Relational commitment as a mediator of religiousness to marital quality.
Mitchell, Joel C. ; Edwards, Keith J. ; Hunt, Scott B. 等
This study examined the relationship between religiousness,
relational commitment, and marital quality, proposing that relational
commitment would act as a mediator in the relationship between
religiousness and marital quality. Using a causal step approach to
testing mediation, zero-order correlates demonstrated significant
relationships among all 3 variables. In examining the mediating effects
of relational commitment, full mediation for religiousness on marital
quality was determined by using a sequential regression analysis.
Therefore, religious individuals who had higher levels of relational
commitment to their spouses experienced greater marital quality than
those who had lower levels of relational commitment. The theoretical and
applied implications of these findings are discussed.
**********
This study examined whether religious individuals who had higher
levels of relational commitment to their spouses experienced greater
marital quality than those who had lower levels of relational
commitment. In recent years, there has been a growing body of literature
reporting the various benefits of spirituality and religion on health
and well-being (Cooper, 2003; Holt-Lunstad, Steffen, Sandberg, &
Jensen, 2011; Larson & Larson, 2003; Levin, 2010; McCormick, 2004).
More specifically, spirituality and religiousness have been positively
associated with marital satisfaction and stability (Cutrona, Russell,
Burzette, Wesner, & Bryant, 2011; Goddard, Marshall, Olson, &
Dennis, 2012), and shared religious beliefs and activities have been
positively associated with marital functioning (Butler, Stout, &
Gardner, 2002; Call & Heaton, 1997; Clydesdale, 1997; Goddard et
al., 2012; Heaton, 1990; Lawler, 2000; Mahoney et al., 1999; Wilcox
& Wolfinger, 2008).
Giblin (1997) has suggested that religion permeates most facets of
married life. For religious couples, the perception of divine
involvement in their marriage has a positive influence on marital
stability, growth, motivation, and happiness (Cutrona et al., 2011,
Goodman & Dollahite, 2006). Functionally, couples report that
religiosity often serves as a mechanism for problem prevention, conflict
resolution, and relationship reconciliation (Lambert & Dollahite,
2006). Mahoney (2010), in examining the role of religion in families
from 1999 to 2009, concluded that higher religiousness helps form
marital unions (marriages and ultimately, families) and lowers divorce.
Among religious couples, one or both individuals may believe that
one's marriage has spiritual character and significance. The
perception that one's marriage is sanctified, or made holy, implies
that individuals view their marriage as having sacred qualities, thus
experiencing their marriage as a manifestation of God. According to
Mahoney and colleagues (1999), believing God sanctifies one's
marriage significantly correlated with global marital quality.
Furthermore, belief in a sanctified marriage was a predictor of the
level of integration of religious meaning in a marriage and was linked
to desirable outcomes for married couples, particularly in times of
financial or perceived general stress (Ellison, Henderson, Glenn, &
Harkrider, 2011).
While several studies have demonstrated a positive relationship
between religiousness and marital satisfaction (Allgood, Harris,
Skogrand, & Lee, 2009; Beach et al., 2011; Brandau-Brown &
Ragsdale, 2008; Dollahite & Lambert, 2007; Lambert & Dollahite,
2006), few have explored the possibility of mediating variables in that
relationship. Attitudes toward divorce and help-seeking were posited as
potential mediators in the relationship between religiousness and
marital satisfaction; however, religiousness did not account for a
significant amount of the variation in marital satisfaction for husbands
or wives (Sullivan, 2001). Religiousness did account for variation in
divorce attitudes, commitment, and marital help-seeking, after
controlling for marital satisfaction and age. Religiosity has correlated
significantly with emotional intimacy and with marital satisfaction;
however, its impact on marital satisfaction appeared indirect (Hatch,
James, & Schumm, 1986). Most recently, Day and Acock (2013) found
that relational virtue (e.g., forgiveness, commitment, and sacrifice)
mediated the relationship between religiousness and couple well-being.
