Religiosityand Marital Commitment:
'Until Death Do Us Part' Revisited
LYLE E. I.A,RSON'.
The PlrPose o! this paper is to review the linkages betweenthe retigious
^
"and
factor and commitment-to maniage. The nature
meaning oy m"arltat
commitment is briefly discussedin the first section. Section two uamines tlrc
researchusing religt3u-s.
?ffiliatigt: as a predictor in qtaining maital stability
and satisfaction. Reli$ous
ffitiation seemsto be i signifrZantinfluence in
y:f!fS. m?n:ages together. There is, however, nciaitng evidence that
"affiliation" is a less elegant measure of the religious faitor than actual
pafticipation in more conservativeretigiousgroups. Thethirtl sectionreviewsthe
linkages betweenreligious commitment (as inhicated by religious aftendance,
megsyres.-ofr:ligiosity, and religious community) and commilment to maniage
ald fo\tily. Religiouscommitmentis an apparbntand quite consistentconelate
of maital satisfaclionand stability. Theevfdence,
isfar from definitive.
Severaltheoretical.andmethodologicalconcemsin"rrrio,
the useof thi reli$ois factor
in researchare raised. sugestions are madefor further resiearch.
has
siguificantpart of the beriefs and experienceof the
. Religion-?lw-ays
majority of individuals
and-b:"o.-l
familiesthroughoutt-!" lif" span. Despitethii appar""i fu.t,
the connectionof the religious variable[o family life has been irarkedly Ar";, f-;
frytly theory ,nd researchin the 1960sand r"o1_os.orly thr;; entries ;;;";r;;
r*sgT anlf-fa-milylife appearin the index of theHandbooi of Maniogeand tn,
noiifi
edited by christensenin i.964(Thomas& Henry, 19g5). The more recent two_volume
work, contemporaryTheoriesabouttheFamity (!*, Hiil, Ny", & Reiss,r97l)-coniains
only two referencesto religion in the indexel .it uotn volu*es.
.o_,,_,.-h:
of the religous factor in family life is once again rhe
Tpo,rtan:e
^...,^l,u:l
su.o.Ject
oI a gro\ung
bodyof research.Extaatresearchtendsto emphasizethJ role of
religion as either a corttrol or suppo,t variable. The fact that retigion
op.€ratesas a powerful deterrentto divorcei1g_exaryp,leof the contr6l ai-"".io"1.i.
""*iri""tfy
{9:q.!! & Kuna 1980;Booth & white, 1980;Bugaighis,schumi, Jurich, a rurich,
Hearoq Albrechg c vritii, 198s;Kit;;;, Babri, a Roach,
\lll/tsaa; Yaltidav,
1985;Nye, white, & {80;
Frideres, 1973).Although_thesupport oi-""rio" of religion has
bryn u1de1e-mphasized,
researchcontinuestJ show
relationship6"n
religiosity (t!, typi"a.meas.urej:^r_"LEoy. participationi
";i^g"ifi"-t
""
u"a
aa;usi-eot urra
satisfaction(Bahr & chggwick, 19g5;nlsi"gir e-*itson, rsaa; --ita
G1""" & iveaver, 197g;
wilson & Fil-singer,1986).The rwo researcEstudiesby Filsinger-; wilson,
u. *"u u,
Schumm,Bsllmn4 and Jurich (L982),clearly discounltl"
that reigioo uoJ
-!-,.-""t
l_Lyl"
2H4
E. Larson, Department of Sociologr,university of Alberta, Edmonton,AB
canada T6G
[Family ScienceReview,Vol. 2, No. 4, November,19g9pp. 2.g5-302]
285
conventionalityarenot identical phenomena- a strong relationshipbetwe-en-religious
ani marital satisfactionremainswhen conventionalityis controlled.
"*p"ri"o""
of this paper is to review researchthat relates to a high^
The particular purpose
^both
refigious zuppo.t and control, the nature uo4 psaning of
profile attibute of
to marriage.t thJ importanceof this "commitment"is encapsulatedin most
[oiitn|"nt
to be-91d"d
ceremonies,-theidea thit marriage is a permanent.relationship
r'until
(a religious
part"
do
usdeath
--ti"g"
In an idealisticsense,the phrases
o"fytfa"uth.
were
both a
culture)
of
(a
longstanding
gJifl.l
ade"iio"; and "to love and to cherish"
paper,
however,.these
in
this
demonstrated
will
be
As
history.
our
sigpificant'part of
g. Both conceptsseemto havemergedinto a
oi loog"t havethe samemeanin_
"Jo""pt.
mo.e'general sJnseof individual well-belrg. The linkage of words like "dedication,
commiiment, and permanence"to words like "love and satisfaction"now seemto have
a conditioni chusi, 566sthing like "until love do us part." The religious factor_isnot
seen to be an important dimensionof strong marriage relationships(Lauer & Lauer,
1e86b).
The religious dimension according to Bibby's-(1987) research in Canada, for
s;ample, doeJn't seem to make much difference relative to other aspectsof culture.
Based on a cross-nationalsurvey in L985, Bibby found that there were simply no
differencesin levelsof generalor marital happinesse*ong-either the religious-ornonreligious. Church life, ii particular,was cited asa sourceof "a great deal" of gnjoyment
Uv 6dv 76% of adults and 8Vo of.teenagers(Bibby, 1987). Only 3l% of those most
""o-#tt"d"2 to their faith said they enjoyid their church. Similar findingsare reported
of secularization
in the United States(St. George& MiNamara, 1984). The pro_cesses
and Catholic
Protestant
(1987)
the
calls
Bibby
process
increasing,l
seemto be sharply
exodus.Glenn (ig'87) concludesthat the "pastthree or four decadesreflect ....one basic
trend, namely an inireased tendencyfor individualsto withdraw allegiancefrom social
gtoups, institutions,traditional religion, or-anything.outsideof.themselves"(p.124). I\
ir io^tnis context ihat the researchin this paper is reviewed. Does religiosity still
influence marriage relationships?Is religiosity a signifrcantfactor in commitment to
marriage? The riview of the extant literature is organized into three maior sections._
The frrit section doesnot deal with the religiousfactor directly. As the major thrust of
this paper is the linkagesbetweenreligiosiry andmarital commitnrcnt,the nature and
meaning of commitment in marital relationshipsis first delineated. The definitional
issuesin sorting out the differencesbetweenmarital commitment,marital stability, and
marital satisfactionare briefly examinedand clarified.
The secondsectionreviewsthe ir:lluenceof religion as a socialcategoryon marital
commitment. Two major religious variables are examined:religious affiliation and
religious homogamy. The evidenceindicatesthat religious affiliation and homogamy
coniinue to have a siguificantimpact on constrainingmarried couplesto stay together.
Even so, the relative importanceof thesevariables,as measured,in explainiagmarital
stabitity continuesto decreaseas mainstreampredictorsof marital relationships.
The impact of behavioral and attitudinal measures of religion on marital
commitment are reviewed in the third section. The research on commitment to
marriage is organizedinto three subsectionsincluding religious attendance,religiosity,
and religion as community. The review indicatesthat there is a strong relationship
betweenreligiouscommitmentand commitmentto marriage. Thesemeasuresare much
more powerful than demographicindicators of religion. Again, however, religiosity
operatesas a major control variablein marital relationships. The linkagesto personal
measuresof commitmentin marriagearc unclear. Thesefindingsare critically reviewed
?46
Family Science Reeiew
November, 1989
and ocr' ffii
coltcrl ad iq
u
Adr
6t r
rqij
d
ctrf
bcbtu(E
dcfl
-l:i-dlb r
fr,4
ntFGrat*
r*rF
j
br
-.rilll
4
G
rarrt
fid
u-#
{
*T!|il
.5f,
fl
fl
r={
dd
-(-l
r-dI
-{
r-Il
r-
dH
3l
-l
r-d
#
rt{
-lFr{
-H
fFr{
-{
tsl
and new directionsfor researchare suggested.The concludingsectionreflects on the
contextand importanceof the religiousfactor in understandingcommittedrelationships.
DEFINTNONAL ISSUESIN MARITAL COMMITMENT.
