Citation
Psychometric analysis of a new measure of couples religious homogamy

Material Information

Title:
Psychometric analysis of a new measure of couples religious homogamy
Alternate title:
The spiritual homogamy and religioius experiences (share) scale
Creator:
Grigsby, Megan E. ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (121 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Religiousness ( lcsh )
Identification (Religion) ( lcsh )
Identification (Religion) ( fast )
Religiousness ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
Religious homogamy has generally been found to predict positive relationship outcomes; however, there is lack of standardization and depth of measurement. Previous research demonstrated associations between relationship quality and health outcomes, religiousness and health outcomes and religiousness and relationship outcomes; however, there is a paucity of research studying how these three areas are associated. Consequently, this study investigated a proposed scale designed to better represent the multiple facets of religious homogamy, the Spiritual Homogamy and Religious Experiences scale (SHARE) and sought to determine if the SHARE predicts decreased perceived stress beyond relationship satisfaction and commitment. The results of Phase 1 and 2 indicate that SHARE exhibited a reasonable fit, construct validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity, with good internal consistency. Further, the data in Phase 1 and Phase 2 supported a three factor model for the SHARE, including Homogamous Beliefs, Homogamous Practices, and Practicing Together. The results also suggest that age, relationship satisfaction, and religious homogamy explain approximately 24% of the variance in perceived stress, with religious homogamy accounting for an additional 3.7% reduction of perceived stress beyond what is accounted for by relationship satisfaction and age. Further, the results suggest that age, relationship commitment, and religious homogamy (without the Homogamous Acceptance subscale) explained approximately 20% of the variance in perceived stress, with religious homogamy accounting for an additional 5% reduction of perceived stress beyond what is accounted for by relationship commitment and age. Overall, it appears that religious homogamy is a multifaceted construct and the SHARE is an acceptable measure of religious homogamy. Additionally, it appears that religious homogamy predicts perceived stress beyond relationship qualities which have previously been shown to predict perceived stress. Because most studies have relied on a narrow range of indicators, such as attendance and affiliation, it will be important for future researchers to consider broadening their measurement of religious homogamy.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.) University of Colorado Denver.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references,
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
General Note:
Department of Psychology
Statement of Responsibility:
by Megan E. Grigsby.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
925375193 ( OCLC )
ocn925375193
Classification:
LD1193.L645 2015m G75 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF A NEW MEASURE OF COUPLES RELIGIOUS
HOMOGAMY: THE SPIRITUAL HOMOGAMY AND
RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES (SHARE) SCALE
by
MEGAN E. GRIGSBY
B.A., Cedarville University, 2011
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Clinical Health Psychology Program
2015


This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by
Megan E. Grigsby
has been approved for the
Clinical Health Psychology Program
by
Kevin S. Masters, Chair
Elizabeth S. Allen
Krista W. Ranby
Date: 7/6/2015


Grigsby, Megan E. (M. A., Clinical Health Psychology)
Psychometric Analysis of a New Measure of Religious Homogamy Within a Couple: The
Spiritual Homogamy and Religious Experiences (SHARE) Scale
Thesis directed by Professor Kevin S. Masters
ABSTRACT
Religious homogamy has generally been found to predict positive relationship outcomes;
however, there is lack of standardization and depth of measurement. Previous research
demonstrated associations between relationship quality and health outcomes,
religiousness and health outcomes and religiousness and relationship outcomes; however,
there is a paucity of research studying how these three areas are associated.
Consequently, this study investigated a proposed scale designed to better represent the
multiple facets of religious homogamy, the Spiritual Homogamy and Religious
Experiences scale (SHARE) and sought to determine if the SHARE predicts decreased
perceived stress beyond relationship satisfaction and commitment. The results of Phase 1
and 2 indicate that SHARE exhibited a reasonable fit, construct validity, convergent
validity and discriminant validity, with good internal consistency. Further, the data in
Phase 1 and Phase 2 supported a three factor model for the SHARE, including
Horn ogam ous Beliefs, Horn ogam ous Practices, and Practicing Together. The results also
suggest that age, relationship satisfaction, and religious homogamy explain
approximately 24% of the variance in perceived stress, with religious homogamy
accounting for an additional 3.7% reduction of perceived stress beyond what is accounted
for by relationship satisfaction and age. Further, the results suggest that age, relationship
commitment, and religious homogamy (without the Homogamous Acceptance subscale)


explained approximately 20% of the variance in perceived stress, with religious
homogamy accounting for an additional 5% reduction of perceived stress beyond what is
accounted for by relationship commitment and age. Overall, it appears that religious
homogamy is a multifaceted construct and the SHARE is an acceptable measure of
religious homogamy. Additionally, it appears that religious homogamy predicts
perceived stress beyond relationship qualities which have previously been shown to
predict perceived stress. Because most studies have relied on a narrow range of
indicators, such as attendance and affiliation, it will be important for future researchers to
consider broadening their measurement of religious homogamy.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Kevin S. Masters
IV


