491748

research-article2013
JFI36210.1177/0192513X13491748Journal of Family Issues XX(X)Braithwaite et al.

Article
Journal of Family Issues
2015, Vol. 36(2) 212­–231
The Influence of Religion © The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
on the Partner Selection sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X13491748
Strategies of Emerging jfi.sagepub.com

Adults

Scott R. Braithwaite1, Gwen L. Coulson1,

Kersti Spjut1, Will Dickerson1, Austin R. Beck1,
Kelli Dougal1, Cassidy Debenham1,
and Dustin Jones1

Abstract
Previous research has suggested that religiosity is associated with positive
marital outcomes, but the underlying reasons for this association are not fully
understood. We tested the hypothesis that religion influences marriage via
partner selection strategies. Specifically, we hypothesized that proximal (more
than distal) religiosity would predict partner selection strategies that facilitates
positive marital outcomes; we also conducted exploratory analyses examining
the influence of religious affiliation. Using a novel methodology that allowed
for an examination of explicit and implicit attitudes, we tested our hypotheses
using a large sample of emerging adults (N = 437). Findings indicate that religion
influences partner selection preferences, but the effect is not uniformly positive.
Religious affiliation, not individual level religiosity (distal or proximal), was the
most robust predictor of mate-selection preferences. Possible explanations for
these findings and implications for intervention are discussed.

Keywords
dating/relationship formation, divorce/separation, dyadic relationship/quality/
satisfaction, mate selection, religion

1Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Corresponding Author:
Scott R. Braithwaite, Brigham Young University, Department of Psychological Sciences, 286
TLRB, Provo UT 84602, USA.
Email: srbraithwaite@byu.edu

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Braithwaite et al. 213

In recent years, there has been an influx of research examining the associa-
tion between religion and marital outcomes. Studying the influence of reli-
gion is complex because this construct is multifaceted; one can examine
religious affiliation, religiosity (usually defined as degree of participation in
religious activities), personal beliefs about religious doctrines, interpretations
of religious principles as applied to constructs such as marriage, or individual
spirituality (Call & Heaton, 1997). Much of the research on religion has
focused on the effect of overall religiosity on marital outcomes (see Mahoney
et al., 1999) and suggests that religiosity is associated with increased marital
stability (Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010). Religiosity has also been asso-
ciated with higher levels of forgiveness (O. A. Jose & Alfons, 2007), less
intimate partner violence (Ellison & Anderson, 2001), and overall marital
satisfaction (Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2001). Thus,
religiosity has consistently been associated with positive marital outcomes.

Distal Versus Proximal Religiosity and Marital Outcomes

Much of the research on religion and marital outcomes has conceptualized
religiosity as a nonspecific, distal construct that gives rise to behaviors tied to
formal, institutionalized religion (Cotton, Zebracki, Rosenthal, Tsevat, &
Drotar, 2006). Examples include church attendance, frequency of prayer, and
self-rated religious salience (Pargament, Tarakeshwar, Ellison, & Wulff,
2001). However, more recently research has begun to examine more specific—
or proximal—religiosity constructs that are defined using a personal belief/
meaning system, which gauge the functions of religion/spirituality for the
individual (Cotton et al., 2006; Pargament et al., 2001). Examples of such
proximal constructs include one’s relationship with God, intrinsic and extrin-
sic religious motivation, belief in Divine support, spiritual interconnected-
ness, and seeking spiritual support as a coping mechanism (Cotton et al.,
2006). Some of these proximal constructs target the integration of religion
and marriage; examples of these constructs are seeing marriage as having
sacred qualities or being a manifestation of God’s will and giving rise to
behaviors such as couples prayer, observance of religious holidays and ritu-
als, discussing how to follow God’s will, and so forth. Mahoney et al. (1999)
showed that proximal religious variables were associated with greater global
marital satisfaction, more perceived personal benefits from marriage, better
communication strategies, and less overall marital conflict; in contrast, distal
religiosity variables were not strong predictors of marital functioning. Fiese
and Tomcho (2001) similarly found proximal variables such as jointly par-
ticipating in religious holiday rituals were associated with marital satisfac-
tion, while the importance of religion to the family—a distal variable—had

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

214 Journal of Family Issues 36(2)

little effect on marital satisfaction. DeMaris, Mahoney, and Pargament (2010)

found that couples who view marriage as sanctified and a manifestation of
God’s will perceived more equity in the relationship across the transition to
parenthood; again, the effects of these proximal variables trumped the effects
of the distal religiosity variables. Given the consistency of this pattern of
results across studies, it is important to consider not just religiosity but also
specific manifestations of religiosity that highlight the confluence of religion
and marriage when examining the influence of religion on marriage
outcomes.