"Commitment"hasbeena major field of inquiry in manydisciplinesand professions
ranglng from successin sales,careers,educationalachievement,h'-an development,
overcoming obstacles,organizationalstability, to the linkages between beliefs and
behavior.(Becker,1960;Kanter, 1968;Kiesler, r97l; Leik & I-e:*.,L977). Seriousstudy
of commitmentmechanismsin relationshipsandmarriage,while of long-standinginteresi
in religion and philosophy,beganin the 1970s.
The research on marital commitment often excludes lsligious variables.
Accordingly, these distinctionsnust be briefly clarified before the linkageswith the
religious factor can be examined. There are, understandably,severaldiffeient waysof
conceptunlizjngmarital commitment. Severalscalesof marilal commitmenthave6een
developed(Clodfelter, 1977;Johnson,L973;Stanley,1986;Wyatt, 1983;am61g others).
There are essentiallytwomajor typesof marital commitment perconalcommitruent
- a psychologicalor intrapersonal construct reflecting a personal dedication to the
continuation or completion of a line of action (the 'kani to" in commitment); and
contraintcommitrnent- varioussocialor relationshipfactorswhich lead to the coniinuation of a line of action regardlessof personalprefeience(often referred to as the "have
to" in commitment).
Perhapsthe major problem with this literature is the apparentcorrelationbetween
marital comm_itment
(whether measuredby "haveto" or "want to" indicators)and both
marital stability and satisfaction. Marriages that stay together, satisfaction
notwithstandTg, ar9 likely to have a high concentration ol structural investments,
unattractivealternatives,varioussocialpressures,and investmentsdilficult to lose. It ii
apparent,therefore, tbat contraint commitment and marital "stabilitv" are somewhat
similar measures.Conceptually,it is viable to define divorceand separationas indirect
or outcomemeasuresof lower levelsof either structuralor personaliommitment. Such
researchseldom includes any direct measuresof marital iommitment. The linkases
betweenreligion and divorce (and related measuresof marital instabilitv) are includ'ed
in the review of literature.
Perconal commitment is likewise strongly associatedwith maritai "satisfaction."
Personshuppy in their marriagesare more likely to think "permanence",to investmore
of themselves,to give_'rp personalpriorities in their partner's interest, and to ignore
alternativepartners.Goltz (1987),however,has found that personalcommitmen-tis a
different measurethan marital satisfaction.Stanley(1986)likewisearguesthat the two
conceptsare distinct. He givesan exampleof the importanceof the distinction:When
speakingof a football player'scommitment,goachesdo not saythat Sammyis havinga
good time playrngfootball, that he is a satisfiedfootball player. They inst'eadsay tf,at
always gves Lr\vo; he is a dedicatedplayer. -This example highlighis the
lg-y
differencebetweenpersonalcommitmentand marital satisfaction.o"dicailoo-chanses
one'sbehavior. Satisfactionmay.encolragebehaviorchangebut suchchangeis whily
dependenton continuedsatisfaction.Dedication,in contrait it would t""-]*iil
define
problemsas-achallenge.The measurementof personalrl^edication
in marriagemust go
beyond"stickiagit out" until death ends the relationship.3
November,1989
Family Science Review
?37
Researchon marital commitmentlspains in its infanry. There is much yet to be
learned about the conceptualizationand measurementof commitment in intimate
relationships. Even so, there is a growing body of literature on the linkagesbetween
religion and marital commitment. The next section sPe-cificallyexamines the
betweendemographicindicators of religion and the various indicators of
rela-tionships
commitmentto marriage.
RELIGION AS 'SOCIAL CATEGORY" AND MARTTAL COMMITMENT.
The study ofreligious affiliation as a socialcategoryhasbeen nearly as popular as
socialclass,education,s1 ethnigity. Respondentsoften are askedto identily themselves
with one of the major religionsin North America (Catholic,Protestantor Jew) and, if
Protestant,with a particular denominationalgroup. The statedreligious preferenceor
affiliation is then used as a standard backgroundvariable. It is apparent that the
6saning of this responsevariesfrom thosewith distantCatholickin to respondentswio
ate active memberi of a local parish. Even so, the use of religion as a demographic
categoryremeins a researchstaple. The findings are quite consistent.
rcligiotrs ;rs
Protctl.a]s r
TLr
o rrid
clglqFt.l
rctb rc
cr
oqf
cib
crfr
*frr -r
&{dfl
rrir
h-q a
ReligiousAffiliation
The categoriesof affiliation vary from the general categories(Jewish,Catholic,
Protestant, no religion) to the denominationaland/or liberal-conservativevariations
rmong protestants. Lessprominent religionsare typicallyclassifiedas "other." Most of
the rJsearch relevant to marital commitment deals with marital instability (typically
divorce rates).
CatholicsandJewsconsistentlyare reportedto havefewerdivorcesthan Protestants
(Bahr & Chadwick,l-985;Glenn & Shelton,1983). Shrum (1980)found that Catholics
and L.8times
ate2.2 timesmore likely to haveintactmarriagesthan blackProtestants,
more likely than white Protestants.Another study found that Catholicsand Mormons
have lower divorce rates than either Jews or Protestants (Heaton et al., L985).
Comparedto Catholics,Heaton found that Jewshavea 10-l5Vogreater risk of divorce,
while Protestants,comparedto Jews,faced a 25Vogreatet tisk.
Variations in divorceratesare alsoexaminedamongProtestants.Using 1970data
from the National Fertiliry study,fundamentalistProtestantsare found to have higher
rates of divorce than both Catholicsand non-fundamentalistProtestants(Bumpass&
Sweet, L972;Thornton, 1978). Similar findings are reported in a study by Chi and
Houseknecht(1985). Chi and Houseknechtfound, however,that the conversionto
fundamentalistdenominationsis the major reasonfor the higher divorce rate. Among
black Protestants,in contrast, conservativesare less likely to divorce than liberal
Protestants(Maneker& Rankin, 1987).Booth andWhite (1980)found that conservative
Protestantsare lesslikely to even"think about divorce"than other Protestants.Another
study (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985) found that evangelical
Protestantsare more determinedto keep on working at their marriagesno matter how
unfavorablethe reward/costratio. Being rearedin conservativeand/or fundamentalist
denominations,as opposedto the adult conversionof one of the spouses,may well be
the major explanationfor the seemingcontradictionin thesestudies.
This commitment-likevariable also is exa-ined in the Larson and Goltz (1989)
study" Structural commitment is found to be the strongest among conservative
Protestants,relative to both Catholicsand main-line Protestants. Compared to other
u8
Family ScienceRe\.iew
November,1989
-
1
r{t
orld
CE
hj
r4.q
i=r
fl
Ed
bd-
f-0
frt
l*,1
c
d
religious groups, however, personal commitment is the lowest emong conservative
Protestantsand the variation betweenhusbandsand wivesis the greatest.
The most thorough examinationof the impact of conservativeProtestantreligion
on marital commitment is in the researchby Stanley (1986). Two measuresare
employed:a religiousconservatismscale,and a rank scaleof conservativegroups. Both
scalesare significantly correlated with constraint commitment measures,and most
strongly correlated with the moraliry of divorce subscale. Religious conservatismis
either insignificantly or weakly related to the personal dedication index of marital
commitment. Both conservativescales,however,are significantlycorrelatedwith three
dedicationsubscales(relationshipprimacy,coupleidentiry,and sacrifice).Thesefindings
clearly underscorethe conservativeview of marital commitment:it is wrong to end a
marital relationshipand appropriateto assignpriority, even at personalcost, to one's
mfuTrage.
In view of the apparent negative correlation between religious affiliation and
divorcerates,severalresearchershavecometo seereligion as one of the most powerful
baniercto marital breakdown. Albrecht and Kunz (1980)found that religion is second
only to financesas the major barrier to divorce. In regressionanalysis,Booth et al.
(1985) found that religion, financesand home ownership are the major barriers in
'explainingthoughtsabout separation. Bugaighiset al. (1985/1986)also found that
religion acted as a barrier in thoughts of separation. In a study of relational
commitment (feelingssf geasflainf),religion appearsas one of the major "barriers"to
divorce amongwives (Sabatelliand Cecil-Pigo,1985;Sabatelliand Pearce,1986).