These results suggest that the effect of religiosity, as measured by
spiritual intimacy, operate indirectly through a mediating
variable--emotional intimacy. Therefore, we conclude that other
variables likely mediate the relationship between religiousness and
marital quality.
In the present study, we propose that commitment, more specifically
relational commitment, is a mediating factor in the relationship between
religiousness and marriage. Marital commitment correlates significantly
with measures designed to assess moral responsibility and religiosity
(Adams & Jones, 1997; Sullivan, 2001). Thus, religious behaviors
correlate significantly with commitment to marriage and to one's
spouse (Adams & Jones, 1997; Allgood et al., 2009).
The construct of commitment is recognized as a significant factor
in the development and continued stability of close interpersonal
relationships (Adams & Jones, 1997; Johnson & Rusbult, 1989;
Stanley, Markman, & Whitton, 2002). Adams and Jones (1997)
identified four functional areas affected by spouses scoring higher on
commitment measures: accommodation (e.g., Rusbult & Verette, 1991;
Rusbult, Verette, Whitney, Slovik, & Lupkus, 1991), clear and
effective communication, problem solving abilities, (e.g., Brewer, 1993;
Robinson & Blanton, 1993), and overall life satisfaction (e.g.,
Roberts, 1979). Married couples who report satisfaction in their
marriages indicate that commitment is one of the most important factors
contributing to the quality of their marriage. Additionally, many
couples connect marital commitment to religious values (Ferguson, 1993;
Nelson, Kirk, Ane, & Serres, 2011). However, commitment is more than
just maintaining a functioning marriage. It is also the ability to
utilize personal, moral, and structural commitments within the marriage
to make relational repairs (Brandau-Brown & Ragsdale, 2008).
Among couples, commitment correlates significantly with thinking
less about what it would be like to be with another partner, feeling
less trapped in their relationship, and experiencing greater
relationship satisfaction (Stanley et al., 2002). Even among dating
couples, there is a link between satisfaction and tendencies to view
alternatives with more negativity (Johnson & Rusbult, 1989).
However, while commitment dynamics may be evident in dating
relationships, they appear to be more salient within the context of a
marital relationship, where there is increased complexity of
interpersonal, social, and legal domains that are not present in most
dating relationships (Cupach & Metts, 1986).
The notion that commitment is necessary to relationships seems
fundamental, but there is a dearth of research identifying the specific
components necessary for a successful and satisfying marriage. Personal
dedication and constraint commitment have been put forth as two primary
constructs in commitment (Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman 2010; Stanley
& Markman, 1992). Personal dedication is a relationally driven
construct, referring to the extent to which the individual desires to
maintain or improve the quality of the relationship for the benefit of
both partners. Constraint commitment, on the other hand, refers to the
pressures that force an individual to maintain a relationship
irrespective of how that individual feels about that relationship. Both
dedication and constraint have been associated with relationship
stability among adults in romantic relationships.
Earlier longitudinal studies by Lund (1985) and Udry (1981)
demonstrated a strong case for factors associated with constraint
commitment as better predictors of relational stability than those
associated with relationship satisfaction and attraction. Constraint
variables are important determinants of whether a relationship
continues, but we contend that personal dedication variables are also an
important determinant in the stability, quality, and satisfaction of the
relationship. Essentially, while constraint commitments may keep people
married longer, they do not contribute to the quality of the marriage
(DeMaris, Sanchez, & Krivickas, 2012; Stanley, 2002). Therefore,
when people rate their levels of commitment, they are typically
conceptualizing what looks more like personal dedication than constraint
commitment (Stanley & Markman, 1992).
In light of previous research demonstrating the significant impact
of relationally-based commitment on marital functioning, as well as its
relationship with religious variables, we investigated the role of
relational commitment as a mediating variable between religiousness and
marital quality in the present study. We hypothesized that relational
commitment would mediate the relationship between religiousness and
marital quality.