Religiosity, Religious Homogamy, and Religious Affiliation

Other religious variables examined in research on the association between
religion and marital outcomes include religiosity, religious homogamy, and
religious affiliation. Religiously homogamous couples (couples that belong
to the same religion) experience less domestic abuse (Ellison, Bartkowski, &
Anderson, 1999) and have more stable and more satisfying marriages (Lehrer
& Chiswick, 1993; Vaaler, Ellison, & Powers, 2009) than religiously heter-
ogamous couples. In contrast to homogamous marriages, religiously heter-
ogamous marriages (where partners have different views or affiliations) are
generally more likely to end in divorce. Using a nationally representative
sample, Lehrer and Chiswick (1993) found greater instability in intermar-
riages when there were large differences in religious beliefs, particularly if
one of the partners was not religiously affiliated (i.e., agnostic/atheist).
In addition to religious homogamy, specific religious affiliation seems to
exert a reliable influence on marital processes. Xu, Hudspeth, and Bartkowski
(2005) found denominational variations in the timing of first marriage.
Specifically, they found conservative Protestants and Mormons tend to marry
earlier than their unaffiliated counterparts, whereas Jews tend to marry later
than Catholics, who in turn, tend to marry later than both conservative
Protestants and Mormons. Similarly, Ellison, Burdette, and Glenn (2011)
found that women with any type of Christian religious affiliation—the most
pronounced effects were for conservative Protestants—were much more
likely to marry at an early age compared to religiously unaffiliated women.
Religious affiliation may affect marital processes because different religious
denominations hold distinctive theological perspectives on marriage and may
have strong doctrinal beliefs regarding marriage (Ellison et al., 2011).
In addition, broad religious affiliation is associated with positive marital
outcomes. Meta-analysis shows that religious affiliation is associated with
less divorce; across studies the average effect size for this association was
r = −.082 (Mahoney et al., 2001). Religious affiliation has also been associated

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Braithwaite et al. 215

with reduced likelihood of engaging in marital infidelity when compared to

those religiously unaffiliated (Burdette, Ellison, Sherkat, & Gore, 2007).
Based on the influence of religious affiliation on marital processes, it was
included as an exploratory variable in our analyses.

Why Is Religion Beneficial to Marriage?

Although the preceding research has established that religiosity, religious
homogamy, and religious affiliation correlate with positive marital outcomes,
the underlying reasons for this association are not fully understood. Butler,
Stout, and Gardner (2002) readily acknowledge that most of the research on
this topic has “failed to identify the specific components or factors of religi-
osity that are the active ingredients in yielding reported effects” (p. 21). One
theory is that the association between religion and positive relationship out-
comes may be mediated by partner selection strategies.
As previously stated, people who claimed to have a religious affiliation
were less likely to divorce than those who reported no religious affiliation.
However, in their meta-analysis, Mahoney et al. (2001) noted that, in certain
studies that controlled for demographic factors related to divorce, the link
between religious affiliation and divorce became nonsignificant (Breault &
Kposowa, 1987; Call & Heaton, 1997). This finding provides insight into the
potential mechanisms that might be at play in explaining the association
between religion and marital outcomes. If controlling for demographic fac-
tors attenuates the association between religious affiliation and divorce, then
it is possible that religion leads people to choose marriage partners differ-
ently. We hypothesize that religious individuals will select partners that are
more similar to themselves (i.e., more homogamous); religious people may
put a priority on “marrying within the faith” and, in so doing, end up with
partners that are homogamous to them on a number of traits. Therefore, we
will attempt to examine whether mate-selection strategies differ as a function
of religiosity.
In addition to homogamy, religious people may also use strategies such as
selecting for certain qualities, traits, or attributes that facilitate good marriage
outcomes. Vohs, Finkenauer, and Baumeister (2010) discuss the mate-
selection strategy in a study where they examined whether complementarity,
homogamy, or totality (large combined sums of positive traits) tended to pro-
duce the best relationship outcomes. They found that the totality (i.e., the sum
total of both partners’ scores) was associated with better outcomes than
homogamy on the trait of self-control. So it is possible that there are certain
variables for which homogamy is not the most predictive of good relationship
outcomes but rather “more is better.” Because financial security and

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

216 Journal of Family Issues 36(2)

education positively influence marital satisfaction (Dakin & Wampler, 2008;

Teachman, 2002), we examined whether religious people are more likely to
use homogamy or a “more is better” strategy with the adaptive traits of edu-
cation and income when describing their ideal marriage partner.
A final mechanism that might mediate the relationship between religion
and marital outcomes are attitudes toward cohabitation. According to Cobb,
Larson, and Watson (2003), many religious partners are conflicted on their
feelings about cohabitation before marriage and most have a general belief
that cohabitation before marriage will not increase their ability to strengthen
their future marriage. Research tends to support this belief; cohabitation has
been linked with negative marital outcomes (A. Jose, O’Leary, & Moyer,
2010; Stanley, Rhoades, Amato, Markman, & Johnson, 2010). Village,
Williams, and Francis (2010) found that “Christian affiliates” who frequently
attended church were 3.2 times less likely to cohabit than nonaffiliates.
Furthermore, Eggebeen and Dew (2009) found that adolescents that attended
worship services were less likely to cohabit than adolescents with no reli-
gious affiliation. Even though some religious partners may have conflicting
beliefs about cohabitation, we expect that most religious people will tend to
avoid cohabitation in their dating practices.

Hypotheses
Based on the research described above, we hypothesized that religiosity
would predict partner selection strategies among emerging adults that lead to
more homogamous unions. We also tested the hypothesis that in certain
domains (income and education) religious individuals may show a preference
for selecting for traits that facilitate stable marriages, specifically, by show-
ing a preference for a partner with a higher income and level of education.
Finally, we predicted that religious individuals would have less favorable
attitudes toward cohabitation. We predicted that proximal religiosity would
outperform distal religiosity in predicting the outcomes described above, and
we also conducted exploratory analysis to test for religious variations in the
dependent variables.

