religious inﬂuences on the risk of marital dissolution...journal of marriage and family 71...

MARGARET L. VAALER, CHRISTOPHER G. ELLISON, AND DANIEL A. POWERSUniversity of Texas at Austin

Religious Influences on the Risk of Marital

Dissolution

This study examined multiple dimensions ofreligious involvement and the risk of divorceamong a nationwide sample of 2,979 first-time married couples. Multivariate proportionalhazards modeling was used to analyze twowaves of the National Survey of Families andHouseholds. Results indicated that althougheach partner’s religious attendance bore amodest relationship to marital dissolution,the risk of divorce was lower if husbandshad conservative theological beliefs and whenboth partners belonged to mainline Protestantdenominations. Conversely, the risk of divorcewas elevated if husbands attended servicesmore frequently than their wives and if wiveswere more theologically conservative than theirhusbands. These patterns withstood controls forsociodemographic covariates, marital duration,and marital quality. Directions for futureresearch are discussed.

Over the past two decades, researchers haverenewed their attention to the links between reli-gion and family life (Edgell, 2005; Mahoney,Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2001).Recent studies have documented significant reli-gious variations in an array of family-related

Department of Sociology, 1 University Station, A1700,University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712([email protected]).

Key Words: divorce, family, marriage, National Survey ofFamilies and Households, religion, spousal roles.

attitudes and behaviors, including gender ideol-ogy (Hoffmann & Miller, 1997), the division ofhousehold labor (Ellison & Bartkowski, 2002),childrearing and discipline (Bartkowski & Xu,2000; Wilcox, 2002), relations between adultchildren and their parents (Pearce & Axinn,1998), grandparenting (King & Elder, 1999), andcohabitation (Thornton, Axinn, & Hill 1992).

One area of particular interest has been therole of religion in shaping marital attitudes, val-ues, practices, and quality (e.g., Booth, Johnson,Branaman, & Sica, 1995; Myers, 2006; Shehan,Bock, & Lee, 1990). In addition, a number ofstudies over the years have explored the associa-tion between religious factors (mainly affiliation,denominational homogamy, and attendance) andhistory of divorce (for review, see Mahoneyet al., 2001). Yet, despite widespread publicand academic controversy over contemporarymarital dissolution rates, only a handful of stud-ies have explored religious variations in therisk of marital dissolution. For example, Lehrerand Chiswick (1993) found that couples hada higher risk of divorce when only one part-ner was religiously affiliated or when only onepartner belonged to an exclusivist (i.e., evan-gelical Protestant or sectarian) denomination.Subsequently, Call and Heaton (1997) reportedthat dissimilarity in partner’s religious atten-dance patterns—but not other types of religiousdissimilarity—is linked with increased risk ofmarital dissolution.

Our study extends this literature in sev-eral ways: (1) by theorizing and examiningthe effects of multiple aspects of religious

Journal of Marriage and Family 71 (November 2009): 917 – 934 917

918 Journal of Marriage and Family

involvement on the risk of marital dissolution,using prospective data from two waves of theNational Survey of Families and Households(NSFH), and using Cox proportional hazardsmodels; (2) by considering a broad array of pos-sible religious influences, including (a) religiousversus secular marriage ceremonies; (b) the affil-iation, practice, and theological conservatismof each partner; and (c) the denominationalhomo/heterogamy, as well as attendance andtheological (dis)similarity among partners; and(3) by exploring the possible roles of base-line marital quality, conflicts, and extramaritaloptions in accounting for observed religious dif-ferences in the risk of subsequent separation ormarital dissolution.

THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study is to analyze the rela-tionships between various religious indicatorsand the risk of marital dissolution. Specifi-cally, we consider the implications of havinga religious wedding ceremony as well as thefrequency of each partner’s attendance at reli-gious services and the degree of each partner’stheological conservatism, as measured by theirbeliefs about the inerrancy and authority of theBible. In addition, we explore the role of threetypes of religious divergence among partnersfor the risk of dissolution: (a) denominationalheterogamy, (b) dissimilar patterns of religiousattendance, and (c) differences in theologicalconservatism among partners. We model theselongitudinal relationships with controls for stan-dard sociodemographic covariates as well aswith adjustments for variations in multiple indi-cators of baseline marital quality.

Religious Involvement of Marital Partners

How and why might religious factors influ-ence the risk of marital dissolution? The degreeof religious involvement of the partners maybe inversely related to marital dissolution forseveral reasons. Although few if any previousstudies have examined this, one potentially sig-nificant indicator of commitment is whether thecouple chooses to be married in a religious cer-emony, as opposed to a civil ceremony or otherprocedure. To be sure, couples may have manyreasons for choosing a religious wedding, suchas pressure from family members and socialexpectations. Nevertheless, such rituals often

invoke the support of the religious community,family, and friends to help the partners honortheir promises and sustain their marital bonds.Moreover, the decision to have a religious cere-mony may be reached with the input of parentsand other family members, which may signalstrong family commitment to faith and marriageand may presage family support for the cou-ple during periods of turbulence or short-termproblems that may arise.

The frequency of each partner’s religiousattendance may also be inversely related to therisk of marital dissolution (Call & Heaton, 1997;Ellison, Bartkowski, & Anderson, 1999). First,attendance may be a barometer of more generalreligious commitment or devotion. Individuals(and couples) who attend religious services reg-ularly may also enjoy a richer spiritual life,seeking to internalize and enact religiouslyinspired virtues of love, altruism, caring, andself-sacrifice within their marital and family rela-tionships (Mahoney et al., 1999). Second, regu-lar attenders may benefit from informal support-—for their marriage and on other matters—fromlike-minded members of the congregation orwithin small group settings, religious educa-tion classes, social groups, or other organizedactivities. Such feedback may foster maritalcommitment, offer psychic rewards for maritalsuccess, limit marital discord, promote conflictresolution and help with other problems thatcould strain marriages, and discourage maritaldissolution as a potential violation of religiousnorms. Third, some congregations may offer for-mal ministries, seminars, and other resources formarital enrichment (Wilcox, Chaves, & Franz,2004). Pastoral guidance and counseling on fam-ily matters may also help to address relationshipproblems, promote persistence, and constrainseparation or divorce. Fourth, regular attendancemay be part of a broader complex of conven-tional behaviors; religious groups may tend todraw persons and couples who are compara-tively traditional and risk averse in their valueorientations (Wilcox, 2002).

In addition to their religious involvement andcommitment, the theological conservatism ofmarital partners may impact the risk of disso-lution (Dobson, 1999). In particular, individualswho regard the Bible as the inerrant Word ofGod and the source of authoritative guidancefor human affairs (presumably including familylife) are likely to be familiar with scriptural pas-sages on the nature and spiritual significance of

Religious Influences on the Risk of Marital Dissolution 919

marriage. Among the most prominent of theseare injunctions to ‘‘Be faithful in marriage’’(Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18), and ‘‘Haverespect for marriage’’ (Hebrews 13:4). There-fore, one expects that persons who hold conser-vative theological beliefs about the Bible maybe less likely to separate or divorce over time.

Religious (Dis)similarity Among Partners

It is also important to examine the degree of reli-gious (dis)similarity among partners. Despite thepopular adage that ‘‘opposites attract,’’ there isample evidence that partners who share values,activities, and status characteristics are morelikely to marry in the first place and may also bemore successful in maintaining durable mar-riages than those couples in which partnersare quite different from one another (Kalmijn,1998; Sherkat, 2004). A number of studiesover the years have reported that denomina-tional homo/heterogamy predicts marital satis-faction and happiness (for review, see Mahoneyet al., 2001), and a few researchers have linkedthis aspect of religion with marital dissolution(Heaton & Pratt, 1990; Myers, 2006; Ortega,Whitt, & Williams, 1988). What might explainthese associations? Briefly, religious homogamymay indicate shared values with regard to mar-riage and other aspects of family life (e.g., fer-tility, childrearing, men’s and women’s familyroles) as well as broader lifestyle decisions (e.g.,finances, leisure activities, friendship choices).Denominational homogamy may also imply atendency to associate with—and to draw infor-mation and advice from—persons who sharebasic value orientations, such as church mem-bers, friends, relatives, and in-laws. This canreduce the level of dissonant input, may buildconfidence in the validity and morality of deci-sions regarding family and other domains, andmay reduce the potential for ambivalence or dis-agreement (Heaton & Pratt; Kalmijn, 1998).Although these dynamics may work to theadvantage of same-faith marriages in general,it is reasonable to anticipate that ideologicaland lifestyle similarity, network homogeneity,and the other mechanisms identified above willbe most protective against marital dissolutionamong same-faith couples in which both part-ners attend services regularly.