Method
Participants
After obtaining approval from the university's Institutional
Review Board (IRB), data for this study was collected from a random
sample of 400 self-identified Judeo-Christian adult alumni from a
private evangelical Christian university. Samples of 200 males and 200
females living across the United States were selected from four cohorts
of university graduates: 1975-1977, 1982-1984, 1989-1991, and 1995-1997.
Inclusion criteria for the study required participants to be alumni of
the university and to be married at the time of interview. Exclusionary
criteria identified individuals who had never been married, were
divorced or widowed, and/or were not university graduates.
Procedures
All 400 subjects were mailed a Spiritual and Relationship
Questionnaire, consisting of a number of instruments aimed at assessing
multiple domains of religiousness and marital functioning. In addition
to the questionnaire, a cover letter describing the study,
confidentiality, and how the results would be used was included along
with a check for 5 dollars in an attempt to encourage participation. A
second mailing to all 400 subjects occurred 2 weeks after the first
mailing and included an additional copy of the Spiritual and
Relationship Questionnaire and cover letter. Questionnaires were
uniquely coded to ensure that subjects did not submit two
questionnaires. Upon return of the questionnaires, participants were
evaluated based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. Those not meeting the
criteria were not included in this analysis.
Measures
Religiousness. The religiousness variable is a composite of items
highlighting key elements of religiousness: spiritual development, the
intrinsic nature of one's religious beliefs, and the orthodoxy of
those beliefs. We utilized portions of the Spiritual Assessment
Inventory (SAI; Hall & Edwards, 2002), the Intrinsic/Extrinsic Scale
(Gorsuch & Venable, 1983), and Christian Worldview (Barna, 2002,
2004). The Spiritual Assessment Inventory is a relationally-based
measure designed to assess two dimensions of spiritual development:
Awareness of God and Quality of Relationship with God (e.g., "I
have a good sense of how God is working in my life"; "I am
very afraid that God will give up on me"). The SAI Disappointment
scale was selected because an IRT analysis of the SAI items showed that
it provided the most trait information among the five SAI subscales
(Hall, Edwards, Reise, & Slater, 2003). In addition, the
religiousness construct included intrinsic religiousness items from
Gorsuch & Venable's (1983) Intrinsic/Extrinsic Scale (e.g.,
"I enjoy reading about my religion"; "I have always had a
strong sense of God's presence") along with items from the
Christian Worldview survey, which assess various domains of orthodoxy
(e.g., "I believe Jesus Christ lived a sinless life"; "I
believe the Bible defines absolute moral truths which are to guide our
lives"). Four Intrinsic Religiosity items were selected based on an
analysis of the Spiritual Experience Index (SEI; Genia, 1991). In a
large study measuring religiousness in college students, these four
items loaded highest on the first factor analysis of the SEI's 38
items. These items were "My faith gives my life meaning and
purpose"; "My faith helps me to confront tragedy and
suffering"; "My faith shapes how I think and act each and
every day"; "My faith is an important part of my individual
identity" (Edwards, Slater, Hall, Oda, & Eck, 2001). The
composite religiousness index we used consisted of 18 items and had an
alpha reliability coefficient of .79.
Relational commitment. Relational commitment was measured using 10
personal dedication items from the Commitment Inventory (CI; Owen,
Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2011; Stanley & Markman, 1992) that
emphasized personal dedication. Relational commitment items were
selected based on sufficient representation of each of the domains of
personal dedication (Stanley, 2002). Therefore, items focused on (a)
desire for a future together (e.g., "I may not want to be with my
spouse a few years from now."), (b) a sense of togetherness versus
separateness (e.g., "I like to think of my spouse and me more in
terms of 'us' and 'we,' than 'me' and
'him/her.'"), (c) prioritization of the relationship
(e.g., "My relationship with my spouse is more important to me than
almost anything else in my life."), and (d) satisfaction with
sacrificing for the other (e.g, "I get satisfaction out of doing
things for my spouse, even if it means I miss out on something I want
for myself."). In addition, personal dedication items were chosen
and used to measure alternative monitoring (e.g., "I think a lot
about what it would be like to be married to, or be with, someone other
than my spouse."). Each item was rated from 1 (strongly agree) to 7
(strongly disagree) then a mean score was used in analysis--with higher
scores indicative of more dedication. In order to increase
participation, the overall brevity of the questionnaire became
important; therefore, items that overlapped were omitted utilizing
context validity as a guide. In other words, we used the seven items
that loaded on the first principle component extracted from the
inter-correlations of the items. The alpha reliability coefficient for
the relational commitment scale was .83.