Method
Participants
Participants were 438 undergraduates enrolled in an introductory psychology
course at a large Southeastern university who participated for course credit.
Fifty-five percent of the participants were female. Participants self-identified

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Braithwaite et al. 217

their race as follows: 74% White, 10% Latino, 8% African American, 4%

Mixed/Biracial, 2% Asian, and 2% “Other.” Regarding relationship status,
51% were not dating, 15% had been dating for less than 4 months, 7% for 4
to 8 months, 7% for 8 to 12 months, and 20% for more than 1 year. Because
of an error in the survey, participants ages were not obtained; in similar sam-
ples from the same population the average age (SD) = 19.5 (2.03). There were
no inclusionary or exclusionary criteria for participation in the study.
Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to any data collection.
Participants self-identified their religious affiliation; these were then
coded using the scheme set forth by Smith (1990), which we modified slightly
to include the category “nondenominational Christian.” Our initial coding of
religions did not include this category, but a large number of respondents
selected the “Other (please specify)” option and wrote that they were
Christian but did not affiliate with any of the particular religions we had
listed, as such we were compelled to include this as a category. Religious
affiliations were 27% Catholic, 8% Conservative Protestant, 8% Moderate
Protestant, 7% Liberal Protestant, 27% nondenominational Christian, 5%
Jewish, 3% Other, and 13% no religious affiliation (agnostic/atheist).

Measurement
Our measures of religiosity were the Religious Commitment Inventory–10
(Worthington et al., 2003), a widely used measure of proximal religiosity that
asks questions like “I often read books and magazines about my faith.” In
similar samples the Religious Commitment Inventory–10 has shown good
internal consistency, test–retest reliability (3 weeks, r = .87), and good con-
vergent and discriminant validity; in our sample α = .96. We also used two
proximal religiosity measures (Mahoney et al., 1999), the Joint Religious
Activities Questionnaire, which measures the perceived importance of engag-
ing in joint religious activities with one’s significant other, and the
Manifestation of God Questionnaire, which measures the extent to which
participants see God as an agent in their relationship. The construct validity
of these scales was already described in the Introduction. In the present sam-
ple, alpha for the Joint Religious Activities Questionnaire was .97, and alpha
for Manifestation of God questionnaire was .98. These measures were modi-
fied slightly to make them appropriate for a premarital sample. For example,
for the Joint Religious Activities Questionnaire, the instructions said, “Please
indicate how often you and your future spouse will do each of the following”:
The questions from the original scale were modified to reflect the future
tense; for example, “My spouse and I pray together” was modified to say,
“My spouse and I will pray together.”

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

218 Journal of Family Issues 36(2)

Finally, attitudes toward cohabitation were measured using the following

questions: “It’s a good idea to put a relationship to the test by living together
before getting married”; “Couples should not live together before marriage”;
“If a couple lives together before getting married, they have a better chance
of staying married”; “Couples who put a relationship to the test by living
together before getting married are less likely to divorce.” Internal consis-
tency for these items was good (α = .91). A confirmatory factor analysis
where a one-factor model was imposed on the items provided a good fit,
χ2(1) = .05, p < .823, comparative fit index = 1.00, Tucker–Lewis index = 1.00,
root mean square error of approximation = .00.

Procedure
The study design was cross-sectional; participants were asked to complete a
battery of questionnaires in one sitting in a large classroom. After providing
their own demographic information and completing intervening question-
naires, respondents were given the following prompt: “The following ques-
tions ask you to describe the background and characteristics of your ideal
husband or wife. Please select the response that best describes the type of
person you would like to marry.” The items had prompts such as the follow-
ing: “Education completed by ideal husband/wife” and then options for lev-
els of education (e.g., “Bachelor’s Degree”). These questions mirrored the
demographic questions respondents answered about themselves at the begin-
ning of the survey, allowing for an examination of similarity/dissimilarity of
responses on demographic factors that influence marriage outcomes.

Data Analysis Plan

To test our hypothesis, we used multiple regression (logistic, ordinal, and
ordinary least squares as appropriate) to test our hypotheses. In each analysis,
we first entered the distal religiosity variable followed by the proximal religi-
osity variables (to see if proximal religiosity contributed significant, unique
variance when accounting for distal religiosity) and finally the exploratory
religious affiliation variable. To conduct a regression with a categorical pre-
dictor like religious affiliation, one group must be omitted from the analysis
in order to scale the regression model (not unlike the scale dependency issue
in structural equation modeling); the omitted group becomes the comparison
group for all other groups. To ensure a reliable comparison group, we chose
the largest group in our sample—Catholics—as the comparison group. To
ensure that asking questions about religion was not priming participants to
weight religion more heavily in describing their ideal partner, we asked

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Braithwaite et al. 219

Table 1. How Likely to Choose Partner From Different Religion?

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable OR SE OR SE OR SE
RCI10 0.98 0.01 0.97 0.02 0.96 0.02
Manifestation of God 1.01 0.01 1.01 0.01
Join religious activities 0.99 0.01 0.99 0.01
Conservative Protestant 2.05 1.05
Moderate Protestant 3.46** 1.54
Liberal Protestant 3.82** 1.73
Nondenominational Protestant 0.34** 0.14
Jewish 0.56 0.39
Other 0.99 0.72
Not affiliated 0.44 0.22
Pseudo R2 0.01 0.01 0.11
Wald χ2 Δ 2.13 2.76 34.24***

Note. OR = odds ratio; SE = standard error; RCI10 = Religious Commitment Inventory–10.

***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

approximately half of the participants questions about religion before describ-

ing their ideal partner and the other half only after they had already described
their ideal partner. We created a dummy variable indicating whether partici-
pants had received religiosity questions before describing their ideal partner
(coded as 1) or after (coded as 0). When this “religious prime” dummy vari-
able was included in each of the regression models, there was no evidence of
a priming effect.