Although most religious groups tend to rein-force traditional orientations toward marriageand family life (Edgell, 2005), there may also be

significant differences among specific denomi-nations with regard to norms and beliefs aboutthe purpose, importance, and permanence ofmarriage. For example, conservative (i.e., fun-damentalist and evangelical) Protestants empha-size that marriage is to be a lifelong commitmentbetween (heterosexual) partners, as part of abroader commitment to specific traditional fam-ily arrangements that are believed to be centralto God’s plan (Bartkowski, 2001). And the Mor-mon (LDS) church embraces particularly strongand distinctive convictions regarding marriageas an eternal union (Heaton, Goodman, & Hol-man, 1994). It is reasonable to anticipate thatthe risk of marital dissolution may be greateramong mixed-faith couples in which only onepartner belongs to such an ‘‘exclusivist’’ church(Lehrer & Chiswick, 1993), because (a) suchcouples may experience fewer areas of com-monality (in values, activities, and interests),(b) the partner(s) may be disinclined to com-promise or negotiate over important areas ofdisagreement, and (c) this particular form ofdenominational heterogamy may carry increasedrisk of dissonant formal or informal feedbackfrom coreligionists, which may deepen divi-sions among partners. Consistent with this lineof argument, prior research suggests that thisspecific type of mixed-faith marriage is espe-cially prone to marital conflict and dissolution(Chi & Houseknecht, 1983; Curtis & Ellison,2002; Lehrer & Chiswick).

Despite the long-standing focus on denomi-national homo/heterogamy in studies of maritalquality and stability, sociologists of religionhave identified a number of reasons why thesalience of denominational labels has declinedin recent decades and why the American reli-gious landscape today is characterized mainly bya sharp division between conservative (or tra-ditionalist) and progressive religious elements(Wuthnow, 1988). One implication of thesedevelopments is that theological convictions,especially tendencies toward evangelical belief(e.g., regarding the inerrancy and authority ofscripture) may be a better marker of existingreligious cleavages than denominational affilia-tion or preference. Indeed, there is evidence thatthe link between denominational homogamy andmarital quality has weakened across generations(Myers, 2006). On the other hand, several studiessuggest that theological (dis)similarities amongpartners are robust predictors of some maritaloutcomes (Curtis & Ellison, 2002; Ellison &


Bartkowski, 2002; Ellison et al., 1999). Anotherstrand of argument has accepted the ‘‘decliningsignificance of denominationalism’’ thesis, buthas asserted that they key religious differen-tials in the family arena may reflect degrees,rather than types, of religious involvement orcommitment (Alwin, 1986; Thornton, 1985).To the extent that attendance at religious ser-vices is an indicator of the degree of religiousengagement, this line of argument suggests that(dis)similarities among partners in the frequencyof attendance will be linked with marital quality.At least one study of the frequency of argu-ments among first-time married couples lendscredence to this claim (Curtis & Ellison). Thus,it is reasonable to expect that the risk of mar-ital dissolution will be elevated among couplesin which partners differ significantly in the fre-quency with which they attend services.

Finally, it may be important to consider themoderating role of gender in these analyses.Briefly, a wealth of data show that in theUnited States (and most other Western societies),women tend to be more religious than men bynearly all indicators and at virtually all stagesof the life cycle (e.g., Miller & Hoffmann,1995). Although the reasons for these genderdifferences remain in dispute, these patterns haveimplications for our study. For example, oneexpects that most religiously dissimilar coupleswill consist of more religiously active—andperhaps more religiously conservative—womenmarried to less religious men. By contrast,couples in which the husband is more religiouslycommitted, or more conservative, tend to bemuch less common. This nonnormative religiouspattern may result in greater strain or conflictthan other forms of religious dissimilarity,or it may be associated with other (perhapsunmeasured) nonnormative lifestyle or behaviorpatterns in these relationships. Perhaps forthese reasons previous studies associate thispattern with more frequent arguments, especiallyover housework and money issues (Curtis& Ellison, 2002) and elevated risk of maleperpetration of domestic violence (Ellison et al.,1999). In light of these patterns, our analyseswill distinguish among these specific types ofreligiously dissimilar couples.

Potential Mediating Factors

As noted earlier, recent studies have docu-mented religious variations in a number of

precursors and indicators of marital quality.First, religious attendance is inversely associ-ated with domestic violence, although certainforms of theological and attendance dissim-ilarity among partners are linked with morefrequent arguments and the risk of abuse (Curtis& Ellison, 2002; Ellison et al., 1999). Second,marital satisfaction tends to be higher amongcouples with similar denominational ties (e.g.,Heaton, 1984); among mixed-faith couples, lev-els of satisfaction appear to vary by the degreeof doctrinal (dis)similarity among the part-ners’ denominations (Ortega et al., 1988). Withregard to satisfaction, attendance and theological(dis)similarity are notably less predictive thandenominational homo/heterogamy (Heaton &Pratt, 1990). Finally, marital dependency—theextent to which the partners perceive limitedor less desirable options outside their currentmarriage—also varies by the religious affilia-tion, practice, and homogamy of the partners. Ingeneral, members of more conservative groups,regular attenders, and those in denominationallyhomogamous unions report greater dependency,although the patterns differ somewhat for hus-bands and wives (Wilson & Musick, 1996).

Covariates

We can only be confident about any findingsregarding religious effects on marital dissolutionwhen we control for potentially confoundingvariables, that is, variables that are associatedwith both dependent and independent variablesand that therefore may distort our view oftheir relationship(s). Previous research (Amato& Rogers, 1997; Cherlin, 1992; Teachman,2003) has identified several important predictorsof marital dissolution, including the followingaspects of family composition and relationshiphistory: marital duration, age (particularly ageof the woman) at the time of (first) marriage,prior cohabitation, and presence of multiplechildren (especially young children). In addi-tion, various socioeconomic factors—notablywomen’s employment status and earnings andeducational and earnings dissimilarities amongpartners—have been shown to predict maritaldissolution. Other demographic factors, notablyrace/ethnic background of partner(s), may alsoaffect the risk of dissolution. Because recentwork in the social scientific study of religionhas also linked religious affiliation, practice,or both with virtually all of these predictors


(Lehrer, 2004; Mahoney et al., 2001; Sherkat &Ellison, 1999), it is important to include statisti-cal adjustments for them in our models.

Hypotheses

The foregoing discussion suggests severalhypotheses that will guide the remainder of thisstudy:

1. Couples who marry in a religious cere-mony will be less prone to marital dis-solution than those who wed in a civilceremony or other procedure.

2. The frequency of each partner’s atten-dance at religious services will beinversely related to the likelihood of mar-ital dissolution.

3. The degree of each partner’s theologicalconservatism, represented as his or hercommitment to the inerrancy and authorityof the Bible, will be inversely related tothe likelihood of marital dissolution.

4. Couples with similar denominational affil-iations (i.e., those who are religiouslyhomogamous) will face lower risk of mar-ital dissolution than those from dissimilarfaiths.

5. The effects of homogamy on maritaldissolution will be most evident amongcouples who share conservative (i.e.,fundamentalist or evangelical) or sectarianProtestant or Catholic affiliations.

6. Couples with similar denominational affil-iations and similar religious attendancelevels will face lower risk of marital dis-solution compared to other couples.

7. Mixed-faith couples in which one partnerbelongs to an exclusivist faith denomi-nation (i.e., evangelical or fundamental-ist Protestant or sectarian) will have agreater risk of marital dissolution thanothers.

8. Couples in which partners have similarpatterns of religious attendance will beless prone to marital dissolution than theirdissimilar counterparts.