DEDICATION
I dedicate this work to my mom: Sue Grigsby, dad: Randy Grigsby, grandpa and
grandma: Charles and Helen Rogers, sister: Katie Muller, roommate for life: Cammie
Walters-Carlson, and mentor and friend: Lisabeth Jui. Thank you for listening to me
when I was stressed, for taking joy and pride in what I do, and for being an amazing
source of encouragement and support.
v


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Kevin Masters, for his continual guidance
and support throughout this project. I would also like to thank Drs. Beth Allen and Krista
Ranby for their guidance and encouragement. Specifically, I would like to thank Dr.
Ranby for imparting her statistical knowledge! Drs. Masters, Allen, and Ranby, thank
you for taking time to help me make decisions at each fork in the road. Additionally, I
thank all the members of my cohort, Kellie Martens, Stephanie Hooker, and Ryan
Asherin, for being consultants and fantastic friends during this process. Kellie, I am so
glad that we were both working on our own theses at the same time; it made the process
much more enjoyable. Lastly, I thank all the members of Masters lab, Lacey Clement,
Kaile Ross, and Stephanie Hooker for helping me ascertain that the SHARE scale
encompassed the depth and breadth of the construct of religious and spiritual homogamy,
and for being a source of support.
VI


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................1
Marriage, Religion and Health.......................................1
Religious Homogamy..................................................5
II. STUDY AIMS AM) HYPOTHESES........................................... 10
III. METHODS: PHASE 1................................................... 12
Sample.............................................................12
Measures...........................................................15
Demographics and Religious Characteristics..................15
Validity Questions.........................................15
Spiritaul Homogamy and Religious Experiences (SHARE) Scale.15
Procedure..........................................................18
Data Analysis......................................................19
Descriptive Statistics......................................19
Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFAs) and Confirmatory Factor Analyses
(CFAs)......................................................19
Internal Consistences, Correlations, and Factorabiliy of Hypothesized
Models................................................20
EFAs..................................................20
CFAs..................................................21
Best Fitting CFA......................................21
IV. RESULTS: PHASE 1.....................................................22
Descriptive Statistics......................................22
VII


EFAs and CFAs
25
Internal Consistences, Correlations, and Factorabiliy of Hypothesized
Models.....................................................25
EFA Based on Eigenvalues Greater or Equal to One............26
Three and Six Factor EFAs....................................28
Three Factor CFA Model.......................................28
Six Factor CFA Model.........................................28
Best Fitting CFA Model.......................................29
V. METHODS: PHASE 2...........................................................32
Sample...................................................................32
Measures.................................................................35
Demographics, Religious Characteristics, and Validity Questions...35
Spiritual Homogamy and Religious Experience (SHARE) Scale.......35
Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale.................................38
Commitment Inventory Subscales....................................39
Perceived Stress Scale............................................39
Satisfaction with Life Scale......................................40
Measures of Extramarital Involvement..............................40
Marital Instability Index.........................................41
Danger Signs Scale................................................42
Procedures...............................................................42
Data Analysis............................................................43
Aim 2.............................................................43
Descriptive Statisics, Correlations Among Scales, and Alpha


Coefficients of All Measures Besides the SHARE......44
Internal Consistencies, Correlations, Factorability of the 3
Factor Model of SHARE, and Descriptive Statistics...44
CFA.................................................45
Criterion Validity..................................45
Construct Validity..................................45
Aims 3 and 4..............................................46
Aim 3...............................................47
Aim 4...............................................47
VI. RESULTS: PHASE 2...................................................48
Aim 2.....................................................48
Descriptive Statisics, Correlations Among Scales, and Alpha
Coefficients of All Measures Besides the SHARE......48
Internal Consistencies, Correlations, Factorability of the 3
Factor Model of SHARE, and Descriptive Statistics...50
CFA.................................................54
Criterion Validity..................................56
Construct Validity..................................57
Aims 3 and 4..............................................60
Aim 3...............................................60
Aim 4...............................................63
VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS........................................68
VIII. LIMITATIONS......................................................76
REFERENCES.............................................................78
APPENDICES.............................................................86
A: DEMOGRAPHICS AND RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS
86