Results
Are There Religious Variations in Preferences for Religious
Homogamy?
As can be seen in Table 1, neither distal religiosity nor the proximal religios-
ity variables significantly predicted a preference for marrying outside of
one’s own religious group. However, including religious group affiliation
significantly improved model prediction, Wald χ2(7) = 34.24, p > .001,
pseudo R2 = .11. Unexpectedly, this suggests that religious group affiliation
was a better predictor of ideal partner preferences for religious homogamy
than either distal or proximal religiosity variables. Specifically, Moderate
Protestants were 246% more likely and Liberal Protestants 282% more likely
to marry outside their own religious group. In contrast, nondenominational

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

220 Journal of Family Issues 36(2)

Christians were 67% less likely to marry outside of their religious group;
nondenominational Christians were the only religious group to show a statis-
tically significant preference for marrying within their own religious group.
Interestingly, unaffiliated respondents (atheists/agnostic) had a nonsignifi-
cant trend (p = .11) toward a preference for a partner within their same reli-
gious group—they were 56% less likely than Catholics to marry outside their
religious group.

Are There Religious Variations in Preferences for Racial

Homogamy?
Neither distal religiosity nor the proximal religiosity variables significantly
predicted a preference for marrying a racially heterogamous partner (coded
as 1; racially homogamous partners were coded as 0). We were unable to
include all religious groups in the regression model because all Jewish
respondents indicated they would only marry someone who was Jewish
(making the Jewish dummy variable a constant); to remedy this, Jewish
respondents were removed from the analysis. Again, including religious
group affiliation significantly improved model prediction (Wald χ2 = 15.28,
p = .02, pseudo R2 = .05), suggesting that religious group affiliation was a
better predictor of ideal partner racial homogamy preferences than distal or
proximal religiosity. Specifically, “Other” respondents were 401% and unaf-
filiated respondents were 260% more likely to choose a racially heteroga-
mous partner. We are hesitant to draw any firm conclusions from the finding
for the “Other” religious group given how small (n = 12) and heterogeneous1
this group is. Finally, it should also be noted that Jewish respondents showed
a strong, practically significant preference for racial homogamy, although
statistical significance tests were impossible to perform (since the mean and
standard deviation for Jewish respondents were 0).

Are There Religious Variations in Preferences for Educational

Homogamy?
In addition to the variables used in previous models, we included sex as a
covariate in this model given known sex differences in rates of completion
of college, graduate, and professional degrees (Buchmann, DiPrete, &
McDaniel, 2008). We conducted a logistic regression with religious group
affiliation as a categorical predictor of educational homogamy (same level of
education = 0, different level of education = 1). In Model 1, we included a
“male” dummy variable (female = 0, male = 1) as a predictor of education
homogamy preference; being male was associated with 60% increase in a

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Braithwaite et al. 221

Table 2. Does Religious Affiliation Influence Preferences for Partner Education?

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Variable OR SE OR SE OR SE OR SE
Male 0.44*** 0.09 0.46*** 0.09 0.43*** 0.09 0.45*** 0.09
RCI10 1.02 0.01 1.03 0.02 1.03 0.02
Manifestation of God 1.01 0.01 1.01 0.01
Join religious activities 0.98* 0.01 0.98˜ 0.01
Conservative Protestant 1.23 0.55
Moderate Protestant 0.89 0.36
Liberal Protestant 0.84 0.33
Nondenominational 0.47** 0.12
Protestant
Jewish 0.85 0.44
Other 1.09 0.72
Not affiliated 1.10 0.40
Pseudo R2 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04
Wald χ2 Δ 17.40*** 2.58 4.70 12.83˜

Note. OR = odds ratio; SE = standard error; RCI10 = Religious Commitment Inventory–10.

The analysis is an ordinal logistic regression where odds ratios indicate the probability of
moving up or down the ordinal scale relative to all lower or higher options.
***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. ˜p = .07.

preference for educational heterogamy. None of the other variables signifi-

cantly predicted ideal partner preferences for educational homogamy, nor did
these variables significantly attenuate the “male” effect (on the contrary, in
the full model being male was associated with a 70% increase in educational
heterogamy preferences). Contrary to our hypothesis, religiosity does not
predict ideal partner educational homogamy preferences, but being male pre-
dicted a preference for having a partner with differing levels of education.
We examine the direction of these effects below.

A Different Strategy . . . More Education Is Better?

Perhaps instead of using the strategy that similarity is better, participants’
implicit strategy is that more education is desirable regardless of their own
plans for education. To test this hypothesis, we conducted an ordinal logistic
regression predicting the ideal partner’s level of education (e.g., high school
diploma, some college, associate’s, etc.).
In Model 1, a “male” dummy variable was entered (0 = female, 1 = male;
see Table 2) into the regression equation. Being male was significantly

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

222 Journal of Family Issues 36(2)

associated with a preference for a partner with less education; specifically,

males were 56% more likely to choose a partner with a lower level of educa-
tion. Initially, distal religiosity did not have a significant effect on ideal part-
ner education preferences; however when the proximal religiosity variables
were entered in Model 3, distal religiosity was then significantly associated
with a preference for a partner with more education as was the Joint Religious
Activities measure. When religious affiliation was entered in Model 4, distal
religiosity became nonsignificant (p = .10) and the proximal religiosity vari-
able (intent to engage in joint religious activities with one’s spouse) was only
a marginally significant predictor (p = .07). Including religious affiliation
marginally improved model fit and showed that nondenominational Christians
tended to prefer partners with less education. In sum, we provided support for
the hypothesis that religiosity would predict ideal partner preferences regard-
ing education as proximal religiosity was marginally predictive of a prefer-
ence for a partner with more education in the full model (both distal and
proximal religiosity were significant predictors prior to entering our explor-
atory religious affiliation variable) such that each 1 point increase on the
Joint Religious Activities scale was associated with a 2% increase in likeli-
hood of choosing a partner with more education. On the other hand, our
exploratory analysis of religious affiliation showed a preference among non-
denominational Christians for a partner with less education.