Marital quality. Marital quality was measured using an abbreviated
version of the Quality Marriage Index (QMI; Norton, 1983), a 6-item
scale measuring marital quality. The original QMI demonstrated high
internal consistency ([alpha]. = .93) and the median effect size across
the six items was .75. The abbreviated version of the QMI consisted of
five items: "We have a good marriage"; "My relationship
with my spouse is very stable"; "Our marriage is strong";
"My relationship with my spouse makes me happy"; and "I
really feel like part of a team with my spouse." The sixth item of
the original QMI that was abbreviated was a 10-point scaled question
regarding global happiness within the marriage, and we felt for the sake
of brevity the question did not add relevant information to the study.
Each item was rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (very strong disagreement)
to 7 (very strong agreement). The 5-item Marital Quality index (MQ) had
an alpha reliability coefficient of .91.
Results
Of the 184 individuals who returned questionnaires, 173 individuals
were currently in their first marriages and were included in the present
analysis (106 females; 67 males). Table 1 contains demographic
characteristics for respondents. Respondents ranged in age from 28-66
years old (M = 40.6) and averaged 16.3 years of marriage (range 1-41
years). Religious backgrounds were not specifically identified but
respondents acknowledged signing a doctrine of faith as part of their
college experience suggesting that the majority were evangelical
Christian with orthodox Protestant views. At the time of the study,
participants were a highly religious group with 95% of them rating the
importance of religion in their lives as a 7 on a 7-point scale. The
correlation of demographic characteristics and major study variables
were for the most part non-significant. Nine of the twelve coefficients
were non-significant. The three correlations that were significant (p =
.05)--marital quality and age, marital quality and income, and
relational commitment and age--had correlations less than .20. The
correlations of Religiousness with the demographic variables were
virtually zero (r = .01 to .05). Thus, the relationships among study
variables were relatively un-confounded by subject characteristics.
Judd and Kenny's (1981) procedure for statistically testing
mediation was followed in the subsequent analyses. Zero-order
correlation coefficients among the self-reported variables appear in
Table 2. All three relationships were significant (p < .001),
establishing the relationship between religiousness and marital quality
(r = .31) and the relationship between relational commitment and
religiousness (r = .47). Mediation was established by conducting a
sequential multiple regression analysis, predicting marital quality from
both religiousness and the hypothesized mediator--relational commitment
As shown in Table 3, before the mediator was included in the
equation, religiousness demonstrated a statistically relevant
association with marital quality ([beta] = .31, p = .001). After the
inclusion of relational commitment as the mediator, the association
between religiousness and marital quality decreased ([beta] = .02, p
> .05). This change ([beta] = .31 to .02) was tested by the Sobel
test (Preacher & Leonardelli, 2001) and demonstrated significance (p
< .01). These results suggest that, for the subjects included in this
study, there was substantial mediation of the link between religiousness
and marital quality by relational commitment. Figure 1 represents the
relational commitment mediational model with corresponding statistical
results.
Discussion
The present study explored whether relational commitment mediated
the effects of religiousness on marital quality. Results from the
sequential regression analysis suggested that relational commitment did
act as a mediator in the relationship between religiousness and marital
quality. These findings suggest that religious individuals who have
higher levels of relational commitment to their spouses experience
greater marital quality than those who have lower levels of relational
commitment.