9. Couples in which partners hold similartheological beliefs regarding the natureand centrality of scripture will be lessprone to marital dissolution than theolog-ically dissimilar couples.

10. With regard to each of the hypothesesabove, the observed effects of religious

variables will be reduced or eliminatedwith controls for measures of couples’baseline marital quality, that is, satisfac-tion, conflicts (especially violent alterca-tions), and dependency.

METHOD

We analyzed longitudinal data from Waves 1and 2 of the NSFH, a major survey of U.S.families and households within the 48 contigu-ous states that was developed and supervisedby social scientists at the University of Wis-consin at Madison. (For details, see Sweet& Bumpass, 1996; Sweet, Bumpass, & Call,1988). Wave 1 was conducted in 1987 – 1988and was designed to be a nationally representa-tive probability survey of approximately 13,000total respondents, including oversamples of sev-eral specific underrepresented groups: AfricanAmericans, Puerto Ricans and Mexican Amer-icans, single-parent families, blended families,recently married couples, and cohabiting adults.Wave 2 included slightly over 10,000 respon-dents and was conducted in 1992 – 1994. Werestricted our analyses to first-time married cou-ples for which complete data were availablefor primary and secondary respondents, that is,for both spouses. An explanation of the samplereduction and the exclusion criteria is included inTable 1. The final sample size was 2,979 couples,

Table 1. Sample Reduction and the Exclusion Criteria

Sample Percent of ExclusionSize Sample Criteria

Reduction

10,008 Total sample size of NSFH at Wave 25,648 43.5% Limit sample of primary and secondary

respondents who are married4,567 54.3% Drop respondents who report American

Indian, Asian, and West Indian astheir race

4,494 55% Information on secondary respondent isunavailable

4,468 55.3% No information on date of currentmarriage

3,156 68.4% Limit sample to first-time marriages2,979 70.2% Theological beliefs, attendance,

denominational affiliation of primaryand secondary respondent isunavailable


of whom 311 were divorced or separated by thetime of the Wave 2 interview.

Outcome Measures

We model the risk of marital dissolutionusing a Cox proportional hazards regressionmodel. Information about the event timing andoccurrence was assessed using the date ofseparation or marital dissolution before Wave 2for respondents who were in their first marriageat the time of data collection for Wave 1. Forthose who separated or divorced before Wave 2,the duration of the marriage was assessed usingthe number of months between the date of theircurrent marriage (prior to Wave 1) and the dateof their separation or divorce (before Wave 2).For those who remained in a first marriage at thetime of data collection for Wave 2, duration ofmarriage was censored at the number of monthsbetween the date of current marriage (at Wave1) and the date of the Wave 2 interview. Thus,the outcome measures consist of the timing ofseparation or marital dissolution and an indicatorvariable denoting whether the event time isobserved or right censored.

Independent Variables

All independent variables were measuredat Wave 1. Independent variables regardingreligious beliefs were (a) religious or civilmarriage ceremony, (b) religious attendance,(c) religious dissimilarity, (d) theological beliefsof each spouse, (e) theological dissimilarity,(f) denomination, and (g) and denominationaldissimilarity.

Ceremony. Using a dummy variable, we distin-guished between couples that were married inreligious ceremonies (i.e., by a priest, minister,or rabbi) from those who were married in civilceremonies or other processes.

Religious attendance. Self-reported frequencyof religious attendance is perhaps the most com-monly used indicator of religious involvementin the social science literature. This was mea-sured via responses to the item ‘‘How oftendo you attend religious services?’’ Based ontheir answers, respondents were categorizedas (a) nonattenders, (b) sporadic attenders (i.e.,those who attend services a few times per monthor less), and (c) regular attenders (i.e, those who

attend weekly or more). In our analyses, we iden-tified individual respondents who attend servicesregularly with a dummy variable (1 = weeklyor more, 0 = less often). Preliminary analyses(not shown, but available upon request) revealedno evidence that more fine-grained attendancecategories were linked with divorce.

In addition to considering the attendancepatterns of each spouse, we also gaugedthe attendance (dis)similarity among maritalpartners. Similar to Curtis and Ellison (2002),the three attendance categories described abovewere used to identify (a) couples in whichhusbands attend more often than their wivesand (b) couples in which wives attend more oftenthan their husbands. Dummy variables were thenused to code each of these two groupings, whichwere then compared to couples in which partnersreport similar religious attendance patterns.

Theological beliefs. The theological beliefsof each spouse were assessed using their(dis)agreement with the following statements:(a) ‘‘The Bible is God’s Word and everythinghappened or will happen exactly as it says.’’(b) ‘‘The Bible is the answer to all importanthuman problems.’’ Original responses to thetwo items range from 1 (strongly disagree)to 5 (strongly agree); responses were highlycorrelated (r = .78). In classifying individualrespondents as theologically conservative, werecoded each item, assigning a score of 1 on eachitem to those persons who agreed or stronglyagreed and a 0 to all others. Preliminary analysis(not shown, but available upon request) showedno evidence that more fine-grained categories oftheological conservatism were related to maritaldissolution.

In determining the theological (dis)similarityof marital partners, we used the original codingof the items, subtracting the mean score forhusbands from the mean score of wives. Onthe basis of these scores, we then createddummy variables to identify (a) couples in whichhusbands are more theologically conservativethan their wives and (b) couples in which wivesare more theologically conservative than theirhusbands. These two sets of couples were thencompared to couples in which the partners reportsimilar theological orientations. When a validresponse to only one item was available for anindividual respondent, that value was used as thebasis for constructing these measures; this wasdone in order to maximize our sample size.


Denomination. Each NSFH respondent wasasked ‘‘What is your religious preference?’’ Forindividuals who self-identified as Protestant, theinterviewer was instructed to probe for a spe-cific denomination. The resulting informationwas used to construct several denominations ofhomo/heterogamy. First, a single dummy wasused to identify couples in which both spouseshave identical affiliation (e.g., both SouthernBaptist, both ELCA Lutheran, both UnitedChurch of Christ). Second, as an alternative, alldenominations were categorized according to thescheme proposed by Steensland and colleagues(2000), yielding the following specific cate-gories: (a) conservative (i.e., fundamentalist orevangelical) Protestant, (b) mainline Protestant,(c) Catholic, (d) other (non-Christian) religions,(e) no religion, and (f) miscellaneous otherProtestant groups. Individuals who reportedbelonging to one of the other Protestant bod-ies were included in the conservative Protestantcategory if they reported regular attendance atreligious services or held theologically conser-vative beliefs concerning the Bible; this practiceparallels the advice of Steensland and colleagues(2000). Once each spouse was classified accord-ing to this scheme, we then created a seriesof dummy variables to identify the varioustypes of same-faith couples (1 = both conser-vative Protestant, 1 = both mainline Protes-tant, 1 = both Catholic, 1 = both other Protes-tant, 1 = both non-Christian, 1 = both nonre-ligious), who were then compared with theirreligiously dissimilar counterparts (0 = mixed-faith). For example, according to the latter,more relaxed classification scheme, a couplein which one spouse is Southern Baptist andthe other spouse belongs to another evangelicalchurch would be considered homogamous. Thiswould be classified as a mixed-faith (heteroga-mous) couple according to the first approach.Furthermore, our analyses classify couplesaccording to whether husbands and wives arehomo/heterogamous in denominational affilia-tion and high, low, or mixed religious attendancelevels. In addition, we followed the practice ofLehrer and Chiswick (1993) and Curtis and Elli-son (2002), using dummy variables to identifythat subset of mixed-faith couples in which onepartner was a member of an ‘‘exclusivist’’ faith(see the appendix for details).