Are There Religious Variations in Preferences for Partner Income?

We examined whether there were preferences for financial homogamy by
comparing ideal partner’s income with the respondent’s parents’ income
because, we reasoned, the family-of-origin’s income is the closest approxi-
mation of what an individual would expect for their future lifestyle. Our mea-
sure of income split incomes into ordered categories such as $35 to $50,000.
We created a homogamy variable by comparing whether the ideal partners
income category matched respondent’s family-of-origin income category
(coded as 0) or whether the ideal partner had a different category of income
from the respondent’s family of origin (coded as 1). Then we used logistic
regression to assess the influence of our independent variables on the income
homogamy variable. None of our independent variables significantly pre-
dicted income difference scores.

A Different Strategy . . . More Income Better?

As with education, we examined whether a different strategy was being used
where individuals were not looking for homogamy, but instead operating
under the implicit strategy that more income is desirable regardless of the

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Braithwaite et al. 223

Table 3. Does Religion Influence Preferences for Partner Income?

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable OR SE OR SE OR SE
RCI10 1.00 0.01 0.97 0.02 0.97 0.02
Manifestation of God 1.03*** 0.01 1.03*** 0.01
Join religious activities 0.99 0.01 0.99 0.01
Conservative Protestant 1.80 0.91
Moderate Protestant 0.75 0.34
Liberal Protestant 1.42 0.65
Nondenominational 0.75 0.23
Protestant
Jewish 1.82 1.09
Other 0.41 0.26
Not affiliated 1.06 0.46
Pseudo R2 0.00 0.02 0.03
Wald χ2 Δ 0.11 15.11*** 0.30

Note. OR = odds ratio; SE = standard error; RCI10 = Religious Commitment Inventory–10.

***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05.

income in their family-of-origin. To test this question, we conducted an ordi-

nal logistic regression with ideal partner income as our dependent variable.
As can be seen in Table 3, distal religiosity did not predict ideal partner
income preferences, but proximal religiosity (the Manifestation of God scale)
did predict ideal husband/wife income; specifically, in the full model an
increase of one on this scale (where scores range from 14 to 98) corresponded
with a 3% increase in likelihood of wanting a partner in a higher income
category. None of the other variables significantly predicted ideal partner
income preferences. So in support of our hypothesis, proximal religiosity sig-
nificantly predicted preferences for a partner with more income.

Are There Religious Variations in Attitudes About Cohabitation?

Visual inspection and the Shapiro–Wilk test detected statistically significant
nonnormality in the distribution of the cohabitation measure, so a square
transformation was applied. Ordinary least squares regression was used (see
Table 4). Distal religiosity significantly predicted less favorable attitudes
toward cohabitation in all steps of the model; in the full model, β = −.16.
Proximal religiosity also predicted less favorable attitudes toward cohabitation,
but only the Joint Religious Activities questionnaire retained significance in

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

224 Journal of Family Issues 36(2)

Table 4. Does Religion Influence Cohabitation Attitudes?

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Variable B SE β B SE β B SE β
RCI10 −0.35*** 0.04 −0.45 −0.12* 0.06 −0.16 −0.13* 0.06 −0.16
Manifestation of God −0.06* 0.02 −0.18 −0.04 0.03 −0.12
Join religious activities −0.07* 0.03 −0.20 −0.07* 0.03 −0.21
Conservative 0.62 1.62 0.02
Protestant
Moderate Protestant −1.15 1.51 −0.04
Liberal Protestant 1.45 1.54 0.05
Nondenominational 1.13 1.00 0.06
Protestant
Jewish 1.31 1.89 0.03
Other 1.10 2.28 0.02
Not affiliated 2.34 1.42 0.09
R2 0.20 0.25 0.26
FΔ 99.70*** 11.74*** 0.74

Note. RCI10 = Religious Commitment Inventory–10.

***p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .5.

the full model (β = −.21). Religious affiliation did not significantly predict
cohabitation attitudes.

Discussion
Previous research has found that religion is associated with improved mari-
tal outcomes, though previous research has not identified mechanisms that
might mediate the relationship between these variables. In the current study,
we suggested that partner selection might be an important mechanism of
action influencing marital outcomes; specifically, we proposed that more
religious people would demonstrate preferences for more homogamous
partners with higher levels of education and income and unfavorable atti-
tudes toward cohabitation. Regarding preferences for religious homogamy,
nondenominational Protestants were the only religious group to show a sig-
nificant preference for marrying within their own religious group. In con-
trast, moderate and liberal Protestants expressed significant preferences for
religiously heterogamous partners. Regarding racial homogamy, Jewish
respondents showed a strong preference for homogamy, whereas those with
no religious affiliation demonstrated a preference for a racially heteroga-
mous partner. Regarding partner educational attainment, males (across all