Our study looked at a small segment of the Christian community:
college educated evangelical Christians. Additionally, our sample was
predominantly Caucasian. This of course suggests limitations to the
generalizability of our results to the much larger and diverse Christian
community. Nevertheless, our findings appear to support findings that
religiosity promoted relationship stability in African American couples
(Cutrona et al., 2011) and that religious involvement increases
relational commitment in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim couples
(Dollahite & Lambert, 2007).
The benefits of relational commitment on marriage have been
previously discussed elsewhere, oftentimes noted as having a greater
impact on marital quality than other domains of commitment (e.g., Dush,
Rhoades, Sandberg-Thoma, & Schoppe-Sullivan, 2013; Edwards et al.,
2005; Stanley, 2002; Stanley & Markman, 1992). The importance of
relationally driven constructs is evident in the field at large, as
increased attention and significance have been given to the power of
relational constructs (e.g., emotionally focused couple's therapy,
attachment theory and research, relational psychoanalysis and
psychotherapy, etc.). Our results support the conclusion that religious
behaviors within marriage, (e.g., mutual prayer, church attendance and
Bible study, communication and problem solving effectiveness, acts of
service, and belief that a spouse is on the same "team") are
likely to lead to increased levels of relational commitment and
intimacy, thereby increasing marital quality.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The results of this study suggest that both religion and commitment
are critical variables for marital quality in religious individuals. The
current study has shown that one aspect of commitment, termed relational
commitment, mediated the relationship between religiousness and marital
quality. It has additionally been noted that there are many other
specific aspects of religiousness (e.g., orthodoxy, religious behaviors)
and commitment (e.g., social constraints, religious constraint,
alternative monitoring) that influence marital quality. Given that an
individual's religiosity often exists prior to the existence of a
couple's relationship, the notion that relational commitment
subsumes the relationship between religiousness and marital quality can
appear conceptually difficult. Therefore, a more thorough and specific
understanding of the role of religiousness and commitment on marital
quality is needed, as it appears to be insufficient to merely refer to
"religion" and "commitment" in general terms. This
applies to clinical work, as well, where careful assessment and
understanding of religious and commitment factors are critical to
working with each couple (e.g., Nelson et al., 2011; Richards &
Bergin, 1997). Every individual understands and expresses their
religiousness and marital commitment in a unique way, requiring the
clinician to be thoughtful and thorough in their conceptualization of
the couple's relational dynamics. Knowing that clients are
"religious" or "committed" does not explain how
those variables influence their unique relationship. Future research
should also examine relational variables, such as relational commitment,
communication effectiveness, problem solving, help-seeking potential,
altruism, and others.
Whether it is a clinical, academic, or church setting, the
processes by which individuals' religiousness and marital
commitment influence their relationship are salient matters that warrant
further thought and exploration. In attempting to understand the role of
religion in marital functioning, it is likely that clinicians,
academicians, and clergy members alike will work with distressed couples
in a way that skillfully utilizes and maximizes the potential benefits
of the couple's faith. This, in turn, carries with it the potential
to enhance the overall efficacy of the clinical work as well as the
quality of the couple's marriage.
Joel C. Mitchell
VA Puget Sound Health Care System and University of Washington
Keith J. Edwards
Biola University
Scott B. Hunt
VA Puget Sound Health Care System and University of Washington
Paul Poelstra
Biola University
Author Note: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: None of
the authors report any conflicts of interest.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Scott
B. Hunt, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, 9600 Veterans Drive (A-116),
Tacoma, WA 98493. Email:
[email protected]
References
Adams, J., & Jones, W. (1997). The conceptualization of marital
commitment: An integrative analysis. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72, 1177-1196.
Allgood, S. M., Harris, S., Skogrand, L., & Lee, T. R. (2009).