Also, severaltheoreticalworks on marital dissolutionhave included religion as a
major barrier, i.e. religion is a major cost in weighing the pro's aad con's of ending
marriage (Edwardsand Saunders,198L;J6hnssn,1985;Levinger,1965,1976). Kantei
(1968),allhoughcastingcommitmentmechani565in communesin terms of ideology
rather than religion, clearly capturesthe essenceof the forces that bind one to the
group: sacrifice,renunciation,surrender,and mortification.
Halliday (1980)takesthis evidenceseriously.He arguesthat the existingindicators
of divorce rates are distorted by leavingthe religious population in the denominator.
Conservativefundamentalistsand evangelicals,
Roman Catholics,and religious groups
suchas Mormons are stronglyanti-divorce.He estimatesthat there are82 million suih
Americansand proposesthat half of these(41,million) be droppedfrom the calculations.
Ch_erlin(1980) respondsby arguing that the differentialsin divorce rates by religious
affiliation are much smaller than might be expectedfrom the doctrinal or cultural
evidence. He refers to severalstudies(McCarthS 1979;McRae, L978;Sweet, 1973;
Thornton, 1975)which indicatethat the effect of religiousaffiliation on divorce rates is
declining.
Personswithout a religiouspreferenceare also more likely to divorce (Nye et al.,
197,r).Heaton et al. (1985)found that the "no religion"group had a60Vogreaterrisk
of divorce,comparedto a 25Vorisk amongProtestants.A Canadianstudy (pryor &
\or{s, 1988),basedon 1981censusdata, found that the divorcedand separatedare
significantlymore likely to report no religion throughout the family life cycle. Both
femaleand male lone parents,aswell, are significantlymore likely to report no religion
than wives or husbandsin husband-wifefamilies. No religion is strongly related to
marital instabiliry, and to a lower commitment to marriage in a study by Booth and
Jo-hnson(1988). Lauer and Lauer (1986b) found that couples withoui a religious
affiliation are more likely to 6s rrnhapp|. Larson and Goltz (1989),as well, repor-ithe
November.1989
Family ScienceRwiew
?49
lowest level of both personal and structural marital commitment among the nonreligious.
It seems apparent, in weighing the evidence,that religious affiliation remai''s
perhapsffte most prominent socialpressurein constrainingcouplesto staytogether,the
quality of marriage nonvithstanding. The importance of these findings is even more
apparent consideringthe significant variabilify fu nsaning among those who claim
"affiliation" within a particular religiousgoup.
Evenso,severalresearcherssuggestthat the differencesbetweendenominationsare
blurring or becoming less important. Interfaith marriage is, in fact, continuing to
increasesuggestingthat this variable may become a "non-variable"in mate selection
(Larson & Munro, L985;Larson & Munro, in press). Concomitantly,this variable also
may be replacedby other factorsin the explanationof structuralcommitment. A viable
alternative view, however, is that the measures of religious affiliation must be
supplemeutedby indicatorsof religiouscommitmenf. Much of the explanationfor the
declining significanceof religious preferenceis that religion and culture are merging.
Religiouscommitment,in contrast,is increasingamongthosewho remain activein their
faith, perhaps in reaction to the processesof secularism. The relationshipsbetween
religious commitment and marital stability and satisfactionmust be investigatedmore
thoroughly. Basedon the historicalimportanceof the affiliation variable,there is good
reason to suspectthat greater attention to "cumulativereligious commitment" (a la
Bibby, 1,987)may well reinforce the explanatorypower of the religious factor.
ReligiousHomogamy
The degreeof similarity in religious affiliation between husbandsand wives,
however,also may be a profitable line of inquiry. Researchin the fifties through the
seventiesindicatedthat intrafaith marriageshad lower rates of divorce than interfaith
marriages. Jewish-Gentile(Moller, 1975),Catholic-Mormon and Protestant-Mormon
(B&r L981),Protestant-Catholic(Bumpass& Sweet,L972),a;old
religious-nonreligious
(Goode, 1956) mixed marriagesall have been found to be less stable. Landis (1949)
found a-ong mixed Protestant-Catholicmarriagesthat Protestantwivesare three'timei
_aslikgly to divorceas Catholicwives. Boekestijn(1963,as reported in Levinger,1,976),
based on a study in Holland, found that divorce rates in mixed-faith marriaqeswere
nearly five times higher than in same-faithmarriages. A coupleof studiesin tf,e 1970s,
however,found no relationshipbetweenreligious heterogamyand divorce (Chadwick,
Albrecht, & Kuna 1976;Jorgensen& Klein, 1979). Despite these two studies,the
overall evidenceled two different theoretical scholarson marital stability to conclude
that inter-faith m.arriagesare more likely to end in divorce (Nye et a1.,1973;Lewis &
Spanier,1979).
Religiousheterogamyis significantlyrelatedto an attitude measurecalled"divorce
liberaliry"in a recentstudy (Jorgenson& Johnson,1980). Interfaith marriageremained
a significa4tpredictor in regressionanalysisfor wives,but not for husbands. Chi and
Houseknecht(1985)likewisefound that Catholic wiyeswhosehusbandshad a different
religior; aflfiation were significantlymore dissatisfiedwith their marriagesthan were
nonCatholics. Among fundmentalists compared to non-fundamsnlajlists,however,
religious heterogamy(defined as religious incongruency)was significantlyrelated to
marital dissatisfaction. This finding was most apparent among husbinds. This
relationshipwas more significantthan either race or education.
An innovativerecentstudyof marital happiness(ortega, whitt, & williams, 19gg)
is worth weighing. Religious homoga-y is carefully defined by doctrine, and
290
Family Science Review
November, 1989
dcomiarir
higbcr lad r
a docrbd d
docrrird &
sruf re cu
dh.r b
dooilt
fc afb
LrgIG
rlJr
rc-1brt
frl
|b-.t
T
-l
denominationsare classifiedaccordingly. Intradoctrinal marriageshave a consistently
higher level of happinessthan heterogamousmarriages. Theseresearchersalso dehne
a doctrinal distancescore. Again, the findingsare statisticallysignificant:the larger the
doctrinal distance,the greater the marital unhappiness.Although the findings in this
study are consistentand significant,the explainedvariation is quite low, suggestingthat
other factors, such as measuresof religious devoutness,need to be combined with
doctrinal distance. In the only known studyto date on religioushomogamy,s6n116lling
for religious attendance,and specilic measuresof marital commitment (Goltz, L987;
Larson & Goltz, 1989) no relationshipwas found with either personal or structural
marital commitment. This particular study strongly supportsthe conclusionthat the
more important variableis religious attendance,not interfaith marriage.
In a sense,religioushomogamyis a somewhatmore elegantvariablethan religious
affiliation in that there is a measureof religiouspreferencefrom both the husbandand
the wife. The potentialstrengthof the variableis doubledif religiousafhliation itself has
any explanatoryvalue. It seemsapparentfrom most of the researchreviewedabove,
that religious homogamyis an important correlate of marital stability and satisfaction
among the more conservativereligiousgroups. Similarly,it is an unimportantvariable
comparedto educationand other social factors aFong those affiliated with the more
liberal denominations.As the doctrinal distanceincreases,however,throughconversion
or casualmate choice(e.g.,not carefullyweighingthe issuesin significantdifferencesin
values), religious heterogamy is likely to become a strong predictor of marital
dissatisfactionand breakdown. The more rigorous the measuresof the religious
variable,the strongerthe linkagesbetweenreligion and the marital relationship.
The next section reviews the virtue of the above interpretations. Is religious
commitment(asmeasuredby religiousattendanceor degreeof religiosity)a more useful
variablein explainingmarital commitment?
RELIGION AS COMMITMENT AND MARITAL COMMITMENT.