Intervening Variables: Marital Quality andDependence

To measure marital satisfaction, married respon-dents and spouses were asked: ‘‘Taking allthings together, how would you describe yourmarriage?’’ Response categories ranged from 1(very unhappy) to 7 (very happy). We includeresponses from each partner in our analyses.We also consider the possible role of inter-personal violence on the risk of subsequentmarital dissolution. Briefly, each partner wasasked: ‘‘Sometimes arguments between part-ners become physical. During the last yearhas this happened in arguments between youand your husband/wife?’’ Couples in whicheither spouse (or both spouses) answered thisquestion in the affirmative are identified via asingle dummy variable (1 = presenceof physi-cal violence, 0 = no physical violence). Finally,following Wilson and Musick (1996), we con-structed measures of each partner’s maritaldependency, based on each spouse’s percep-tion of how much better or worse off she or hewould be if not married to her or his currentpartner, as gauged via responses to the follow-ing item: ‘‘Even though it may be very unlikely,think for a moment about how various areas ofyour life might be different if you separated. Foreach of the following areas, how do you thinkthings would change?’’ Specific areas included(a) standard of living, (b) social life, (c) careeropportunities, (d) overall happiness, (e) sex life,and (f) being a parent. Responses to each itemranged from 1 to 6 and were recoded as neededso that higher scores represented greater depen-dency, that is, perception of fewer attractiveoptions outside the current marriage. To cre-ate scales, responses were summed and thenaveraged across the number of items (Chron-bach α = .63). Only respondents who answeredall questions to create the marital dependencymeasure were included in the analysis.

Sociodemographics

Sociodemographic predictors of divorce incor-porated into our analyses include (a) wives’age at marriage (measured in years), (b) wives’employment status (1 = working outside thehome, 0 = not working), (c) couples’ ethnic-ity (1 = African American, 1 = Latino/a, 1 =mixed-race/ethnic couple, 0 = non-HispanicWhite), (d) residence in the South (1 = residing


in southern state, as classified by U.S. Cen-sus, 0 = living outside the South), (e) premaritalcohabitation (1 = cohabited with a romanticpartner prior to marriage who is not their cur-rent spouse, 0 = did not cohabit), (f) childrenunder age 5 in home (actual number), and(g) children ages 5 – 18 living at home (actualnumber). In addition, these analyses control forduration of the marriage until the time of thebaseline interview, which is measured via aseries of dummy variables in which 2 – 3 yearsof marriage is the comparison group. Couplesin which wives contributed the majority of thecouple’s total earned income were identifiedwith a dummy variable (1 = woman contributedover 50%, 0 = all others). These analyses alsoinclude a measure of educational (dis)similarityamong marital partners. Briefly, each spouse’seducation was coded in terms of the high-est level completed; categories included lessthan high school, high school degree, somecollege or 2-year associate degree, collegedegree (baccalaureate), or graduate or profes-sional degree. Couples with divergent levelsof education were identified using a dummyvariable (1 = dissimilar education, 0 = similareducation).

ANALYTIC STRATEGY

This study used Cox proportional hazard regres-sion to examine the impact of predictors onthe risk of marital dissolution. We adjusted forthe complex clustered sampling design usingSudaan (Research Triangle Institute, 2005),which provides robust standard errors for sig-nificance tests. The Cox regression model iswidely used when time dependence in the base-line hazard is unknown (Vuchinich, Teachman,& Crosby, 1991). The Cox model provides lessefficient estimates than a correctly specifiedparametric model. In the absence of knowledgeabout the ‘‘true’’ distribution of event times,however, the Cox model is preferable to a modelthat makes an incorrect assumption about theshape of the hazard over time. The Cox modelmakes no assumptions about the baseline haz-ard except that it is the same for all individualswho are at risk at any particular event time. Itcan be shown that the baseline hazard cancelsout of the expression for the (partial) likeli-hood, and, as such, it is not directly estimated.This semiparametric model specification is con-sidered to be a desirable feature that generally

outweighs concerns about modeling the specificnature of duration dependence. The exponenti-ated coefficients (hazard ratios) from the Coxregression provide for a convenient interpre-tation of results. A hazard ratio greater than1.0 implies an increasing—or, if less than 1.0,a decreasing—risk of marital dissolution for a1-unit increase in the independent variable atany event time.

The standard Cox proportional hazard modelassumes that the effects of independent variablesare constant over time. It may be the case,however, that religious characteristics anddifferences are more stressful at earlier points ina process than they are later on. Given the short(8-year) window of time between Waves 1 and2, the issue of nonportionality is of less concernthan it would be if we were examining completemarriage histories. Nevertheless, we carried outchecks of the proportionality assumption onall of the variables in our model. We foundno evidence of nonproportional effects, eitherfrom statistical tests using Schoenfeld residuals(Schoenfeld, 1982) or from models estimatedwith linear time-varying effects, that is, usingsignificance tests on the interactions with eventtime t for those at risk of separation or maritaldissolution at time t .

RESULTS

Sample Characteristics

To conserve space, only the estimated net effectsof religious variables and hypothesized mediat-ing variables are discussed in the text. Weighteddescriptive statistics on all variables used inthese analyses are presented in Table 2. Approxi-mately 9% of the couples in the sample separatedor divorced between the Wave 1 and Wave 2interviews. In terms of religious characteristics,several patterns were noteworthy. Eighty-fivepercent of these couples married in religious cer-emonies, as opposed to civil or other procedures.Levels of self-reported religious attendance wererelatively high: roughly 22% of the wives and19% of the husbands attended religious servicesat least once per week. Where disparities in atten-dance exist, they tended to favor wives (30% ofthe cases) more than husbands (14%). Approxi-mately 36% of wives were theologically conser-vative, according to our definition, as comparedwith 31% of husbands. In theologically dissimi-lar couples, wives reported greater conservatism


Table 2. Weighted Means, Standard Deviations, andRanges of All Predictors (N = 2,979)

Variables Percent Mean SD Min. Max.

Couples divorced orseparated before Wave 2

9 0 1

Civil ceremony 15 0 1Religious ceremony 85 0 1Husbands attend once a

week or more19 0 1

Wives attend once a weekor more

22 0 1

Husbands are theologicallyconservative

31 0 1

Wives are theologicallyconservative

36 0 1

Both same denomination/religion

74 0 1

Both Evangelical Protestant 19 0 1Both Mainline Protestant 26 0 1Both Catholic 25 0 1Both Conservative

Nontraditional3 0 1

Both other religion 3 0 1Both no denomination/

religion2 0 1

Mixed-faith 26 0 1Homogamous, high

attendance21 0 1

Homogamous, lowattendance

21 0 1

Homogamous, mixedattendance

30 0 1

Heterogamous, highattendance

3 0 1

Heterogamous, lowattendance

11 0 1

Heterogamous, mixedattendance

14 0 1

Mixed-faith, neitherexclusivist

14 0 1

Husbands are exclusivist,wives not

6 0 1

Wives are exclusivist,husbands not

7 0 1

Husbands attend more 14 0 1Common attendance 56 0 1Wives attend more 30 0 1Husbands more

theologicallyconservative

28 0 1

Common theologicalconservatism

30 0 1

Table 2. Continued

Variables Percent Mean SD Min. Max.

Wives more theologicallyconservative

42 0 1

Husbands’ maritalsatisfaction

6.4 0.77 1 7

Wives’ marital satisfaction 6.0 1.2 1 7Physical altercations 10 0 1Husbands’ marital

dependency3.6 0.6 1 6

Wives’ marital dependency 3.7 0.6 1 6White 87 0 1Black 5 0 1Hispanic 3 0 1Mixed-race couples 4 0 1Wives’ age at marriage (in

years)22 4.5 18 71

Wives’ employment status 58 0 1Cohabitation 4 0 1Southern region 33 0 1Wives’ income ratio 10 0 1Same education level 62 0 1Dissimilar education level 38 0 1Number of children ages

5 – 180.8 1.1 0 8

Number of children ages 4or less

0.3 0.6 0 5

Marital duration is 1 yearor less

5 0 1

Marital duration is2 – 3 years

6 0 1

Marital duration is 4 years 2 0 1Marital duration is 5 years 3 0 1Marital duration is 6 years 4 0 1Marital duration is 7 years

or more79 0 1

(42%) than husbands (28%). Turning to othercharacteristics, the sample consisted mostly ofnon-Hispanic White couples, with small pro-portions of African American, Hispanic, andmixed-race/ethnicity couples. In this sample, thewomen’s average age at marriage was 22 yearsand around 4% had cohabited prior to marriage.About 3 in 5 (58%) of the wives worked outsidethe home, and 1 in 10 (10%) contributed more tothe household income than their husbands. Themean number of children under 18 was slightlyunder 1. In the baseline survey (Wave 1), thesecouples expressed relatively high levels of mar-ital satisfaction, with an average score of 6 on