Marital commitment and religiosity in a religiously homogenous
population. Marriage and Family Review, 45, 52-67. doi:
10.1080/01494920802537472
Barna Group, Ltd. (2002, June 17). America's religious
activity has increased since 1996, but its beliefs remain virtually
unchanged. Retrieved March 4, 2005, from http://www.barna.org/
FlexPage.aspx? Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=115
Barna Group, Ltd. (2004, January 12). Only half of protestant
pastors have a biblical worldview. Retrieved March 4, 2005, from
http://www. barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate &
BarnaUpdateID=156
Beach, S. R. H., Hurt, T. R., Fincham, F. D., Franklin, K. J.,
McNair, L. M., & Stanley, S. M. (2011). Enhancing marital
enhancement through spirituality: Efficacy data for prayer focused
relationship enhancement. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 2,
201-216. doi: 10.1037/a0022207
Brandau-Brown, F. E., & Ragsdale, J. D. (2008). Personal,
moral, and structural commitment and the repair of marital
relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 37-41. doi:
10.1080/104167940701815679
Brewer, S. (1993). Reconceptualizing marital commitment: An
interpretative interactional, qualitative study. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT.
Butler, M., Stout, J., & Gardner, B. (2002). Prayer as a
conflict resolution ritual: Clinical implications of religious
couples' report of relationship softening healing perspective, and
change responsibility. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 30(1),
19-37.
Call, V., & Heaton, T. (1997). Religious influence on marital
stability. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 382-392.
Clydesdale, T. (1997). Family behaviors among early US baby
boomers: Exploring the effects of religion on income change, 1965-1982.
Social Forces, 76, 605-635.
Cooper, A. (2003). An investigation of the relationship among
spirituality, prayer and meditation, and aspects of stress and coping.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B. Sciences and
Engineering, 64(3-B), 1484.
Cupach, W., & Metts, S. (1986). Accounts of relational
dissolution: A comparison of marital and non-marital relationships.
Communication Monographs, 53, 311-334.
Cutrona, C. E., Russell, D. W., Burzette, R. G., Wesner, K. A.,
& Bryant, C. M. (2011). Predicting relationship stability among
midlife African American couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 79, 814-825. doi:10.1037/a0025874
Day, R. D., & Acock, A. (2013). Marital well-being and
religiousness as mediated by relational virtue and equality. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 75, 164-177. doi: 10.1111/j/1741-3737.2012.01033.x
DeMaris, A., Sanchez, L. A., & Krivickas, K. (2012).
Developmental patterns in marital satisfaction: Another look at covenant
marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 989-1004. doi:
10.1111/j.17413737.2012.00999.x
Dollahite, D. C., & Lambert, N. C. (2007). Forsaking all
others: How religious involvement promotes marital fidelity in
Christian, Jewish, and Muslim couples. Review of Religious Research, 48,
290-307.
Dush, C. M., Rhoades, G. K., Sandberg-Thoma, S. E., &
Schoppe-Sullivan, S. J. (2013). Commitment across the transition to
parenthood among married and cohabitating couples. Couple and Family
Psychology: Research and Practice. Advance online publication, doi:
10:1037/cfp0000006
Edwards, K., Mitchell, J., Widger, C., Kloster, M., Kendrick, A.,
& Poelstra, P. (2005, April). Qualitative and quantitative
explorations of spirituality in marriage. Presented at the Annual
International Convention of the Christian Association for Psychological
Studies, Dallas, TX.
Edwards, K., Slater, W., Hall, T., Oda, A., & Eck, B. (2001,
August). Assessing spiritual functioning among Christian college
students. Presented at the 109th Annual Convention of the American
Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Ellison, C. G., Henderson, A. K., Glenn, N. D., & Harkrider, K.
E. (2011). Sanctification, stress, and marital quality. Family
Relations, 60, 404-420. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2011.00658.x
Ferguson, J. (1993). Factors contributing to satisfying long-term
marriages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, United States
International University, San Diego, CA.
Genia, V. (1991). The Spiritual Experience Index: A measure of
spiritual Journal of Religion and Health, 30, 337-347.
Giblin, P. R. (1997). Marital spirituality: A quantitative study.
Journal of Religion and Health, 36, 321-332.