Halliday (1980),amongothers,rightly arguesthat religious affiliation and church
attendanceare unsatisfactoryproxies for religious belief. Most religious adherents
(ho-s,ewho identify themselvesas affiliated with a particular religious group) are
unaffiliatedin practiceand largelyrrninformedaboutthe nature
of religious
faith (Bibby, 1987). In departingfrom the seemingimportanceof
-saning
-4religious
beliefs,Bibby
hasdocumentedaptly that religiousbeliefls alsoa frail measureof religiouscommitment
-some807o"believe,"but lessthan a third are activelyinvolvedin religiousactivity and
practice of their 'faith.' Religious attendanceis the primary measure of religious
commitmentin the currentresearchliterature,with somewhatlessattentionto various
measuresof "religiosity"or fewer still to religious beliefs. Hallidat's (1980) concerns
notwithstanding,religiousattendanceseemsa more usefulindicator (if only one or two
indicatorsare used) than either religious affiliation or religiousbelief.
Severaltheorists(e.g. Levinger,1976)argue that religious attendanceand similar
more exacting measuresof the religious factor are merely additional indicators of
religion as .a banier to leaving marriage. In Levinger's view, while religious
interconnectionsmay act as a cohesiveforce they also limit or restrain freedom of
action. A different view is representedin this paper. The studyof marital commitment
requiresan appreciation,in addition to the barrier functions,of both the socialsupport
and "stimulusto positiveaction"functionsof religionas commitment.
November,1989
Family ScienceRwiew
29r
ReligiousAttendance
The role of religiousparticipationis apparentin reducingthe likelihood of divorce
(cf"summaryinKitsonet-al.,1'985;Shrum,1980)'l'ike-faithc,oupleswhoalsoattend
ihurch together regularll are lesslikely to divorce (Chesser,1957iGoode, 1956;Locke,
1951). Teachman(1932),utilized sl inneynliyshazardsmodel to predict the likelihood
nanriarg's-,crut4les-whru.lh$ainrvl a.4ip t^c9tf^ 4irrv.ta.. (nm4aa-vL rrutrude-"- in- "JatrJeAccordingly,high church attending
\"7
as
likely
low
church
attenders"
are
times
to be
coupleswere much more likely to staytogether. Religion is the third strongestpredictor
of twelve significanthazards. The two most powerful predictors of divorce were 1)
husbandswho are youngerthan their wives(2.9timesgreaterlikelihood), andZ) couples
who are under the age of 17 at the time of their marriage. Glenn and Supancic(198a)
found that religious participation (an inverse relationship) is one of three major
predictors (the other two are race and ageat fust marriage) of marital dissolutionin
sevennational suweys.
The relationship berween religious attendanceand marital satisfaction is less
apparent. Glenn and Weaver (1978) found that church attendancewas the strongest
predictor of marital happinessin their multivariatestudy. Two recentstudies(Filsinger
& Wilson, 1984;Wilson & Filsinger, 1986)showthat religious attendanceis the single
most powerful predictor of marital adjustment,gsatlslling for conventionaliry(the
assumptionthat religious commitment is an artifact of traditional values). Bahr and
Chadwick(1985),however,found a positivebut weak relationship. They suggestthat it
is impossibleto sort out the cause. A studyby Hunt and King (1978)suggeststhat the
relationshipbetweenchurch attendanceand marital adjustmentneedsreview. Church
attendaacedoesnot havea significanteffectwhen other religiousfactorsare controlled.
The Hatch, James,& Schumm(1986)study also found that when "emotionalintimacy''
is controlled, religious attendance,as well as several other religous commitment
measures,no longerwere significantlycorrelatedwith marital satisfaction.As suggested
from these studies,religion as commitment may involve much more than visiting the
church frequently.
haveexaminedspecificallythe linkagesbetweenchurch
Recentlyseveralresearchers
attendanceand variousmeasuresof marital commitment. In an exploratorystudy for
her Doctoral degree, Kimmons (1980) found a strong relationship to normative
commitment (similar in meaningto structural commitment)and a weak relatio6hip to
"interpersonalcommitment"(similar in nxseningto personalcommitment). Religious
attendancewassignificantlycorrelatedwith personaland structuralcommitmeutfor both
husbandsand wivesin a studyby Goltz (1987). In regressionanalysis,however,church
attendancewas only a sipificant factor in predicting personal commitment among
husbandsbut not amongwives (Larson & Golta 1989).
The assumptionthat "individualism"is incompatiblewith both marital and religious
commitment(e.g. Bellah et al., 1.985)was testedin a studyby Goltz and Larson (1989).
As predicted,both structural commitment (for both husbandsand wives) and church
attendancewere inverselycorrelatedwith a couplemeasureof individualismat the .00L
level of significanceor greater. Nearly 49Voof the variation h the individualismindex
was e4plainedby thesethree indicators,togetherwith income, educationand age. As
demonstratedin this sfudy,structuralcommitmentand churchattendanceare antonyms
of individualism.
Long assumedto be lfte measureof religiouscommitment,church attendance
seems to be a more reliable predictor of marital commitment indicators than
demographicmeasuresof religion. Even so, it is apparentthat churchattendanceis a
292
Family Science Review
November. l-989
less salicg rt
is an inedcqt
definitirc oc
Religrosig'
DiEBQ
COari-
totbii
reQb b i
Ovianrfy,
rrif:f
lTrbf
tcdl
l
trrt{
L-l
I
trg.d
^d
r{l
ctr
Fr
*d r
alify
I
cf,
d
dt
rrrfr
cancHr
TCIC TI
rctif;i
c.iy d c
girt
fr,f
G- !
L{
q-{
-
-rl
lesssalientreligiousvariablethan assumed.It is apatt of.religious commitment,but it
is an inadequatepredictor variable, in severalstudies,without being linked to more
definitive measuressuch as those consideredin the next two subsections.
Reli$osity
Different measures of religiosity are used in assessingaspects of marital
commitment. Broderick (1981)used"thoughtudts" in analyzingopen-endedresponses
to'wlat is important"in marital relationships.Lessthan 3Voof the 1-90respondentssaid
r-gli-qroqis important, while the majority used phraseslike love, *6srs1anding, individuality, sharing and trust. "Religion" fell into the same category as agJ and
education. Lauer and Lauer (1986b), in their study of 351 couples in long-term
marriages,found that religion was consideredinsignificantin defining the strengt[s that
kept them together. Lessthan 5Vomentionedreligion. Most of the r-spondentJdefined
themselvesas religiousbut consideredother factors to be more impoitant. Volunteer
"!*"oty statement"type studiesseldomlead to the mention of religion in sortingthrough
the most important sourcesof marital happiness(e.g. Bibbn 1-987).
A scaleof religiousdevoutness,developedby ConnecticutMutual (1981),wasused
-by Scanzo_ni
and Arnett (1987)in a studyof marital commitment. Religiousdevoutness
was significantlycorrelatedwith marital commitment,love and caring for spouse,and
conflict resolution for both husbandsand wives. An inverse correlation was found
between Toder:r gender roles and religious devoutness. One of the recent pioneer
studies of marital commitment (Stanley, 1986) used several different measuresof
religiosity to examine thirteen indicators of personal dedication and constraint
commitment. Stanley'sLikert scaleof religiositywasstronglycorrelatedwith nine of the
commitmentmeasures,controlling for relationshipquality. Correlationsof .28+ were
obtained for morality of divorce,.meta-commitment,couple identiry, and a willingness
to sacrifice. Intrinsic religiosirya(as opposedto extrinsii religiosiry)was also str6ngly
correlatedwith thesesamecommitmentindicators.Both of thesemeasures
of religiosity
were more strongly correlated with the personal dedication index. The intrinsit
religiosiryindex was not significantlyrelated to the constraintindex. Another pioneer
study of commitment is
(olson, 1-988). Olson usesmany exploratory
-now "aderway
questionsto reexaminethe
traditional conceptsof constraintcommitmeni. T-hefocus.
however,is on a more_comprehensiveexaminationof personaldedication. Many
questionswere designedto measurecommitment choicei (intentional affumine and
enrigling marital behaviors).plsliminary resultsindicatethat the greatestnumder of
signficant correlations occured between the religiosiry indicatorJ and commitment
choices;93% of all correlationswere significant,compared to about I5-30Voof al|
independ-entvariables (e.g. demographic,life satisfaction,socio-economic.and social
support).' _The
with constrainl commitment indicators support the
-correlations
conclusionthat wives,more than husbands,are less*illi"g to put up with uniatis$,ing
marriag-es
regardless-of
religiouscommitment. Over half of tle samplewere active{
involvedin conservativechurches.