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Braithwaite et al. 225

denominations) and nondenominational Protestants demonstrated a prefer-

ence for partners with less education. Regarding preferences for partner
income, proximal religiosity was associated with a preference for a partner
with more income. Regarding cohabitation attitudes, distal and proximal
religiosity independently predicted negative cohabitation attitudes. Together,
these findings provide evidence that religion influences partner selection pref-
erences, but the effect of religion is not uniformly positive and—surprisingly—
religious affiliation, not individual level religiosity (distal or proximal), was
the most robust predictor of mate-selection preferences.
It was surprising that religious affiliation was the most consistent predic-
tor of respondents’ preferences for their ideal partner—clearly we didn’t
anticipate its influence given that our hypotheses focused on individual-level
religiosity and included religious affiliation as an exploratory component of
the study. Recent research on religion and marriage has favored the theory
that proximal, individual-level religiosity variables are the best predictors of
attitudes and behavior relevant to marriage (Mahoney, Pargament,
Tarakeshwar, & Swank, 2001). In our study, however, general and proximal
religiosity significantly predicted preferences for ideal husband/wife income
and the respondent’s cohabitation attitudes but nothing else. Religious affili-
ation was the only variable that was significantly associated with preferences
for religious homogamy, racial homogamy, and partner education attain-
ment. Thus, despite the current thinking about the primacy of proximal reli-
giosity, our findings suggest that the influence of religious affiliation among
emerging adults is not trivial and cannot be ignored. We suggest that future
research on this topic account for the influence of religious affiliation, per-
haps as a level two predictor in multilevel models.
Why was religious affiliation such a potent predictor in our study? Perhaps
this can be partially explained by the fact that virtually all research on the role
of religion in marriage focuses on married couples; in contrast, our study
examined the mate-selection preferences of emerging adults. Emerging
adulthood is a developmental phase when ideas and attitudes are often in flux
(Arnett, 2000). Perhaps prior to marriage, religious affiliation is a better pre-
dictor of preferences because religious affiliation most closely reflects the
religious inclinations of premarital, young adults. That is, the religion they
practiced—or not—in their family-of-origin is the most influential force in
shaping religious attitudes. Then, after marriage, once nascent attitudes have
cohered into more personal convictions that are best assessed using measures
of proximal religiosity. An examination of how religion manifests itself in
marriage and family life over the course of relationships from pre–partner
selection to partner selection and courtship to engagement, marriage and
early years of marriage would be an interesting topic to explore in future

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

226 Journal of Family Issues 36(2)

research. Such an approach would be especially timely given recent evidence

suggesting religious homogamy is becoming a less important priority among
emerging adults (Boxer, Noonan, & Whelan, 2015).
Another reason religious affiliation may exert such a potent influence is
related to group norms. Terry and Hogg (1996) showed that perceived group
norms strongly influence behavior, particularly if individuals strongly iden-
tify with the group. In fact, the effect of implied rules, attitudes, and the per-
ceived behavior of other group members have comparable predictive power
to the effect of perceived consequences of engaging in a behavior. As such,
we might infer that group norms for different religions exist and that these
convey implicit strategies for mate selection. This is similar to the idea of
social capital in the sociology literature; social capital can take the form of
group norms, which are usually accompanied by sanctions for violation of
these norms (Coleman, 1988). It is possible that in the context of one’s
church, unspoken norms promote homogamy/heterogamy or the notion that
one should seek a partner who will accumulate wealth.
In contrast to the finding that affiliation drove partner preferences, respon-
dents’ attitudes toward cohabitation were more strongly influenced by religi-
osity (both general and specific) than religious affiliation. Perhaps this shows
that the norms of the religious group do much in determining mate-selection
strategies when the strategies are implicit, but that explicit strategies (e.g.,
“don’t live together prior to marriage”) are better explained by individual
religiosity because they are explicitly conveyed by religious groups. It is fur-
ther possible that these associations reflect the sanctification of marriage in
the minds of those who are religious (Mahoney et al., 2008) such that they are
less accepting of cohabitation because they see it as a counterfeit form of the
sanctified institution of marriage. In a longitudinal study spanning decades,
Thornton and colleagues found that religiosity (but not religious affiliation)
predicted whether or not an individual would cohabit prior to marriage. The
present study replicates this pattern of results by showing that religiosity—
and not religious affiliation—predicts cohabitation attitudes. Our work extends
these findings by showing that religious affiliation—and not religiosity—
robustly predicts ideal-partner preferences. Future work in this area should
examine these findings longitudinally to see whether this pattern of findings
replicates and translates into actual behavior and whether implicit partner
selection strategies are more associated with cultural and religious identifica-
tion and explicit mate-selection strategies with individual religiosity and/or
sanctification. We also suggest that future research examine whether strength
of group identification moderates the association between religious affilia-
tion and partner selection preferences. It would also be interesting to explore
what norms exist in different religions, how cognitively accessible these
norms are and by what method they are conveyed.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Braithwaite et al. 227

Why did males (across religious affiliations) and nondenominational

Christians express a preference for a less educated partner? Previous research
has shown that there are religious variations in educational egalitarianism
between partners and the importance of clearly defined sex roles (Heaton &
Cornwall, 1989). The present study adds to this body of knowledge by show-
ing that these patterns may have their roots in the mate-selection strategies of
males and nondenominational Christians, though the current results require
replication. Perhaps, the pattern of preferring a less educated partner is part
of a strategy for division of labor wherein the respondent wants to pursue
further education while the spouse supports him/her or wherein males want
their spouse to raise children in the home rather than working outside the
home. This would be consistent with Becker’s (1973) theory of complemen-
tarity in marriage where mates specialize such that men primarily focus on
generating income and women primarily focus on childrearing. This pattern
could also reflect internalized group norms; most respondents in this age
group observed parents with this educational arrangement and have encoded
this pattern as the ideal. Historically, men have been more educated, but this
trend has reversed in recent decades where now women are more likely to
graduate from college and attend graduate school than men (Buchmann et al.,
2008). Future research might examine whether these preferences translate
into behavior for this age group.