Goddard, H. W., Marshall, J. P., Olson, J. R., & Dennis, S. A.
(2012). Character strengths and religiosity as predictors of marital
satisfaction in a sample of highly religious and divorce-prone couples.
Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 11, 2-15. doi: 10.1080/153
32691.2011.613308
Goodman, M. A., & Dollahite, D. C. (2006). How religious
couples perceive the influence of God in their marriage. Review of
Religious Research, 48, 141-155.
Gorsuch, R., & Venable, R. (1983). Development of an "Age
Universal" I-E scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
22, 181-187.
Hall, T., & Edwards, K. (2002). The Spiritual Assessment
Inventory: A theistic model and measure for assessing spiritual
development. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 341-357.
Hall, T. W., Edwards, K. J., Reise, S. P., & Slater, W. (2003).
Item response theory in measuring spirituality: An illustration with the
Spiritual Assessment Inventory. Unpublished manuscript, Rosemead School
of Psychology, Biola University, La Mirada, CA.
Hatch, R., James, D., & Schumm, W. (1986). Spiritual intimacy
and marital satisfaction. Family Relations, 35, 539-545.
Heaton, T. (1990). The effects of religious homogamy on marital
satisfaction and stability. Journal of Family Issues, 11, 191-207.
Holt-Lunstad, J., Steffen, P. R., Sandberg, J., & Jensen, B.
(2011). Understanding the connection between spiritual well-being and
physical health: An examination of ambulatory blood pressure,
inflammation, blood lipids, and fasting glucose. Journal of Behavioral
Medicine, 34, 477-488. doi:10.1007/sl0865-011-9343-7
Johnson, D., & Rusbult, C. (1989). Resisting temptation:
Devaluation of alternative partners as a means of maintaining commitment
in close relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
967-980.
Judd, C., & Kenny, D. (1981). Process analysis: Estimating
mediation in treatment evaluations. Evaluation Review, 5,602-619.
Lambert, N. M., & Dollahite, D. C. (2006). How religiosity
helps couples prevent, resolve, and overcome marital conflict. Family
Relations, 55, 439-449.
Larson, D., Pattison, E., Blazer, D., Omran, A., & Kaplan, B.
(1986). Systematic analysis of research on religious variables in four
major psychiatric journals, 1978-1982. American Journal of Psychiatry,
143, 329-334.
Lawler, M. (2000). Religion good for marriage, researcher says.
America, 182,4.
Levin, J. S. (2010). Religion and mental health: Theory and
research. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 7,
102-115. doi: 10.1002/aps.240
Lund, M. (1985). The development of investment and commitment
scales for predicting continuity of personal relationships. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 2, 3-23.
Mahoney, A. (2010). Religion in families, 1999-2009: A relational
spirituality framework .Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 72,
805-827. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00732.x
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K., Jewell, T., Swank, A., Scott, E.,
Emery, E., & Rye, M. (1999). Marriage and the spiritual realm: The
role of proximal and distal religious constructs in marital functioning.
Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 321-338.
McCormick, D. (2004). Galton on spirituality, religion, and health.
American Psychologist, 59, 52.
Nelson, J. A., Kirk, A. M., Ane, P., & Serres, S. A. (2011).
Religious and spiritual values and moral commitment in marriage:
Untapped resources in couples counseling? Counseling and Values, 65,
228-246.
Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at
the dependent variable. Journal of 'Marriage and the Family, 45,
141-151.
Owen, J., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. M.
(2011). The Revised Commitment Inventory: Psychometric and use with
unmarried couples. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 820-841. doi:
10.1177/0192513X10385788
Preacher, K. J., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2001, March).
Calculation for the Sobel test: An interactive calculation tool for
mediation tests [Computer software]. Available from http://www.unc.
edu/~preacher/sobel/sobel.htm
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. M. (2010). Should
I stay or should I go? Predicting dating relationship stability from
four aspects of commitment .Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 543-550.
doi: 10.1037/a0021008
Richards, S., & Bergin, A. (1997). A spiritual strategy for
counseling and psychotherapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Roberts, W. (1979). Significant elements in the relationship of
long-married couples. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 10, 265-271.