The most appar€nt support for a direct connection between religiosiry and
commitmentis found
in the "family strengths"studies(Stinnett, I979a; 1r97}b;Stinnett,
Sanders,DeFrain, & Parkhurst, L982). Thougb the number of significantfactors thai
ch.aracterize.
strong fanar]ie-s
(and marriages)has varied among iie studies,a strong
'SchumJ
leligrgus orientation an{ family commitment were systematicallypresent.
(1985)' in exami"ing this literature, concludedthat religious orientation is a strong
in{luence on the developmentof family commitment i" gtui"g the family u seor" oT
purposeand valuesoriented to the needsand welfare of otheri. Commitrnent.in the
causalsequence,
is ass'medto inJluence
familytime and energy(effort). The "religious
November,1989
Family Science Review
293
orientation"variablein thesestudies,however,is reported to have been redefined as a
*rysllnes5orientation"in a 1986workshopon family strengths(Hatch et al., 1986). The
Hatch study introduces two important new conceptsinto the religious commitment
literature:spiitual intimacy("I think that our perceptionsof God are basicallythe same"
and "I feel closeto my spousewhen we're in worship") andemotionalintimacy ("I often
feel distant from my spouse"and "My spousecan really understandmy hurts and joys").
Emotional intimacy was the most powerful predictor of marital satisfaction. Spiritual
intimacy and church attendancehad no 6; 6inim2l effect on marital satisfactionwhen
emotionalintimacywas controlled. As is suggestedby the authors,gettingpeopleto be
more religiousmay not haveany effect on improving marital satisfactionunlesschange
oecursin the nature of emotionalintimacy. For a husbandto get "religion",for example,
is either 6saninglessor negative u'rlesshe learns to give priority to family over work.
"For wives,religion did not haveso much the power to unite as it did to divide" (Hatch
et al., 1986,p.544).
Beliefsand devotionalpracticeswere correlatedwith marital adjustmentin a recent
studyby Gruner (1985). Gruner found that spouseswho prayed and read their Bibles
eKensivelyas a way of copingwith their personaland marital concernshad significantly
higher levels of marital adjustment. The relationships were most siguificant for
Pentecostalsand conservativereligious groups. In a dated but interesting study,
Hillsdale (1962) interviewedcoupleswhile they were applyingfor a marriage license.
Hiilsdale argued that personalcommitmentto marriage involvesan aet of.lcnowing(a
coguitiveelement) and an act of.choosing(a cathetic element). Catholic respondents
tendedto giverote, unreflectivecommentsaboutthe permanenceof marriage. Hillsdale
observed an "almost-infantile confidence in the medicinal powers of mere
communication"(1980,p. 1a3). In the recent studyby Lauer and Lauer (1986a),both
huppy and u"happy couplesgavethe samereasonfor stayingtogether - "marriageis a
long-term commitment."Accordingto one out-of-datestudy,coupleswho were married
in a religious ceremonywere less likely to divorce (Christensen& Meissner, 1953).
Perhapsthis is a modestindicator of follow-through. Though the evidenceis limited, it
would appear that "religious-like"opinions are a staple in the lexicon of both marital
aspirantsand long-term married couples. As Lund (1985)argues,the real test may be
in the linkage between commitment rhetoric and personal investment (changesin
behavior).
Religionascommwity representsperhapsthe most salientaccumulationof religious
commitment. This variablemight be a combinationof Bibby's "cumulative"measureof
religiouscommitmentand multiple waysof intentionalinvolvementin the "community"
of faith. Unfortunately, there is little evidenceon the impact of the integration of
individual and group in spiritual communiry. In the Hunt and King study (1978),
religiosiry takes on new meaning. Credal assent(strong beliefs in traditional Biblical
doctrines),involvementin churchorganizations,a growth and strivingorientation,couple
agreementon religion,toleranceof others,and an extrinsicreligiousmotivationall were
strongly correlated with marital adjustment. These measuresoutweighed church
attendance,although most were active attenders. There is only one study, to my
knowledge, that approximates the "community aspect" of religious commitment.
Broadbar-Nemzer(1986) examlle. group commitmentamong Jewishpeople. It is
arguedthat the degreeof integrationinto a religiouscommunityand its valuespromotes
marital solidarity. Several"communal"measureswere used:degreeof ritual observance,
synagogueattendance,synagoguemembership,proportion of closestfriends that are
Jewish, living in a Jewish neighborhood,travel to Israel, membership in a Jewish
organiza1ie1,and contributionsto a Jewish chariry. According to Broadbar-Nemzer,
these religio-ethnicattributes together promote group cohesionand commitment.
Religion is both individual and group-oriented.
294
Family Science Review
November,1989
As rspod
t-herespoo&il
commitmcot (
church- Erta
the religious
unafffiatioo- /
assessingmari
and elder boal
deeper sensc o
believers' (a h
communir.v? ll
berween religi
Tbe inlh
commitmeot i
dehnitive. W
correlate witl
variables are <
factor is subicr
of the Gol&o
liring. As Lur
the *'ords.
Tberc i
commit-enl I
divorce ratcs
be evidencco
g-ith a seusc
personal and
instabiliry or r
marital relati
appears to t
developmen
strongly-coon
empirical oe
1. Ir is
marital comu
is not a Eea
used as a pr
religious car
consen'atislO
scde of reli
9966rrni fv
(l
measures ccl
r e th i n k th i < 5
than a barri
dilemma in b
femilg5 1o{e
Nosember. 19
As reported in the begi""ing of this paper, Bibby (1987) found that over 60Voof
the respondentsfrom Conservativedenominations,character'uedbycumulativereligious
commitment (beliefs and practice and expeietce and knowledge),greatly enjoyed
church. Even so, there is little differencein the enjoynent of family life among either
the religious "committed" or "uncommitted," regardless of religious affiliation or
unaffiliation. Integrationinto the religiouscommunitymay be an important variablein
marital commitment. Do thosewho are involvedin churchcommittees,deacon
assessing
and elder boards,visitation teams,or small group Bible studiesand fellowshipshave a
deepersenseof religiouscommunity?Is the spiritual senseof being part of the "bodyof
believers"(a kind of transcendental"ethnicidentity'') a way of comprehendingreligious
If thesedeeperdimensionswere effectivelymeasured,would the linkages
"o66unity?
religiosity and personalmarital commitmentbe more apparent?
between
The influence of religious commitment on marital satisfactionand on marital
commitment is apparent,and on the whole, consistent. Even so, the evidenceis not
definitive. What might be called "good measures"of religiosity do not necessarily
correlate with (or remain significant predictors of) marital satisfactionwhen other
variablesare controlled. In the intimacy of the marital bond, the value of the reiigious
factor is subjectedto its most severetest. It is here where the "other-centered"message
of the Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12)assumescenterstagein the drama of real everyday
living. As Lund (1985)suggests,
the ultimate indicatoris whether the deedssquarewith
the words.
CONCLUSIONS
There is considerable research on the relationship between religion and
commitmentto marriage. The commitmentindicators,however,are largely definedby
divorcerates and related measuresof marital instability. Marital stabiliryis assumedto
be evidenceof marital commitment. Similarly,marital satisfactionis stronglycorrelated
with a senseof personal commitment. ai'coltz (1987) has pointed 6ut, however,
personaland structural commitment are different constructsfrom measuresof either
instabilifyor satisfaction.The studyof personaldedicationand constraintconstructsin
marital relationshipsis a new frontier in both theory and research. The religiousfactor
appears to be a significant correlate of the marital commitment measuresunder
development. It is likely that improved measuresof.famity commitment will also be
stronglyconnectedto a varietyof religiousindicators. There are severaltheoreticaland
empirical matters,however,that require further attention.