Implications for Intervention

The majority of premarital education focuses on newlywed couples—
partnerships where mate selection has already occurred. In addition to these
existing interventions, we suggest offering interventions that are delivered
prior to mate selection and that teach empirically informed principles related
to partner selection. Because many variables that exert a reliable impact on
marital outcomes can be known prior to mate selection (Braithwaite &
Fincham, 2013), this could potentially improve our efforts to prevent marital
distress and divorce. Specifically, early mate-selection-focused interventions
would teach partners about fixed enduring vulnerabilities (e.g., parental
divorce, cohabitation), and then traditional interventions will continue to
focus on helping couples develop skills to affect malleable adaptive pro-
cesses (e.g., communication patterns). Given that the majority of premarital
education occurs in churches and synagogues (Stanley, Amato, Johnson, &
Markman, 2006), these might be a good place to offer these interventions—
others have tried this to good effect (Markman et al., 2004). A two-tiered
approach to premarital education that focuses on both partner selection (at the
appropriate time) and communication skills (after selecting a partner) may
prove more beneficial than either intervention alone.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

228 Journal of Family Issues 36(2)

Inevitably, our study has limitations. We didn’t study actual mate-selection

behavior, only ideal partner preferences. An ideal study would follow indi-
viduals from entry into the marriage market, dating, engagement, and many
years into marriage to determine which marriages are most successful.
Furthermore, we looked only at the influence of religion in this study; there are
surely many other influences that we did not account for such as family-of-
origin variables. Additionally, our sample was not large enough to capture the
full range of religions. We would love to see future research that incorporates
larger numbers of traditionally near- and far-Eastern religions. Finally, given
the limitations of an undergraduate sample, we recommend future research
seek to replicate these findings in a large, nationally representative sample.
Our study also has a number of strengths. To our knowledge, this is the
first study examining the influence of religion on the mate-selection strate-
gies of emerging adults. Our novel methodology asked respondents about
their mate-selection strategy in a way that did not sound like they are being
asked about their mate-selection strategy. This allowed us to tap explicit and
implicit mate-selection strategies; specifically, if one asked respondents to
verbalize some of the strategies that we uncovered, they may not have been
able to do so. But by asking them to report the demographics of their ideal
partner and then comparing these to the respondent’s demographics, we were
able to see strategies that are implicit (i.e., not as cognitively accessible).
Furthermore, we used sophisticated measures of religiosity and religious
group identification; poor measurement of religiosity is a problem that is
present in much of the research on religion and marriage (Mahoney et al.,
2008). Finally our data were appropriately analyzed rather than using ordi-
nary least squares regression for every analysis regardless of the data type
(i.e., count, interval).
Some have argued that in matters of love, “the heart rules the head” and
that attempts to regulate the mate-selection process are probably futile.
Lykken and Tellegen (1993) said that pair bonding in humans occurs in a
pattern that seems random and not unlike imprinting in birds; romantic infat-
uation causes us to pair and then—if we are fortunate—the infatuation per-
sists long enough to allow us to transition into a companionate love that can
sustain marriage over the long term. Can premarital education influence this
process in a way that makes sustaining healthy relationships more likely?
This is an important question that deserves more empirical attention—we
look forward to seeing the answer unfold.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Braithwaite et al. 229

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Notes
1. “Other” affiliations—three Hindus, two Muslims, and one of each of the follow-
ing: Deist, Coptic Orthodox Christian, LDS, Buddhist, Greek Orthodox, “Half-
Jewish/Half-Catholic,” and “Jedi.”

References
Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
Boxer, C., Noonan, M., & Whelan, C. (2015). Measuring mate preferences: A replica-
tion and extension. Journal of Family Issues, 36, 163-187.
Becker, G. S. (1973). A theory of marriage: Part I. Journal of Political Economy, 81, 813-846.
Braithwaite, S. R., & Fincham, F. D. (2013). Correlates of marital dysfunction: A
measure of knowledge and attitudes. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Breault, K. D., & Kposowa, A. J. (1987). Explaining divorce in the United States: A
study of 3,111 counties, 1980. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 49, 549-558.
doi:10.2307/352200
Buchmann, C., DiPrete, T. A., & McDaniel, A. (2008). Gender inequalities in
education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 319-337. doi:10.1146/annurev.
soc.34.040507.134719
Burdette, A. M., Ellison, C. G., Sherkat, D. E., & Gore, K. A. (2007). Are there reli-
gious variations in marital infidelity? Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1553-1581.
doi:10.1177/0192513X07304269
Butler, M. H., Stout, J. A., & Gardner, B. C. (2002). Prayer as a conflict resolution
ritual: Clinical implications of religious couples’ report of relationship soften-
ing, healing perspective, and change responsibility. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 30(1), 19-37. doi:10.1080/019261802753455624
Call, V. R. A., & Heaton, T. B. (1997). Religious influence on marital stability.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 382-392. doi:10.2307/1387856
Cobb, N. P., Larson, J. H., & Watson, W. L. (2003). Development of the attitudes about
romance and mate selection scale. Family Relations, 52, 222-231. doi:10.1111/
j.1741-3729.2003.00222.x
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
Cotton, S., Zebracki, K., Rosenthal, S. L., Tsevat, J., & Drotar, D. (2006). Religion/
spirituality and adolescent health outcomes: A review. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 38, 472-480. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.10.005
Dakin, J., & Wampler, R. (2008). Money doesn’t buy happiness, but it helps: Marital
satisfaction, psychological distress, and demographic differences between low-
and middle-income clinic couples. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36,
300-311. doi:10.1080/01926180701647512

