny of the actor and partner components of each of the variables using the APIM framework and the finding that actor components are more important than partner components. In our sample, made up of couples in durable marriages, who had been married for an average of 20 years, spouses might have achieved a mature state of relationship in which individual contribution to the marriage eclipsed the partner’s contribution.

Though Mahoney theorized that sanctity should lead one to engage in attitudes and behaviors protective of marriage, and though both forgiveness and sacrifice have previously been speculated to be mechanisms through which sanctity might be related to marital quality, this study offers no evidence that the effect of sanctity on marital quality is mediated through forgiveness or unforgiveness. Sanctity emerged as a strong predictor, with a direct path to marital quality even after accounting for forgiveness, unforgiveness, and sacrifice.

In addition to our primary constructs of interest, we also included homogamy and JRAs as covariates. Our findings reinforce the role of homogamy in martial satisfaction, which has been emphasized in the literature (e.g., Ellison et al., 2010). We also found the heterogenity is associated with negative relational quality. Homogamy may also be important in that it is associated with JRAs. Although the effects of JRAs and sanctity have been examined in previous research, little is known about the conjoint contributions of JRA and sanctity on marital quality. The findings from this study suggest that JRA’s effects on PMQ and RMQ are not significant after accounting for the effect of sanctity. A plausible explanation is that sanctity subsumes the positive benefits that accrue from actions and behaviors that constitute JRA. Perhaps, when couples participate in meaningful JRAs, their perceptions of sanctity of marriage are reinforced, thus leading to better marital quality.

Overall, our findings raise the question as to whether sanctity of marriage is a mindful phenomenon that leads couples to reframe negativity and helps them manage negative attitudes or events better. Furthermore, if partners believe that their marriage is sanctified, perhaps, such a belief is inherently linked to satisfaction regardless of the forgiveness or lack thereof (or the engagement is sacrificial behavior) by one’s spouse.

Before concluding, it should be noted that the generalizability of findings from this study are limited not only because of reliance on a convenience sample but also because of the unique characteristics of the sample. Two-thirds of the participants had a college degree and more than one-half reported an annual household income of more than $100,000. Given previous findings on the role of socioeconomic status (SES) on religious beliefs, the findings from our study should be interpreted with caution until replicated in a more representative sample. For example, though positively associated with religious denominational association, education may also be associated with less depth of beliefs about religion (e.g., Glaeser & Sacerdote, 2008). Similarly, research indicates that income is also related to religious beliefs (e.g., Schieman & Jung, 2012). In summarizing the literature, Schieman and Jung (2012) concluded that “the bulk of evidence to date confirms that people with lower SES differ from their higher SES counterparts on indicators of religiousness” (p. 741). For example, among those of lower SES, religious teachings are likely to be taken more literally (McFarland, Bradley, Wright, & Weakliem, 2011) with a greater belief in a direct intervention of God in their lives (Schieman, 2010). Furthermore, those of higher SES are more likely to differentiate between the secular and religious, which might explain the presence of direct effects of sanctity and forgiveness, but the absence of a mediated effect. Among lower SES populations, sanctity may be more tightly interwoven with constructs such as forgiveness, which is a speculation that deserves attention in future research. Finally, although the concept of sanctity in marriage is not limited to Christianity, the items used to assess sanctity had a strong Christian connotation and invoked Christian themes such as God’s will that may not have resonated among people of other faiths.

One could speculate that sanctity of marriage serves a buffering role that has a direct and robust effect on marital quality that is not contingent on the experiential aspects of marriage, such as forgiveness or sacrifice. As Mahoney et al. (1999) speculated, sanctification could lead partners to focus on the positive aspects of their relationships. However, it is also possible that other more concrete behaviors such as constructive problem-solving skills, as proposed by Ellison et al. (2011), might play a greater role. In short, though sanctity is linked to marital satisfaction and seems to be facilitated by engagement in JRAs, the way sanctification is enacted or manifested in married life is in need of further study. Clearly, the relationship between sanctification and marital quality is complex.

References

Call

V. A.

Heaton

T. B.

(1997). Religious influence on marital stability. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 382.

Campbell

Kashy

D. A.

(2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342. doi: 10.1111/1475-6811.00023

Curtis

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.

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.

Ellison

C. G.

Bartkowski

J. P.

Anderson

K. L.

(1999). Are there religious variations in domestic violence? Journal of Family Issues, 20, 87–113.

Ellison

C. G.

Burdette

A. M.

Wilcox

W. B.

(2010). The couple that prays together: Race and ethnicity, religion, and relationship quality among working-age adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 963–975. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00742.x

Ellison

C. G.

Henderson

A. K.

Glenn

N. D.

Harkrider

K. E.

(2011). Sanctification, stress and marital quality. Family Relations, 60, 404–420. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00658.x

Fincham

F. D.

Ajayi

Beach

S. H. R.

(2011). Spirituality and marital satisfaction in African American couples. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 3, 259–268. doi:10.1037/a0023909

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2002). Forgiveness in marriage: Implications for psychological aggression and constructive communication. Personal Relationships, 9, 239–251. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00016

10.