1. It is no longer defendableto rely on religion as a categoryin the study of
marital commitment.Although the findingsessentiallyare consistent,religiousaffiliation
is not a measureof religious devoutnesslet alone religious belief. If r-figion is to be
used as a predictor variable, the measuresmust approximatethe essentialnature of
religious commitment Stanley's(1986) measuresof intrinsic religion and religious
conservatism(this measuretranscendsdenominationaland religiouscategories),the
scale of .religious devoutness(Connecticut Life, 198L), and measuresof religious
commrtnity(Brodbar-Nemzer,
L986)are preliminarysteps.The Glock and Stark(i965)
measurescontinue to be a standardfor social scienceresearch. Perhapsit is time to
rethink this scalein terms of marriageand family issues. The religious factor is more
than a barrier to divorce in both theory and in real marriage and family life. The
dilemmain both theoryand research,however,is that religion both keepsmarriagesand
families togetherwho should havesplit up yearsugo,*hi" religion alio eocouiages
November,1989
Family Science Review
295
othersto makeweakmarriagesand familiesstrongerand healthier. Our measuresmust
be able to distinguishpermanencefor its own sake,and transformationaland support
that improve marriagesand families.
nxssfuenisms
2" Johnson(1985) arguesthat personalcommitmentis largely a conseqlenceof
relationshipsatisfaction.This may be a viableassumptionbasedon the existingresearch
evidence"Stanley(1936),however,arguesthat the two conceptsare distjnct. Stanley's
researchindeeddemonstratedthat the relationshipbetweenthe religiousfactor and both
personaldedicationand constraintcommitmentindicatorsremainssignificantcontrolling
lor marital satisfaction.Even so, the literature reviewedin this paper suggeststhat the
linkagesbetweensatisfactionand personalcommitmentare significant. Commitmentis
stimulatedh satisfyingrelationshipsand, itself, encouragesorientationsand behaviors
that increaserelationship satisfaction. It is argued in Larson and Goltz (1989) that
personal dedication is the prime "individual and relational source of making good
marriagesbetter." Perhaps, but this hypothesisis yet to be documented.
Along *itJ
comrnitrrr(
and a thir
1.
2. Bibby(r9
'cunuhi
(fu' Dir
thc cryat
four mca
of cooscr
enjo;nd tl
3.
3. Extant indicators developedby Stanley (1986), particularly with respect to
personal dedication, need to be tested further in studies of marriage relationships.
Indeed, similar scalesneed to be developedto assesspersonal dedication in family
relationships. The measuresof meta-commitment,couple identity, sacrifice,and the
morality of divorce seemparticularly promising. The "behaviorchange"dimensionof
personaldedication(Olson, 1988)may evolveinto a usefulscaleaswell. Even so, based
on the existingresearchevidence,it is well to questionthe usefulnessof 13+ subscales
to assesspersonaland constraint commitment in relationships. Are all of the items
while introducing others that
essential?It shouldbe possibleto drop certain subscales,
are more important. Scalesof this type require far too many questionsto be used in
standardinterviewsor questionnaires.Yet, effectiveand accuratecommitmentmeasures
are essentialin most researchseeking to understand and explain marital or family
behavior.
4. There is a theologicaldimensionof socialscienceresearch.In seekingto assess
the impact of religious faith in marriage and family relationships,it is essentialfor
researchersto turn to the sacred books for conceptsand indicators. The existing
theoriesand measuresof commitmentdo not seemto adequatelycapturethe meaning
of commitment as defined in the Bible. Given the prominenceof the Judeo-Christian
heritage in our society, g eater attention must be given to Biblical meanings and
assumptionsin developingmeasrues.The permanenceand fidelity notions are staples
in the formulation of religion asbanier to divorcein marriagerelationships.Dedication
to marriage-afhrmingand enrichingbehaviors,however,is alsoa basicBiblical concept.
The measurementof this dimension,whateverthe sourceof suchdedication,is essential
to more fully explain marital commitmentand the religious factor. The "fruits of the
Spirit" (Galations5:22-23),and numerousother action-orientedother-centeredBiblical
principles,may be amenableto both conceptualizationand measurement.It shouldbe
possible,onceadequatemeasuresare developed,to assessthe sequenceand linkagesof
suchvariablesin explainingmarital outcomes,both theoreticallyand empirically.
Until these steps and others are taken, the relationshipsbetween the religious
factor and maritd commitmentlikely will remain indefinitive. If religious commitment
is to remain an important variablein explainingh 'man phenomena,marriageand family
relationshipsin particular, more effective ways will need to be found to assessits'
contributionrelativeto other indicatorsthat. for now at least.seemmore elesant.
296
Family Science Review
November,1989
Ercn so,
saridacri
examplc,
lercls of 1
lewls of 1
51i6rrl-rg
assumctl
often as
disagte€!
of loog*t
that iodit
during tl
r9T1) r
(1989)l'
'--rb
ate (
coos
i.odil
bcru
uDc
tsb
Corr
IDA'1
enrl
{.
Intri-osic
Euriasir
,5.
\tucb ol
y'et to h
Nbrecht. SPerspco
Babchuk-NForca.'
\ovembcr.
19
ENDNOTES
Along with severalgraduatestudents,I havebeen involvedin the study of marital
commitmentsinceL980. One major studywasundertakenin 1980,anotherin 1-984,
and a third is now underway.
Bibby (1987:72-73)useda unique measureof religiouscommitmentwhich he calls
"cumulativecommitment."Ooly 20 percentsg hi5 sampleexhibitedpositivebeliefs
(God, Divinity of Jesus,Life after Death), and the practiceof private prayer,and
the experienceof "God's presence",and Laowledgeof who denied Jesus. These
four measuresconstitutedcumulativecommitment. Bibby found that 6L percent
of conservativeProtestants,who were committed to religious faith in this way,
enjoyedtheir church.
Even so, the conceptual linkages between personal commitment and marital
satisfaction remain unclear in the literature. Larson and Goltz (1989), for
example,found that couplesscoringhigh on satisfactionindicators,had the highest
levelsof personalcommitment. Coupleswith low satisfactionalso had the lowest
levelsof personalcommitment. The experienceof satisfactionobviouslymay well
stimulate further satisfyingattitudes and behaviors. Indeed, such couplei may
assumethat their marriage is "until death do us part." Satisfaction,however,is
often as volatile as "love." As it is the nature of marriage to experience
disagreementand conflict, satisfactionwould seemto be a more fragile correlate
of long-term marital growth than personalcommitment. It seemsviible to argue
that individuals personallydedicatedto their marriageswill be more steadfast
during the rough times (e.g. refuse to monitor the alternatives- Leik and Leik,
L977) or be impelled toward correctiveor enriching actions. Larson and Goltz
(1989)argue that:
"...themarried shouldbei ave more equitablyand altruisticallybecausethey
are committedratherthanto becomecommitted....commitmentis not the
consequence
of experiencinga good marriage. Instead,commitmentis the
individual and relationalsourceof makinggood (or evenweak) marriages
better. In this sense,communicationis lesslikely to occur if a couple is
uncommitted. Likewise,the resolutionof differences(marital adjustment)
is lesslikely to occur if a coupleis unable to talk about their differencej.
commitment may indeedbe the seniorvariablein the evolutionof a strons
marriage,fron one which is merely "stable"to one that is becomingmorE
enriching"(p.397).
Intrinsically religious personsfind their primary religious motives in their faith.
Extrinsicreligiouspersonsseereligionas "useful"or as a sourceof socialcontact.
5.
Much of the data work for this project remains to be done. Scalesand indexes are
yet to be developed. A careful and critical review of the data is yet to be done.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, S., & Kunz, P. (1980). The Decision to Divorce: A Social Exchanse
Perspective.foumal of Divorce,3, 3L9-337.
Babchuk,N., crockett, H., & Ballweg,J. (1967). change in ReligiousAf{iliation. Social
Forces,45, 551,-555.
November,1989
Family Science Review
297
Bahr, H. M. (1981). ReligiousIntermarriageand Divorce in Utah and the Mountain
states. Joumalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion,20,25L-251.
Bahr, H., & Chadwick,B. (1985). Religion and family in Middletown, USA. foumal of
Maniageand the Family,47, N7-414.
Becker,H. S. (1960). Notes on the Conceptof Commitment. Ameican loumal of
Sociologt,66,32-4.
Bellah, R" N., Madsen,R., Sullivan,W. M., Swidler,A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits
of theHeax: Individualismand Commitrnentin Ameican Life. New York Harper
and Row.
Bibby, R" W. (1987). FragmentedGods: ThePovertyand Potential of Religion in Canada.
Toronto: Irwin Publishing.