Table 3. Estimated Hazard Ratios From a Cox Proportional Hazard Model of Marital Dissolution With Main Effects ofCeremony Type, Attendance, and Theological Belief (Weighted) (N = 2,979)

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6

Black 1.09 0.94 1.13 0.88 1.21 0.94Hispanic 0.64 0.83 0.70 0.75 0.73 0.76Mixed-race couples 1.60∗∗ 1.58+ 1.67∗∗ 1.52∗ 1.71∗∗ 1.50∗

Reference: WhiteWives’ age at marriage 0.93∗∗ 0.94∗∗ 0.93∗∗ 0.93∗∗ 0.92∗∗ 0.93∗∗∗

Wives’ employment 1.47∗∗ 1.27∗ 1.43∗∗ 1.33+ 1.42∗∗ 1.32+Dissimilar education 0.91 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.87Income ratio 1.21∗ 1.13 1.23 1.08 1.23 1.09Cohabitation 2.26∗∗∗ 1.71∗∗ 2.29∗∗∗ 1.96∗∗ 2.44∗∗∗ 2.03∗∗

Southern region 1.26∗∗∗ 1.25∗∗∗ 1.30+ 1.25 1.34+ 1.30Children ages 5 – 18 1.39∗∗∗ 1.30∗∗ 1.41+ 1.35∗∗∗ 1.40∗∗∗ 1.35∗∗∗

Children ages 4 or less 1.43∗∗∗ 1.27∗∗ 1.45∗∗∗ 1.36∗∗ 1.47∗∗∗ 1.38∗∗

Married 1 year or less 2.43∗∗∗ 2.96∗∗∗ 2.48∗∗∗ 2.58∗∗∗ 2.50∗∗∗ 2.61∗∗∗

Married 4 years 0.45∗∗∗ 0.53∗∗ 0.44∗∗∗ 0.50∗∗ 0.44∗∗ 0.49∗∗

Married 5 years 0.19∗∗∗ 0.18∗∗∗ 0.20∗∗∗ 0.21∗∗∗ 0.19∗∗∗ 0.21∗∗∗

Married 6 years 0.14∗∗∗ 0.15∗∗∗ 0.14∗∗∗ 0.15∗∗∗ 0.13∗∗∗ 0.14∗∗∗

Married 7 years or more 0.01∗∗∗ 0.01∗∗∗ 0.01∗∗∗ 0.01∗∗∗ 0.01∗∗∗ 0.01∗∗∗

Religious ceremony 0.70∗ 0.79Husbands’ attendance 0.75 0.93Wives’ attendance 0.70+ 0.78Husbands’ belief 0.69∗∗ 0.71∗

Wives’ belief 1.11 1.10Husbands’ marital satisfaction 0.91 0.91 0.90Wives’ marital satisfaction 0.76∗∗∗ 0.76∗∗∗ 0.76∗∗∗

Physical altercations 1.65∗∗ 1.65∗∗∗ 1.67∗∗

Husbands’ marital dependency 0.94∗∗∗ 0.94∗∗ 0.94∗∗∗

Wives’ marital dependency 0.95∗∗∗ 0.95∗∗ 0.95∗∗∗

df 17 22 18 23 18 23−2log La 3488.4 3354.8 3484.7 3354.0 3487.4 3351.7

aL denotes the partial likelihood.+p < .10. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

a scale of 1 to 7, and both husbands and wivesindicated moderate levels of marital depen-dency. Ten percent of couples reported a recenthistory of physical altercations in the Wave1 survey.

Multivariate Effects of Religion

In Tables 3 – 5, we present the weightedresults of multivariate Cox proportional hazardsmodels, estimating the net effects of religiousvariables and covariates on the risk of maritaldissolution. Odd numbered models gaugereligious effects without controls for baselinemeasures of marital quality; even numberedmodels include these additional controls. InTable 3, consistent with Hypothesis 1, we find

that couples married in a religious ceremonyface a 30% lower risk (risk ratio = .70, p <.05) of separation or marital dissolution atany time during the study period than thosewho married in civil or other ceremonies,according to Model 1. This religious effectwas sharply diminished when adjustments formarital satisfaction, conflicts, and dependencywere included. A similar pattern surfaced withregard to Hypothesis 2; in Model 3, wives’attendance (risk ratio = .70, p < .10) wasinversely related to the risk of subsequent maritaldissolution. These effects of religious attendancedisappeared when baseline marital qualitywas controlled for. Confirming Hypothesis 3,there was a protective effect of conservativetheological beliefs in Model 5, and once baseline


Table 4. Estimated Hazard Ratios From a Cox Proportional Hazard Model of Marital Dissolution with DenominationalHomogamy and Heterogamy Covariates (Weighted) (N = 2,979)

Variables 1 2 3 4

Black 1.17 0.86 1.12 0.85Hispanic 0.75 0.78 0.74 0.77Mixed-race couples 1.72∗∗ 1.54∗ 1.67∗∗ 1.51∗

Reference: WhiteWives’ age at marriage 0.92∗∗ 0.93∗∗ 0.93∗∗ 0.94∗∗

Wives’ employment 1.44∗∗ 1.34∗ 1.43∗∗ 1.32+Dissimilar education 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.89Income ratio 1.24 1.08 1.24 1.08Cohabitation 2.37∗∗∗ 1.99∗∗ 2.19∗∗ 1.89∗∗

Southern region 1.29+ 1.24 1.27 1.21Children ages 5 – 18 1.40∗∗∗ 1.35∗∗∗ 1.41∗∗∗ 1.36∗∗∗

Children ages 4 or less 1.46∗∗∗ 1.36∗∗ 1.45∗∗∗ 1.36∗∗

Married 1 year or less 2.44∗∗∗ 2.57∗∗ 2.46∗∗∗ 2.61∗∗∗

Married 4 years 0.45∗∗∗ 0.50∗∗ 0.46∗∗ 0.53∗∗

Married 5 years 0.19∗∗∗ 0.21∗∗∗ 0.19∗∗∗ 0.22∗∗∗

Married 6 years 0.13∗∗∗ 0.14∗∗∗ 0.14∗∗∗ 0.15∗∗∗

Married 7 years or more 0.01∗∗∗ 0.01∗∗∗ 0.01∗∗∗ 0.01∗∗∗

Both same denomination 0.82 0.94Both Evangelical Protestant 0.77 0.89Both Mainline Protestant 0.73 0.79Both Catholic 0.70+ 0.71+Both Conservative Nontraditional 0.45 0.52Both no denomination 1.04 1.20Both other religion 0.92 1.00Reference: mixed-faith couplesHusbands’ marital satisfaction 0.91 0.92Wives’ marital satisfaction 0.76∗∗∗ 0.76∗∗∗

Physical altercations 1.66∗∗ 1.65∗∗

Husbands’ marital dependency 0.94∗∗∗ 0.94∗∗∗

Wives’ marital dependency 0.95∗∗∗ 0.95∗∗∗

df 17 22 22 27−2log La 3, 489.1 3, 355.5 3, 486.0 3, 350.0


marital quality was controlled, husbands’ (butnot wives’) theological conservatism had aprotective effect on the risk of marital dissolutionin Model 6 (risk ratio = .71, p < .05).

The estimated net effects of denominationalhomo/heterogamy are displayed in Table 4.As noted earlier, we measure homogamyin two different ways: (a) couples in whichpartners shared identical religious affiliationsand (b) couples in which spouses belongedto different specific denominations within thesame religious category. Somewhat surprisingly,and contrary to our expectation (Hypotheses 4

and 5), neither approach revealed advantagesof religious homogamy. There was a modestestimated effect in Model 3; homogamousCatholic couples (risk ratio = .70, p < .10)appeared somewhat less prone to maritaldissolution than their mixed-faith counterparts.This modest advantage remained with controlsfor baseline marital quality.