Fincham

F. D.

Beach

S. R. H.

(2010). Marriage in the new millennium: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 630–649. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00722.x

11.

Fincham

F. D.

Hall

Beach

S. R. H.

(2006). Forgiveness in marriage: Current status and future directions. Family Relations, 55, 415–427. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3729.2006.00411.x

12.

Fincham

F. D.

Linfield

K. J.

(1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive and negative about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 489–502. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.11.4.489-502

13.

Fincham

F. D.

Stanley

Beach

S. R. H.

(2007). Transformative processes in marriage: An analysis of emerging trends. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 275–292. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2007.00362.x

14.

Glaeser

E. L.

Sacerdote

B. I.

(2008). Education and religion. Journal of Human Capital 2, 188–215.

15.

Gordon

K. C.

Baucom

D. H.

(2003). Forgiveness and marriage: Preliminary support for a measure based on a model of recovery from a marital betrayal. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 179–199. doi:10.1080/01926180301115

16.

Gordon

K. C.

Baucom

D. H.

Snyder

D. K.

(2000). The use of forgiveness in marital therapy. In McCullough

M. E.

Pargament

K. I.

Thoresen

C. E.

(Eds.), Forgiveness: theory, research, and practice (pp. 203–227). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

17.

Hatfield

Traupmann

Sprecher

Utne

Hay

(1985). Equity in close relationships. In Ickes

(Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 91–117). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

18.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420.

19.

Impett

E. A.

Gable

S. L.

Peplau

L. A.

(2005). Giving up and giving in: the costs and benefits of daily sacrifice in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 327–344.

20.

Kenny

D. A.

(1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279–294. doi: 10.1177/0265407596132007

21.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). The analysis of dyadic data. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

22.

Ledermann

Macho

Kenny

D. A.

(2011). Assessing mediation in dyadic data using the actor–partner interdependence model. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18, 595–612. doi:10.1080/10705511.2011.607099

23.

Lichter

Carmalt

(2009). Religion and marital quality among low-income couples. Social Science Research, 38, 168–187. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2008.07.003

24.

Mahoney

(2010). Religion in families, 1999–2009: A relational spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 805–827. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00732.x

25.

Mahoney

Pargament

K. I.

Jewell

Swank

A. B.

Scott

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. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.321

26.

Mahoney

Pargament

K. I.

Murray-Swank

(2003). Religion and the sanctification of family relationships. Review of Religious Research, 44, 220–236.

27.

Mattson

R. E.

Paldino

Johnson

M. D.

(2007). The increased construct validity and clinical utility of assessing relationship quality using separate positive and negative dimensions. Psychological Assessment, 19, 146–151. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.1.146

28.

McCullough

Worthington

(1999). Religion and the forgiving personality. Journal of Personality, 67, 1141–1164. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00085

29.

McFarland

M. J.

Bradley

R. E.

Wright

B. R. E.

Weakliem

D. L.

(2011). Educational attainment and religiosity: Exploring variations by religious tradition. Sociology of Religion, 72, 166–188.

30.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide. 6th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

31.

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. doi: 10.1207/s15327582ijpr1503_1

32.

Pew. (2008). U.S.religious landscape survey. Religious affiliation: Diverse and dynamic. Retrieved 24 April 2013, from http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf

33.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

34.

Rusbult

C. E.

Buunk

B. P.

(1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175–204.

35.

Schieman

(2010). Socioeconomic status and beliefs about God’s influence in everyday life. Sociology of Religion, 71, 25–51.

36.

Schieman

Jung

J. H.

(2012). “Practical divine influence”: Socioeconomic status and belief in the prosperity gospel. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 51, 738–756. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2012.01682.x

37.

Stanley

S. M.

Whitton

S. W.

Sadberry

S. L.

Clements

M. L.

Markman

H. J.

(2006). Sacrifice as a predictor of marital outcomes. Family Process, 45, 289–303. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2006.00171.x

38.

Waldron

Kelley

(2005). Forgiveness as a response to relational transgression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 723–742. doi:10.1177/0265407505056445

39.

Walster

Berscheid

(1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

40.

Whitton

S. W.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2007). If I help my partner, will it hurt me? Perceptions of sacrifice in romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26, 64–92. doi:10.1521/jscp.2007.26.1.64

41.

Wolfinger

N. H.

Wilcox

W. B.

(2008). Happily ever after? Religion, marital status, gender and relationship quality in urban families. Social Forces, 86, 1311–1337. doi:10.1353/sof.0.0023

42.

Worthington

(2006). Forgiveness and reconciliation: Theory and application. New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.