Booth,A., Johnson,D.R, White, L. K., & Edwards,J" N. (1985). PredictingDivorce
and Separation.foumal of Family fssues,6,331'-346.
Booth, A., & Johnson.D. R. (1988). Premarital Cohabitation and Marital Success.
foumal of Family Issues,9,?55-n2.
Booth, A., & White, L. (1980). Thinking About Divorce" Ioumal of Maniageand the
Family, 42, 605-616.
Booth,A., Johnson,D. R., White,L.K., & Edwards,J. N. (1986). Divorceand Marital
Instability Over the Life Course. foumal of SocialIssues,7,42L-442.
Brodbar-Nemzer,J. Y. (1986). Divorce and Group Commitment:The Case of the
Jews. foumal of Maniageand the Family, 48,329-340.
Broderick, J. E. (1981). A Method for Derivation of Areas for Assessmentin Marital
relationships. TheAmeican loumal of Family Therapy,9,25-34.
Bugaighis,M. A., Schumm,W.R., Jurich,A. P., & lsllmnn, S. R. (1985/86). Factors
Associatedwith Thoughtsof Marital Separation.foumal of Divorce,9, 49-59.
Bumpass,L" L., & Sweet,J. A. (1972). Differentials in Marital Instability: 1970.
Ameican SociologicalReview,37, 75+766.
Burns, A. (1984). PerceivedCausesof lv{arital Breakdown and Conditions of Life.
Joumqlof Maniageand tlrc Family,46,55L-562.
Burr, W. R., Hill, R., Nye, F. I., & Reiss,I. L. (Eds.). (L979). ContemporaryTheoies
about the Family. (Vol. I). New York The Free Press.
Chadwick,B.A., Albrecht, S. L., & Kunz. P. R. (L976). Marital and Family Role
Satisfaction.foumal of Maniageand the Family,38,43L-W.
Cherlin, A. (1980). Religion and Remarriage:Reply to Halliday. Ameican loumal of
Sociologt, 86,636-6q.
Chesser,E. (l-957). TheSexual,Maital and Family Relationshipsof theEnglishWoman.
New York Roy.
Chi, S. K., & Houseknecht,S. K. (1985). ProtestantFundamentalismand Marital
Success:A ComparativeApproach. Sociologtand SocialResearch,69,35L-375.
Christensen"H. T. (1964). Development of the Family Field of Study. In H.T.
Christensen(Ed.). Handbook of lulaniogeand the Family (pp.3-32). Chicago:
Rand McNally.
Christensen,
H. T., & Meissner,H.H. (1953). Studiesin Child Spacing:Premarital
Pregnancyas a Factor in Divorce. Ameican SociologicalReview, 18,641-644.
Clodfelter, J. L. (1977). Maital Commifinent:Definition and Evaluation. Doctoral
Dissertation. Ohio University.
Cor-ecticut Mutual Life InsuranceCo. (1981). Reporton Ameican Valuesin lhe 80s:
The Intpoct of Belief. Hartford, CI.
Edwards,J. N., & Saunders,J. M. (1981). ComingApart: A Model of the Marital
DissolutionDecision. foumal of Maniageand the Family, 43,379-389.
Filsinger, E. 8., & wilson, M. R. (1984). Religiosiry,socioeconomicRewards,and
Family Development:Predictorsof Marital Adjustment. foumal of Mariage and
the Family, 46, 663-670.
298
Family Science Review
November, 1989
Fuzptic\
f
Bcctlt l
ckr4 li. D.
Diucc
Iuad r
Glc", N- D.
Hryti
Glcnq !i. D.
Diruce
4ltort
Glcon, !,i- D
SurrvS
Gloc\ C. Y.
\tcidl!
Golca J. t*.
DLsscru
Goltz,J. \l'-,
Papcr i
cggdq \r. J
Gruner, L
\taritd
Halli&;-, T. (
ol SEt)
Ha-oseo,
G. t
Ianul
Hartlcy, S- F
Rescso
Hatc\ R CSaridr
Heatoo,T- |
tqtnal
HilMale, P.
Futh',
Huat, R. A,
Sa@'a!
Joh"rco" \f
Appli,cz
Job-asoo, !tlCoastrr
Unpubl
Jorgeusco, $
of llot'
Jorgensco,.S
eralluB,i
Joreeoscn" S
Conflio
Kanter, R. !!
\techar
Kate. P. lC
Dooc
KcU;-.E L
Asalt' i
Srial t
lG6lcr, C.
Scrrobcr.
I
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). BetweenHusbandsand'flives: Communicationin Maniage.
Beverly Hills: SagePublications.
Glenn, N. D., & Supancic,M. (1984). The Social and Demographic Correlates of
Divorce and Separationin the United States:An Update and Reconsideration.
Joumalof Maniageand theFamily,46,563-575.
Glenn, N.D., & Weaver,C. N. (1978). A Multivariate, Multisurvey Study of Marital
Happiness. Ioumal.of Maniageand the Family, 40,269-?32.
Glenn, N. D, & Shelton,B. A. (1983). Pre-adult Background characteristics and
Divorce: A Note of Caution about Overrelianceon Explained Variance.foumal
of Maniageand the Family,45, 405-470.
Glenn" N. D. (1987). The Trend in "No Religion" Respondentsto U.S. National
Surveys,Late 1950sto Early 1980s.Public Opinion Quarterly,5l,Z93-3I4.
Glock, C. Y., & Stark, R. (1965). Religionand Societyin Tension. Chicago:Rand
McNally.
Goltz, J. w. (1987). conelates of Maital commitment Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation. Edmonton: University of Alberta.
Goltz, J. w., & Larson,L. E. (1989). Individualism,Religion and Marital commitment.
Paper in submission.
Goode,W. J. (L956). Womenin divorce. New York The Free Press.
Gruner, L. (1985). The Correlation of Private, Religious Devotional Practicesand
Marital Adjustment. foumal of ComparativeFamity Studies,16,47-Sg.
Halliday, T. C. (1980). Remarriage- the More CompleteInstitution.Ameican foumal
of Sociologt, 86, 630-635.
Hansen,G. L. (1981).MaritalAdjustmentand Conventionalization:
A Reexamination.
foumql of Maniageand the Family,43, 855-863.
Hartley, S. n (1978). Marital SatisfactionAmong Clergy Wives. Reviewof Religiotts
Research,19,I78-t9L.
Hatch,R. c., James,D. E., & Schumm,w. R. (1986). spiritual Intimacyand Marital
Satisfaction.Family Relations,35,539-545.
Heaton, T. B., Albrecht, S. L. & Martin, T. K. (1985). The Timing of Divorce.
Joumal of Maniageand the Fanily, 47,63L-639.
Hillsdale,.1. _(L262): Marriage as a PersonalExistential commitment. Maniage and
Fanily Living, 24, L37-L43.
Hunt,R.
(1978).ReligiosityandMarriage.
Ioumarforthescientific
!"*_{hg,M.B.
Studyof Religion,77,399-406.
Johnson,.l\{.. P. \1973). commitment: A conceptual Structure and Empirical
Application. SociologicalQuarterly,14, 395-406.
Johnson,M.
(1985). commitment, cohesion,Investment,Barriers,Alternatives,
-P.
c_onstrgjlt:
why do People Stay Together when They Really Dou't want to?
Unpublishedpaper.
Jorgensen,
s. R., & Johnson,A. c. (1980). correlatesof DivorceLiberality. roumal
of Maniageand theFamily,42,6L7-625.
Jorgensen,.S.
R. (1979).Socioeconomic
RewardsandperceivedMarital eualiry:A Reexamination.foumal of Maniageand the Family, 41, 825-835.
Jorgensen,s. R., & Klein, D. (1979). SocioculturalHeterogamy, Dissensus,and
Conflict in Marriage. PaciftcSocioto$calReview,22, 5L-75:
Kanter,R-.M. (1968).CommitmentandSocialOrga"i"ation: A Studyof Commitment
Mechanismsin Utopian Communities.Ameican Sociotogical
Riview,33,4gg-517.
rlare,,P. K.
ia:$). Dimensionsof Mantot commitment: D;finition and Assessment.
Doctoral Dissertation. North TexasUniversitv.
personality'andcompatibfity: A prospective
Kelly, E. L.t & conley,.J.J.