The models in Table 5 examine the role ofother types of religious (dis)similarity, denom-inational homo/heterogamy and high, low, ormixed religious attendance levels of couplesin our sample. Consistent with Hypothesis 6,


Table 5. Estimated Hazard Ratios from a Cox Proportional Hazard Model of Marital Dissolution with Denomination andAttendance Dissimilarity Measures (Weighted) (N = 2,979)

Variables 1 2 3 4

Black 1.11 0.90 1.12 0.88Hispanic 0.71 0.75 0.73 0.77Mixed-race couples 1.76∗∗ 1.63∗∗ 1.72∗∗ 1.55∗


Wives’ employment 1.37∗∗ 1.30+ 1.45∗ 1.35∗

Dissimilar education 0.88 0.89 0.88 0.89Income ratio 1.23 1.08 1.22∗ 1.08Cohabitation 2.19∗∗ 1.94∗∗ 2.37∗∗ 2.00∗∗

Southern region 1.28+ 1.23 1.27 1.23Children ages 5 – 18 1.43∗∗∗ 1.36∗∗∗ 1.40∗∗∗ 1.35∗∗∗

Children ages 4 or less 1.44∗∗∗ 1.33∗∗ 1.45∗∗ 1.36∗∗

Married 1 year or less 2.34∗∗∗ 2.45∗∗∗ 2.49∗∗∗ 2.55∗∗

Married 4 years 0.46∗∗∗ 0.50∗∗∗ 0.45∗∗∗ 0.50∗∗

Married 5 years 0.19∗∗∗ 0.20∗∗∗ 0.19∗∗∗ 0.21∗∗∗

Married 6 years 0.14∗∗∗ 0.14∗∗∗ 0.13∗∗∗ 0.14∗∗∗


Homogamous, low attendance 2.08∗∗ 1.65∗

Homogamous, mixed attendance 2.36∗∗∗ 1.91∗∗

Heterogamous, high attendance 2.11∗ 2.04+Heterogamous, low attendance 2.45∗∗ 1.72∗

Heterogamous, mixed attendance 2.66∗∗∗ 1.94∗∗

Reference: homogamous, high attendanceHusbands are exclusivist faith 1.02 0.97Wives are exclusivist faith 1.57∗ 1.26Husbands’ marital satisfaction 0.76 0.91Wives’ marital satisfaction 0.91∗∗∗ 0.76∗∗∗

Physical altercations 1.65∗∗∗ 1.66∗∗


Wives’ marital dependency 0.96∗∗ 0.95∗∗∗

df 21 26 18 23−2Log likelihood 3, 469.9 3, 345.5 3, 487.8 3, 354.3

+p < .10. ∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

Model 1 showed that couples with similardenominational affiliations and high religiousattendance levels appeared to be protected frommarital dissolution compared to all other cou-ples. Once baseline variations in marital qualityvariables were controlled in Model 2, thesedifferences remained. Couples that differ in reli-gious affiliation and had mixed attendance levelswere at an elevated risk of marital dissolution(risk ratio = 1.94, p < .01). Furthermore, con-sistent with Hypothesis 7, Model 3 indicated thatmixed-faith couples in which wives belonged toan exclusivist (conservative Protestant or sectar-ian) faith displayed a markedly higher risk ofmarital dissolution (risk ratio = 1.57, p < .05).

This pattern, however, diminished after statisti-cal adjustments for baseline indicators of maritalquality were added in Model 4. Contrary toHypothesis 7, with mixed-faith couples in whichthe husband was exclusivist, there was no suchelevated risk of dissolution.

The models in Table 6 examine the role ofother types of religious (dis)similarity, specif-ically attendance and theological differencesamong spouses. Consistent with Hypothesis 8,Model 1 shows that couples in which the husbandattended services more often than his spouse(risk ratio = 1.71, p < .01) appeared to be moremarital dissolution prone than those couplesin which spouses reported similar attendance


Table 6. Estimated Hazard Ratios From a Cox Proportional Hazard Model of Marital Dissolution With Attendance andBelief Dissimilarity Measures (Weighted) (N = 2,979)

Variables 1 2 3 4

Black 1.10 0.87 1.15 0.88Hispanic 0.70 0.76 0.72 0.76Mixed-race couples 1.68∗∗ 1.51∗ 1.74∗∗ 1.54∗


Wives’ employment 1.44∗∗ 1.35∗ 1.44∗∗ 1.34∗

Dissimilar education 0.89 0.89 0.87 0.88Income ratio 1.23 1.07 1.24 1.09Cohabitation 2.50∗∗∗ 2.11∗∗ 2.37∗∗∗ 1.98∗∗

Southern region 1.28+ 1.25 1.31+ 1.27Children ages 5 – 18 1.39∗∗∗ 1.35∗∗∗ 1.39∗∗∗ 1.34∗∗∗

Children ages 4 or less 1.46∗∗∗ 1.36∗∗ 1.45∗∗∗ 1.37∗∗

Married 1 year or less 2.56∗∗∗ 2.60∗∗∗ 2.54∗∗∗ 2.67∗∗∗

Married 4 years 0.44∗∗∗ 0.48∗∗∗ 0.44∗∗∗ 0.51∗∗∗

Married 5 years 0.19∗∗∗ 0.20∗∗∗ 0.19∗∗∗ 0.22∗∗∗

Married 6 years 0.14∗∗∗ 0.15∗∗∗ 0.14∗∗∗ 0.15∗∗∗


Husbands attend more 1.71∗∗ 1.60∗∗

Wives attend more 1.22 1.12Reference: Homogamous attendanceHusbands more theologically conservative 1.10 0.97Wives more theologically conservative 1.37∗ 1.28+Reference: Homogamous theologyHusbands’ marital satisfaction 0.90 0.90Wives’ marital satisfaction 0.76∗∗∗ 0.76∗∗∗

Physical altercations 1.65∗∗∗ 1.67∗∗


Wives’ marital dependency 0.95∗∗ 0.95∗∗∗

df 18 23 18 23−2log La 3, 482.0 3, 348.2 3, 489.1 3, 352.6


patterns. Once baseline variations in maritalquality variables were controlled in Model 2,these differences remained (risk ratio = 1.60,p < .01). And in partial support of Hypothe-sis 9, the estimates in Model 3 indicated thatcouples in which wives were more theolog-ically conservative than their husbands weremore prone to dissolution (risk ratio = 1.37,p < .05) than theologically similar couples.Although this pattern was largely reflective ofbaseline differences in marital quality variables,a modest difference (risk ratio = 1.28, p < .10)still persisted in Model 4. There were no com-parable effects for couples in which husbandswere more theologically conservative than theirspouses.

DISCUSSION

This study has examined religious variationsin the risk of marital dissolution, complement-ing previous work in this area in several ways:(a) by giving attention to multiple dimensions ofreligious involvement (i.e., affiliation, practice,theological conservatism) as well as multipleaspects of religious (dis)similarity for each cou-ple, (b) by analyzing prospective data using Coxproportional hazards models, and (c) by consid-ering the potential mediating roles of multiplemeasures of baseline marital quality and depen-dency. Several of the broad empirical patternsidentified here deserve special comment.


First, indicators of religiousness or reli-gious commitment (i.e., decision to have areligious vs. civil marriage ceremony, wives’religious attendance) bear a modest inverserelationship to the risk of subsequent marital dis-solution. The weak estimated net effects of thesegeneral religious measures, however, are essen-tially eliminated once baseline marital qualityand dependency are controlled, suggesting thatmore religious couples are less prone to divorcebecause, on average, they enjoy higher maritalsatisfaction, face a lower likelihood of domesticviolence, and perceive fewer attractive optionsoutside the marriage than their less religiouscounterparts. Beyond these factors, there is littleindependent effect of religious involvement perse on marital dissolution.

A second key finding is that the theologi-cal conservatism of husbands (but not that ofwives) is inversely related to the risk of divorce.In contrast to the patterns involving religiousceremony and partners’ religious attendance,the protective effect of the husband’s theologi-cal conservatism persists even with controls forbaseline marital quality and dependence. Somestudies address the effect of conservative religionon men (Bartkowski & Xu, 2000; Wilcox, 2002,2004). For example, Wilcox (2004) assignsspecial importance to the role of conservativereligious norms, expectations, and networks inconstraining the behavior of men. Accordingto Wilcox (2004), conservative religion helpsto discipline and domesticate many men, suchthat they are more focused on family relatedresponsibilities, domestic needs, and emotionalnurturing (Bartkowski, 2001). In these families,conservative theological beliefs of may protectagainst divorce.