Robinson, I., & Blanton, P. (1993). Marital strengths in
enduring marriages. Family Relations, 42, 38-45.
Rusbult, C., & Verette, J. (1991). An interdependence analysis
of accommodation processes in close relationships. Representative
Research in Social Psychology, 19, 3-33.
Rusbult, C., Verette, J., Whitney, G., Slovik, L., & Lupkus, I.
(1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and
preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 53-78.
Stanley, S. (2002, July). What is it with men and commitment,
anyway? Keynote address at the 6th Annual Smart Marriages Conference,
Washington, DC.
Stanley, S., & Markman, H. (1992). Assessing commitment in
personal relationships. Journal of 'Marriage and Family, 54,
595-608.
Stanley, S., Markman, H., & Whitton, S. (2002). Communication,
conflict, and commitment: Insights on the foundations of relationship
success from a national survey. Family Process, 41, 659-675.
Sullivan, K. (2001). Understanding the relationship between
religiosity and marriage: An investigation of the immediate and
longitudinal effects of religiosity on newlywed couples. Journal of
Family Psychology, 15, 610-626.
Udry, J. (1981). Marital alternatives and marital disruption.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 43, 889-897.
Wilcox, W. B., & Wolfinger, N. H. (2008). Living and loving
"Decent": Religion and relationship quality among urban
parents. Social Science Research, 37, 828-843. doi:
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.11.001
Author Information
MITCHELL, JOEL C. PhD. ABPP. Address: VA Puget Sound Health Care
System, University of Washington School of Medicine, 9600 Veterans
Drive, Tacoma, Washington 98493. Title: Psychologist. Degree: PhD
(Clinical Psychology) Rosemead School of Psychology, Biola University.
EDWARDS, KEITH J. PhD, PhD. Address: Biola University, Rosemead
School of Psychology, 13800 Biola Avenue, La Mirada, California 90639.
Title: Professor of psychology. Degree: PhD (Clinical and Social
Psychology) University of Southern California; PhD (Quantitative
Methods) New Mexico State University.
HUNT, SCOTT B. PhD. Address: VA Puget Sound Health Care System,
University of Washington School of Medicine, 9600 Veterans Drive,
Tacoma, Washington 98493. Title: Vice Chair, Research Training
Committee. Degree: PhD (Clinical Psychology) Fielding Graduate
University.
POELSTRA, PAUL L. PhD. Address: Biola University, Rosemead School
of Psychology, 13800 Biola Avenue, La Mirada, California 90639. Title:
Retired professor. Degree: PhD.
TABLE 1
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Characteristic n %
Male 67 38.7
Female 106 61.3
Ethnicity
African American 1 .6
Asian 10 5.9
Caucasian 150 88.8
Hispanic/Latino 5 3.0
Other 3 1.8
Missing 4
Income
$20,000-39,999 13 7.6
$40,000-59,999 39 22.9
$60,000-79,999 39 22.9
$80,000-99,999 31 18.2
$100,000 or more 48 28.2
Missing 3
Note. N = 173.
TABLE 2
Pearson Zero-Order Correlations Among Marital
Quality, Religiousness, and Relational Commitment
Relational Marital
Religiousness Commitment Quality
Religiousness -- .477 * .313 *
Relational .477 * .620 *
Commitment
Marital Quality .313 * .620 * --
Note. * p < .001.
TABLE 3
Regression Analysis Testing Relational Commitment
as Mediator of Religiousness to Marital Quality
[DELTA]
Step Predictors [R.sup.2] b (SE) [beta] t
1 Religiousness 0.098 * .67 (.17) 0.31 3.88 *
2 Religiousness 0.287 * .05 (.16) 0.02 0.283
Relational Commitment .91 (.11) 0.61 8.03 *
Note. Dependent Variable: Marital quality.
* p < .001.