..(1987).
Analysis of Marital_Stglility
and Marital Saiisfaction.Jbumal oy rersonatity and
SocialPsychologt,52, 27-4f,.
Kiesler, c. (1971). ThePsychorogtof commitrnenf. New york: Academic press.
November.1989
Family Science Review
299
Kimmons, N. C. (1980). Maital commitment:An Assessmentof the Normative and
InterpenonalDimensions. Doctoral Dissertation. Florida State University.
Kitson, G. C., Babri, K. B., & Roach,M. J. (1985). Who Divorcesand Why: A Review.
foumal of Family Issues,6,255-293.
Kunz, P. R., & Albrecht, S. L. (7977). Religion, Marital Happinessand Divorce.
Intemationalloumal of Sociologtof the Famity, 7,227-?32.
Landis, J. T. (1949). Marriages of Mixed and Non-mixed Religious Futh. Ameican
SociologicalReview,U, 4ft-4f,6"
Larson,L. E., & Goltz, J. W. (1989). ReligiousParticipationand Marital Commitment.
Reviewof ReligiousResearch,30,387-M.
Larson, L. E., & Munro, B. (1985). Religious Intermarriage in Canada,1974-1982.
Intemationalfountal of the Sociologtof the Family, 15,31-49.
Larson,L.8., & Munro, B. (in press). ReligiousIntermarriagein Canadain the 1980s.
foumql of ComparativeFamily Studies.
Lauer, J. C., & Lauer, R. H. (1986b). 'Til Death do us Part: How CouplesStay
Together.New York: The Haworth Press.
Lauer, R. H., & Lauer, J. C. (1986a). Factors in Long-term Marriages.Ioumal of
Family Issues,7, 382-390.
Leik, R" & Leik, S. (7979). Transition to Interpersonal Commitment. In R. C.
Hamblin & J. H. Kunkel (Eds.). BehavioralTheoryin Sociologt (Pp.299-322).
New Brunswick,NY: TransactionBooks.
Levhger, G. (1965). Marital Cohesiveness
and Dissolution:An Integrative Review.
foumal of Maniageand theFamily,27,l9-?3.
Levinger, G. (L976). A Social PsychologicalPerspectiveon Marital Dissolution.
toumal of Social Issues,
32,2L-4.
Lewis, R. A., & Spanier,G. B. (1979). Theorizing about the Quality and Stability of
Marriage. In W. Burr, R. Hill, L Reiss, & F. I. Nye (Eds.). Contemporary
Theoies about the Family, Vol. 1 (pp.268-294). Glencoe,ILL: Free Press.
Locke, H" J. (1951). PredictingAdjnsttnent
in Maniage:A Compaison of a Divorcedand
a Hoppily Manied Group. New York Holt.
Lund, M. (1985). The Development of Investment and Commitment Scales for
Predicting continuiry of PersonalRelationships. foumal of Social and Personal
Relationslrips,2, 3-23.
Maneker, J. S, & Rankin, R. P. (1987). Correlates and Comparisonsof Marital
Duration of Black and White Couplesin California, L966-1976.foumal of Divorce,
11,33-49.
McCarthy, J. A. (1979). Religious Commitment,Affiliation, and Marital Dissolution.
In R. Wuthnow (Ed.). The ReligiousDimension: New directionsin Quantitative
Research(pp.179-197).New York AcademicPress.
McRae, J. A., Jr. (1978). The Secularization
of Divorce. In B. Duncan and O. T.
Duncan (Eds.). Su Typingand SocialRoles (pp.2n-242). New York: Academic
Press"
Moller, A. S. (1975). Jewish-gentileDivorce in California. fewish Sociol Studies,37,
n9-290"
Nye, F. I., White, L. & Frideres, J. S. (L973). A Preliminary Theory of Marital
Stability:Two models. Intemationalfoumal of Sociologtof theFamily, 3, 102-122.
Olson, R. (1988). An ExploratorySady of Defining and Measuittg E4tressiottsof
Maital Commitment M.Ed. Thesis. University of Alberta.
Ortega,S. T., Whitt, H. P., & William5,J. A., Jr. (1988). ReligiousHomogamyand
Marital Happiness.foumal of FamilyIssues,9,224-239.
Pryor, E., & Norris, D. (1988). Religion and the Family Cycle. CanadianSndies in
Population,15, 159-1"80.
Sabatelli,R. M., & Cecil-Pigo,E. F. (1985). Relational Interdependenceand
Commitment in Marriage. Ioumal of Maniageand the Family, 47,931-937.
300
Family Science Review
November, 1989
Sabatelli, RSrial a
Scanzoni, J.
Coo-il
\laritel
gqhrrm6
l*
Conwd
\laritd
Schumm, W
Coosm
Shrulc, W.
Rcligiat
St. Georgr, /
lqltnal
Staaley, SRclaio
Stinnctt, N.
Fst ily
Sdnnett, N.
Stinnctl SD€Frri
UmL
$tinnslg \FaEiE
Ss:ct, J. A
qd FA
Unis
Tcachnen,.
.Dd EX
Tbmes, D.
Dblo!
Tbaarc, r
}frfi!
11ltf,, lrl\tultid
15r\[;24
h. l
P. (1
To
Sabatelli,R. M., & Pearce,D. J. (1986). Exploring Marital Expectations.Ioumal of
Social and Personal Relationships,3, 307-32L.
Scanzoni, J., & Arnett, C. (1987). Enlarging the Understanding of Marital
Commitment Via ReligiousDevoutness,Gender Role Preferences,and Locus of
Marital Control. foumal of Family Issues,8, 1i6-t56.
Schumm, W. R., lqllman, S. R., & Jurich, A. P.
(1982). The "Marital
Conventionalization"Argumenl Implications for the Study of Religiosily and
Maritd Satisfaction.foumal of Psychologtand Theologt, 10,236-24I.
Schumm, W. R. (1985). Beyond Relationship Characteristicsof Strong Famllis..
Constructinga Model of Family Strengths.Family Perspective,19,1.-9.
Shrum, W. (1980). Religion and Marital Instability Changein the 1970s?Reviewof
ReligiousResearch,21, 7j5-t47.
St. George,A, & McNamara,P. (1984).Religion,Race,and Psychological
Well Being.
Ioumal for the ScientifrcStudyof Religion,23,35L-363.
Stanley, S. (1986). commitment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
Relationships.Doctoral Dissertation. University of Denver.
$finnstf, N., & Sauer,K H. (1977). RelationshipCharacteristicsof Strong Families.
Family Penpective,I 1, 3-Ll.
j3,3-9.
Stinnett,N. (1979a).Strengthening
Families. FamityPerspective,
N. (1979b). In Searchof StrongFamilies. In N. Stinnett,B. Chesser,& J.
$tinne11,
D-eFrain (Eds.). Building Family Stengths: Btueprintsfor Action (pp. 23-30).
Lincoln, NB: University of NebraskaPress.
$1innstt,N., Sanders,G., DeFrain,J., & Parkhurst,A., (1982).A NationwideStudyof
Families who PerceiveThemselvesas Strong. Family Perspective,
16, L5-22.
Sweet,J. A. (1973).Differentials in RemarriageProbabrlities. Centerfor Demograplry
and.Ecologtl4to*ing Paper73-29. Madison:center for Demographyand Ecology,
University of Wisconsin.
Teachman,J. D. (1982). MethodologicalIssuesin the Aralysis of Family Formation
and Dissolution.foumal of Maniageand theFamily,44,1037-1053.
Thom_as,_D.
&- Henry, G. (1985). The Religion and Family connection:Increasing
Dialogue in the SocialSciences.roumal of Maniageand tlrc Family,47, r47-r5L
Thornton,-A. (L975). Maital Instability and Fertility. Ph.D Thesis. Universiry of
Michigan.
wilson, M, R., & Filsinger, E. E. (1986). Religiosity and Marital Adjustment:
MultidimensionalInterrelationships.foumal of Marriageand theFamily,48,I47151.
Wyatt, P. (1983).Dimensionsof Maital Commitment:Definition andAssessme,n/.
North
TexasStateUniversity:Doctoral Dissertation.
November,1989
Family Science Review
301