Belief and Behavior: Does Religion Matter in Today's Marriage?

Abstract

In this study the impact of changes in religiosity on marital quality and vice versa is examined. Using longitudinal data from a national sample of married persons, we assess the extent to which changes in religious involvement influence marital quality and the extent to which changes in marital quality affect religiosity. Because most prior studies of this topic have been cross-sectional, our work fills a major research gap. We address two questions: (a) Do changes in religiosity alter marital quality or vice versa, and (b) if either change occurs, what aspects of marital quality and religiosity are involved? Social scientists have a long history of research attempting to explain how religious sentiments direct social action (e.g., Davidson, 1972; Moberg, 1982; see Warner, 1993 for a careful review of early work on the topic). Ever since the 19th century, theorists--most notably Durkheim --have examined the way in which beliefs about the supernatural direct, legitimate, and support social activity (Turner, 1991; Wilson, 1982). More recently, however, scholars have questioned religion's capacity to serve as a socially integrative force in contemporary society, emphasizing that modernization has diminished the power of religious institutions to exercise social control (D'Antonio, 1983; Hargrove, 1983, p. 44). The relation between religion and families is one key area in which the question of religion's social integrative function is at issue. Noting that traditional conceptions of marital obligations based on external controls have been eroded by modernization, scholars have suggested that religious institutions might come to play a different role than that of negative social control. Rather than attempting to reinforce traditional conceptions of marital obligations, some theorists have argued that religious institutions need to provide support and nurturance for the patterns of family life as they currently exist (Aldous, 1983; D'Antonio, 1983; Hargrove, 1983). Although Aldous, D'Antonio, and Hargrove prescribed this development and did not observe it happening in any substantial way, cross-sectional studies show contemporary religion to be modestly related to marital well-being (e.g., Albrecht, 1979; Bahr & Chadwick, 1985; Ellison, 1991; Glenn & Supancic, 1984; Greeley, 1991; Pollner, 1989; Wilson & Filsinger, 1986). One of the most intriguing studies on this topic is reported in Judith Stacey's book, Brave New Families (1990), an in-depth study of two working-class women's families residing in the Silicon Valley. Both women have strong feminist views, which are reflected in their approach to finding and keeping their jobs. At the same time, both are converts to a paternalistic fundamentalist religion in which they are actively involved. While the juxtaposition of the two behaviors challenges our predilection to see consistency in attitudes and social processes, the benefits of the two streams of behavior are clear for the women studied. According to Stacey, the feminist views and the support to and from other women that they entail helped the two women get and keep jobs and deal with unemployment. The fundamentalist religion improved their marriage and family life. The rise in religious participation appeared to increase the male's (and to some extent the female's) ability to hold a steady job, drink less, and be less abusive in relations with family and spouse. Though the study has limited generalizability, it reveals religion as a source of support and strength in nontraditional family life. One of the study's further strengths is its longitudinal design. Stacey was able to track the women in her study during the course of their conversion to a fundamentalist religion. Unlike the cross-sectional researchers, however, Stacey is the first to associate a change in religiosity with improved marital quality. Parallel changes increase the probability that the observed relationship between changes in religiosity and marital quality are causal in nature. …

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 177 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.