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

230 Journal of Family Issues 36(2)

DeMaris, A., Mahoney, A., & Pargament, K. I. (2010). Sanctification of marriage

and general religiousness as buffers of the effects of marital inequity. Journal of
Family Issues, 31, 1255-1278.
Eggebeen, D., & Dew, J. (2009). The role of religion in adolescence for family
formation in young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 108-121.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00583.x
Ellison, C. G., & Anderson, K. L. (2001). Religious involvement and domestic
violence among U.S. couples. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40,
269-286. doi:10.1111/0021-8294.00055
Ellison, C. G., Bartkowski, J. P., & Anderson, K. L. (1999). Are there religious varia-
tions in domestic violence? Journal of Family Issues, 20, 87-113.
Ellison, C. G., Burdette, A. M., & Glenn, N. D. (2011). Praying for Mr. Right?
religion, family background, and marital expectations among college women.
Journal of Family Issues, 32, 906-931. doi:10.1177/0192513X10393143
Ellison, C. G., Burdette, A. M., & Wilcox, W. B. (2010). The couple that prays
together: Race and ethnicity, religion, and relationship quality among working-
age adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 963-975.
Fiese, B. H., & Tomcho, T. J. (2001). Finding meaning in religious practices: The
relation between religious holiday rituals and marital satisfaction. Journal of
Family Psychology, 15, 597-609.
Heaton, T. B., & Cornwall, M. (1989). Religious group variation in the socioeco-
nomic status and family behavior of women. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 28, 283-299. doi:10.2307/1386740
Jose, A., O’Leary, K. D., & Moyer, A. (2010). Does premarital cohabitation pre-
dict subsequent marital stability and marital quality? A meta-analysis. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 72, 105-116.
Jose, O. A., & Alfons, V. (2007). Religiosity and forgiveness among first-married
and remarried adults. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 10, 379-394.
doi:10.1080/13674670600785545
Lehrer, E. L., & Chiswick, C. U. (1993). Religion as a determinant of marital stability.
Demography, 30, 385-404.
Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1993). Is human mating adventitious or the result of
lawful choice? A twin study of mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 65, 56-68.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., Scott, E., & Rye, M. (1999).
Marriage and the spiritual realm: The role of proximal and distal religious con-
structs in marital functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 13, 321-328.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion
in the home in the 1980s and 1990s: A meta-analytic review and conceptual
analysis of links between religion, marriage, and parenting. Journal of Family
Psychology, 15, 559-596. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.15.4.559
Markman, H. J., Whitton, S. W., Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Thompson, H.,
St. Peters, M., & Cordova, A. (2004). Use of an empirically based marriage
education program by religious organizations: Results of a dissemination trial.
Family Relations, 53, 504-512. doi:10.1111/j.0197-6664.2004.00059.x

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016

Braithwaite et al. 231

Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., Ellison, C. G., & Wulff, K. M. (2001). Religious
coping among the religious: The relationships between religious coping and well-
being in a national sample of Presbyterian clergy, elders, and members. Journal
for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40, 497-513. doi:10.1111/0021-8294.00073
Smith, T. W. (1990). Classifying Protestant denominations. Review of Religious
Research, 31, 225-245.
Stanley, S. M., Amato, P. R., Johnson, C. A., & Markman, H. J. (2006). Premarital
education, marital quality, and marital stability: Findings from a large, random
household survey. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 117-126. doi:10.1037/0893-
3200.20.1.117
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Amato, P. R., Markman, H. J., & Johnson, C. A.
(2010). The timing of cohabitation and engagement: Impact on first and second
marriages. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 906-918.
Teachman, J. D. (2002). Stability across cohorts in divorce risk factors. Demography,
39, 331-351.
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relation-
ship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
22, 776-793. doi:10.1177/0146167296228002
Vaaler, M. L., Ellison, C. G., & Powers, D. A. (2009). Religious influences on the risk
of marital dissolution. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 917-934.
Village, A., Williams, E., & Francis, L. J. (2010). Living in sin? Religion and cohabi-
tation in Britain 1985-2005. Marriage & Family Review, 46, 468-479. doi:10.10
80/01494929.2010.528710
Vohs, K. D., Finkenauer, C., & Baumeister, R. F. (2010). The sum of friends’ and
lovers’ self-control scores predicts relationship quality. Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 2, 138-145. doi:10.1177/1948550610385710
Worthington, E. L., Jr., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M.
E., Berry, J. W., & O’Connor. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory–10:
Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counsel-
ing. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 84-96. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.50.1.84
Xu, X., Hudspeth, C. D., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2005). The timing of first marriage:
Are there religious variations? Journal of Family Issues, 26, 584-618. doi:10.11
77/0192513X04272398

Downloaded from jfi.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016