A third major issue addressed in thisstudy centers on the role of denominationalhomogamy in shaping marital duration andthe hypothesis that mixed-faith marriages facegreater challenges than others. Here the findingsare mixed. Although the benefits of same-faith marriage per se are negligible, the effectsof denominational homogamy are contingentupon the degree of the partners’ religiousparticipation, as suggested by Waite and Lehrer(2003). Specifically, the risk of dissolution issubstantially lower among homogamous couplesin which both partners attend religious servicesregularly. This pattern—altered only slightly bycontrols for baseline marital quality—is broadlyconsistent with the popular adage that ‘‘families

that pray together, stay together.’’ Such a resultmay reflect the long-term benefits of ideologicaland lifestyle similarity among partners or theconsistency and homogeneity of their socialnetworks or their access to congregationalresources that could bolster marital bonds, forexample, specific support programs or pastoralcounseling. It is conceivable that these couplescould also incur higher social costs (e.g., stigma,social awkwardness) that could deter or delaymarital dissolution. Clearly further investigationis warranted on this score.

This analysis demonstrates that similardenominational affiliation and frequent religiousattendance by both spouses offers a protectiveeffect against marital dissolution over time. Bycategorizing couples in this manner, we showthat religious dissimilarity in multiple areasof religious life influences marital dissolutionbeyond gender-specific differences. In addition,one particular type of mixed-faith marriageappears to carry a greater risk of dissolutionthan others: Heterogamous couples in whichwives, but not husbands, are members of anexclusivist (i.e., fundamentalist, evangelical, orsectarian) faith are especially prone to divorce.In a parallel finding, couples in which wives aremore theologically conservative than husbandsalso face elevated risk of marital dissolution.This consistent gender-specific effect of mixed-faith marriage clarifies and extends the resultsof previous studies, several of which also iden-tified exclusivist/nonexclusivist denominationalheterogamy as a risk factor for divorce (Chi& Houseknecht, 1983; Lehrer & Chiswick,1993). What might account for the compara-tively greater risk of marital dissolution amongthese kinds of mixed-faith couples? Viewedbroadly, the possible reasons may include suchfactors as (a) value and lifestyle dissensus amongpartners, (b) dissonant network composition andfeedback concerning marital issues or othermatters, and (c) negative conflict and conflictresolution approaches (e.g., nagging, preach-ing). Studies focused on the general populationindicate that women are more likely to initi-ate marital dissolution than men (e.g., Brinig& Allen, 2000); we have no direct informa-tion on whether this pattern is also foundamong religious conservatives. If this is indeedthe case, however, then the specific pairing atelevated risk—exclusivist, theologically conser-vative women and nonexclusivist, nonconserva-tive men—seems particularly significant. As we


noted earlier, recent studies emphasize the roleof conservative religious ideals and communi-ties in domesticating men, inclining them towardgreater family responsibility and spiritual lead-ership within the home. Women who embracethese expectations of ‘‘Godly men’’ may be eas-ily disappointed by the failure of their husbandsto live up to these images; expressions of suchfrustration surface occasionally in the literatureon religion and gender (e.g., Rose, 1987). Thus,if they have adequate social support and materialresources, conservative women may opt to ter-minate unsatisfying marriages. This explanationis admittedly speculative and tentative, but thisand other explanations for the observed patternclearly warrant further investigation.

Another noteworthy finding in this studyconcerns the elevated risk of divorce amongcouples in which the husband attends religiousservices more often than his spouse, evenwith statistical adjustments for baseline maritalquality and dependency. Three possible, butadmittedly speculative, explanations occur tous. First, it is possible that some highly religiousmen may tend to embrace strict moral codesor lifestyle norms to which their wives maybe less committed. This could fuel discussionsand disputes about joint and individual leisureactivities as well as other matters. Second,it is conceivable that some highly religiousmen endorse patriarchal gender ideology,including expectations concerning the divisionof household labor, female labor force activity,and other issues (Ellison et al., 1999; Sherkat,2000). Although traditional roles appeal to somewomen, less religious wives may experiencethese scripts as constraining or demeaning.Finally, the husband’s religious involvementitself may become a source of conflict; this canresult from disagreements over his commitmentsof time or money to the congregation or frompressures on his partner to convert or attend moreoften. To our knowledge, this issue has not beenexamined in previous research, but in light of ourfindings it deserves investigation in the future.

In sum, our findings demonstrate modestbut important influences of multiple dimen-sions of religious involvement on the risk ofmarital dissolution. Although some of theserelationships can be explained in terms ofthe more general links between religion andaspects of marital quality and dependency,others seems to involve direct effects on

dissolution per se. Taken together, these find-ings suggest that even if the salience ofsome religious factors (e.g., denominationalhomogamy) for marital quality may be diminish-ing (Myers, 2006), other dimensions of religioncontinue to influence marital outcomes. Fur-ther research along the lines indicated abovewill enrich our understanding of these complexrelationships.

REFERENCES

Amato, P. R., & Rogers, S. J. (1997). A longitudinalstudy of marital problems and subsequent maritaldissolution. Journal of Marriage and the Family,59, 612 – 624.

Alwin, D. F. (1986). Religion and parental child-rearing orientations: Evidence of a Catholic-Protestant convergence. American Journal ofSociology, 92, 412 – 440.

Bartkowski, J. P. (2001). Remaking the godly mar-riage: Gender negotiation in evangelical families.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Bartkowski, J. P., & Xu, X. (2000). Distant patriarchsor expressive dads? The discourse and practiceof fathering in conservative Protestant families.Sociological Quarterly, 41, 465 – 485.

Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., Branaman, A., & Sica, A.(1995). Belief and behavior: Does religion matterin today’s marriage? Journal of Marriage and theFamily, 57, 661 – 671.

Brinig, M. F., & Allen, D. W. (2000). These boots aremade for walking: Why most marital dissolutionfilers are women. American Law and EconomicsReview, 2, 126 – 169.

Call, V. R. A., & Heaton, T. B. (1997). Religiousinfluence on marital stability. Journal for theScientific Study of Religion, 36, 382 – 392.

Cherlin, A. (1992). Marriage, marital dissolution,remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Chi, S. K., & Houseknecht, S. K. (1983). Protestantfundamentalism and marital success: A compara-tive approach. Sociology and Social Research, 69,351 – 375.

Curtis, K. T., & Ellison, C. G. (2002). Religiousheterogamy and marital conflict: Findings fromthe National Survey of Families and Households.Journal of Family Issues, 23, 551 – 576.

Dobson, J. (1999). Love for a lifetime: Building amarriage that will go the distance (rev. ed). Sisters,OR: Multnomah.

Edgell, P. A. (2005). Religion and family in a chang-ing society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UniversityPress.

Ellison, C. G., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2002). Conserva-tive Protestantism and the household division oflabor. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 950 – 985.


Ellison, C. G., Bartkowski, J. P., & Anderson, K. L.(1999). Are there religious variations in domesticviolence? Journal of Family Issues, 20, 87 – 113.

Heaton, T. B. (1984). Religious homogamy andmarital satisfaction reconsidered. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 46, 729 – 733.

Heaton, T. B., Goodman, K. L., Holmon, T. B. (1994).In search of peculiar people: Are Mormon familiesreally different? In M. Cornwall, T.B. Heaton,& L.A. Young (Eds.), Contemporary Mormonism:Social science perspectives (pp. 87 – 117). Urbana:University of Illinois Press.

Heaton, T. B., & Pratt, E. L. (1990). The effects ofreligious homogamy on marital satisfaction andmarital stability. Journal of Family Issues, 11,191 – 207.

Hoffmann, J. P. & Miller, A. L. (1997). Social andpolitical attitudes among religious groups: Con-vergence and divergence over time. Journal forthe Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 52 – 70.

Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy:Causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review ofSociology, 24, 395 – 421.

King, V., & Elder, G. H. (1999). Are religious grand-parents more involved grandparents? Journalsof Gerontology Series B—Psychological Sciencesand Social Sciences, 54, S317 – S328.

Lehrer, E. L. (2004). Religion as a determinant ofeconomic and demographic behavior in the UnitedStates. Population and Development Review, 30,707 – 726.

Lehrer, E. L., & Chiswick, C. U. (1993). Religion asa determinant of marital stability. Demography,30, 385 – 404.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank,A. B., Scott, E., Emery, E., & Rye, M. (1999).Marriage in the spiritual realm: The role ofproximal and distal religious constructs in maritalfunctioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13,321 – 338.

Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., &Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion in the home in the1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review andconceptual analysis of links between religion,marriage, and parenting. Journal of FamilyPsychology, 15, 559 – 596.

Miller, A. S., & Hoffmann, J. P. (1995). Risk andreligion: An explanation of gender differencesin religiosity. Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion, 34, 63 – 75.

Myers, S. M. (2006). Religious homogamy and mar-ital quality: Historical and generational patterns,1980 – 1997. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68,292 – 304.

Ortega, S. T., Whitt, H. P., & Williams, J. A., Jr.(1988). Religious homogamy and marital happi-ness. Journal of Family Issues, 9, 224 – 239.

Pearce, L. D., & Axinn, W. G. (1998). The impact offamily religious life on the quality of mother– child

relations. American Sociological Review, 63,810 – 828.

Research Triangle Institute. (2005). SUDAAN . Cary,NC: RTI, Inc.

Rose, S. D. (1987). Women warriors: The negotiationof gender in a charismatic community. Sociologi-cal Analysis, 48, 245 – 258.

Schoenfeld, D. (1982). Partial residuals for the pro-portional hazards regression model. Biometrika,69, 239 – 241.

Shehan, C. L., Bock, E. W., & Lee, G. R. (1990).Religious heterogamy, religiosity, and maritalhappiness: The case of Catholics. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 52, 73 – 79.

Sherkat, D. E. (2000). That they be keepers of thehome: The effect of conservative religion on earlyand late transitions into housewifery. Review ofReligious Research, 41, 344 – 358.

Sherkat, D. E. (2004). Religious intermarriage in theUnited States: Trends, patterns, and predictors.Social Science Research, 33, 606 – 625.

Sherkat, D. E., & Ellison, C. G. (1999). Recentdevelopments and current controversies in thesociology of religion. Annual Review of Sociology,25, 363 – 394.

Steensland, B., Park, J. Z., Regnerus, M. D., Robin-son, L. D., Wilcox, W. B., & Woodberry, R. D.(2000). The measure of American religion: Towardimproving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79,291 – 318.

Sweet, J. A., & Bumpass, L. L. (1996). The NationalSurvey of Families and Households—Waves 1 and2: Data description and documentation. Madison:University of Wisconsin, Center for Demographyand Ecology.

Sweet, J., Bumpass, L., & Call, V. R. A. (1988). Thedesign and content of the National Survey ofFamilies and Households. Madison: Universityof Wisconsin, Center for Demography andEcology.

Teachman, J. (2003). Premarital sex, premaritalcohabitation, and the risk of subsequent maritaldissolution among women. Journal of Marriageand Family, 65, 444 – 455.

Thornton, A. (1985). Reciprocal influences of familyand religion in a changing world. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 47, 381 – 394.

Thornton, A., Axinn, W. G., & Hill, D. H. (1992).Reciprocal effects of religiosity, cohabitation, andmarriage. American Journal of Sociology, 98,628 – 651.

Vuchinich, S., Teachman, J., & Crosby, L. (1991).Families and hazard rates that change overtime: Some methodological issues in analyzingtransitions. Journal of Marriage and the Family,53, 898 – 912.

Waite, L. J., & Lehrer, E. L. (2003). The benefitsfrom marriage and religion in the United


States: A comparative analysis. Population andDevelopment Review, 29, 255 – 275.

Wilcox, W. B. (2002). Religion, convention, andpaternal involvement. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 64, 780 – 792.

Wilcox, W. B. (2004). Soft patriarchs, new men: Howchristianity shapes fathers and husbands. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Wilcox, W. B., Chaves, M., Franz, D. (2004). Focusedon the family? Religious traditions, family dis-course, and pastoral practice. Journal for theScientific Study of Religion, 43, 491 – 504.

Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1996). Religion and maritaldependency. Journal for the Scientific Study ofReligion, 35, 30 – 40.

Wuthnow, R. (1988). The restructuring of Americanreligion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

APPENDIX

Respondents were considered as exclusivistfaith if their reported denomination was Bap-tist, Mormon, Assemblies of God, Christianand Missionary Alliance, Christian Reformed,Church of God (Anderson, IN, Cleveland, TN,no affiliation specified, in Christ), Church ofthe Nazarene, Church of Christ, EvangelicalFree Church, Evangelical Covenant Church,Full Gospel Fellowship, International Church ofthe Foursquare Gospel, Jehovah’s Witness, Pen-tecostal, Reformed Church, Reorganized Mor-mon, Salvation Army, Seventh Day Adventists,Wesleyan, All Reformed Presbyterian Churches,and all members of the Pietist, Holiness, Pente-costal, Adventist, Latter-Day Saint, and Inde-pendent Fundamentalist families. This groupincluded respondents who reported they were‘‘born again Christian’’ or ‘‘charismatic.’’

APPENDIX: RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS BYGROUP

Evangelical Protestant

Assembly of God (or Assemblies of God), Bap-tist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Chris-tian Reformed, Church of God-Anderson, IN,Church of God-Cleveland, TN, Church of God(no affiliation specified), Church of the Brethren(Brethren), Church of the Nazarene (Nazarene),Church of Christ, Evangelical Covenant Church,Evangelical Free Church, Full Gospel Fellow-ship, International Church of the FoursquareGospel (Foursquare Gospel), Mennonite Pen-tecostal or all churches with Pentecostal in

title, all other members of Pietist Family, Sal-vation Army, Seventh Day Adventists, Wes-leyan, all other members of Holiness Family,all other members of Pentecostal Family, allother members of European Free Church Fam-ily (Mennonites, Amish, Brethren, Quakers), allmembers of Independence Fundamentalist Fam-ily, all other members of Adventist Family, thosewho report that they are ‘‘born again Christian,’’or ‘‘Charismatic.’’

Mainline Protestant

Church of God in Christ (Black Protes-tant), Christian Church (Disciples of Christ),Christian Church—any modifier such asFirst, Eastside, Community, etc., Christian-Disciples, Christian—not including ‘‘just aChristian’’ or ‘‘Christian-no denomination,’’Christian Congregation, Christian ReformedChurch of North America (Christian Reformed),Churches of Christ subfamily—Restoration‘‘Christian’’ (no other description given, couldbe ‘‘just a Christian’’ or member of ChristianChurch), all other members of the Chris-tian Church, Episcopalian, Lutheran, MethodistReformed Church (Reformed), PresbyterianReformed Church (Reformed), United Churchof Christ (Congregational), all other Reformed-Presbyterian Churches, Protestant (no denomi-nation given).

Catholic

All other Western Catholic Churches, RomanCatholic

Conservative Nontraditional

Church of Christ, Scientist (Christian Scien-tist), Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormon, Reorga-nized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints(Reorganized Mormon), and all other membersof Latter-day Saint Family Protestant (Unspeci-fied denomination).

Liberal Nontraditional

Community churches (Interdenominational;nonsectarian), all members of communal groups,all New Thought Family, all Psychic Group,all Ritual Magick Groups, Personal churches(my own, practice at home, studying different


churches; personal Bible study, believe inSupreme Being), Unitarian.

Other Religion

Jewish, Orthodox Churches (any Eastern, Greek,Russian, Serbian, or Ukrainian Orthodox,

churches including Orthodox Church in America,American Orthodox Church, Non-ChalcedonianOrthodox Churches, including Armenian, Assyr-ian, Syrian, Coptic, and Ethiopian), allIslamic subfamily, all Hindu subfamily, allBuddhist subfamily, all Shinto and Taoismfamilies, all miscellaneous religious bodies.

religious inﬂuences on the risk of marital dissolution...journal of marriage and family 71...

Documents