B: SPIRITUAL HOMOGAMY AND RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES (SHARE) .88
C: SHARE QUESTIONS WITH SUBSCALE LABELS................90
D: SHARE SCALE WITH COGNITIVE, BEHAVIORAL, AND EMOTIVE
LABELS..............................................93
E: CONCEPT MAP 01 SHARE................................94
F: INFORMED CONSENT COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS............95
G: CONCEPT MAP OF SHARE: BEST FITTING MODEL OF PHASE 1.96
H: KANSAS MARITAL SATISFACTION SCALE................97
I: COMMITMENT INVENTORY SUBSCALES...................98
J: PERCEIVED STRESS SCALE..........................100
K: SATISFACTION WITH LIFE SCALE....................101
L: GLASS AND WRIGHT QUESTIONS......................102
VI: MARITAL INS I ABII.H YX............................103
N: DANGER SIGNS SCALE..............................104
O: FINAL LIST OF ITEMS INCLUDED IN SHARE...............105
P: CONCEPT MAP OF SI IARUPIIASH 2..................108
x


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
1 Phase 1 Participant Demographics...................................................13
2 Phase 1 Religious Characteristics..................................................14
3 Phase 1 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Beliefs Subscale Items of the
Best Fitting CFA......................................................................22
4 Phase 1 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Practices Subscale Items of the
Best Fitting CFA......................................................................23
5 Phase 1 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Acceptance Subscale Items of
the Best Fitting CFA..................................................................24
6 Phase 1 Internal Consistency Reliabilities of SHARE Scale...........................26
7 Phase 1 Correlations Among the Subscales of the Best Fitting CFA....................26
8 Phase 2 Participant Demographics...................................................33
9 Phase 2 Religious Characteristics..................................................34
10 Descriptive Statistics of Measures Utilized in Phase 2 (Excluding the SHARE
Scale)................................................................................48
11 Correlations among Measures Utilized in Phase 2 (Excluding the SHARE
Scale)................................................................................49
12 Phase 2 Internal Consistency Reliabilities of SHARE...............................51
13 Phase 2 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Beliefs Subscale Items.52
14 Phase 2 Means of and Correlations among the Practicing Together Subscale Items... 53
15 Phase 2 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Acceptance Subscale Items.53
16 Phase 2 Correlations among the Subscales.....................................54
17 Correlations among Measures That Were Hypothesized to Produce a Positive Correlation
with the SHARE...................................................................58
18 Correlations among Measures Which Were Hypothesized to Produce a Negative Correlation
with the SHARE...................................................................59
xi


19 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction...........................61
20 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Without
Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship
Satisfaction........................................................................61
21 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Beliefs Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction...........................62
22 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Acceptance
Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction................62
23 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Practicing Together Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction...........................63
24 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment.............................64
25 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Without
Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship
Commitment..........................................................................65
26 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Beliefs Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment.............................65
27 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Acceptance
Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment.................66
28 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Practicing Together Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment.............................67
XII


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
1 Phase 1 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Beliefs...............30
2 Phase 1 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Acceptance............30
3 Phase 1 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Practices.............31
4 Phase 2 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Beliefs...............55
5 Phase 2 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Acceptance............55
6 Phase 2 Factor Loadings of Practicing Together..............56


CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTION
Religion, relationships and health are salient to many Americans. Specifically, a Pew survey
(Pew Research Center, 2012) of the United States population found that 58% indicated that
religion is very important to their lives and 22% indicated that religion is somewhat important to
their lives. Additionally, 91% of the population expressed belief in God (Pew Research Center,
2012). Intimate relationships are also valued and 51% of Americans are married and many
others are in committed relationships (Cohn, Passel, Wang & Livingston, 2011). Because both
religion and intimate relationships are important for many people, researchers have begun to
study how religion within close relationships may impact health.
Marriage, Religion, and Health
In general, being married is related to positive health outcomes and those who are
married tend to be healthier than those who are unmarried (Burman & Margolin, 1992).
Increased marital satisfaction has been shown to predict decreased morbidity and mortality from
serious illnesses (Kaplan & Kronick, 2006; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). Researchers have
also found that positive intimate relationships are protective against the effects of stress on
physical and mental health (Kaplan & Kronick, 2006; Robles & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2003; Uchino,
2006). Additionally, women who are maritally satisfied, in a high-quality marriage, are at a
lower risk of developing the metabolic syndrome (Troxel, Matthews, Gallo, Lewis, & Kuller,
2005). Conversely, negative dimensions of marital functioning, such as conflict and hostility,
have direct negative effects on the immune, cardiovascular, neurosensory and endocrine systems
(Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001; Kiecolt-Glaser, et al., 2005).
1


It is hypothesized that marriage is related to better health because it provides a social
network that encourages health behavior and when it is a positive relationship, it provides
positive well-being and is associated with positive effects on physiological mechanisms (Burman
& Margolin, 1992; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). For example, as
mentioned, positive marital functioning acts as a buffer against stress, which is known to have
negative effects on physical health. Research has demonstrated the relationships between stress,
including perceived stress, and cardiovascular disease, increased susceptibility to infectious
disease, exacerbations in autoimmune diseases, headaches, and gastrointestinal and respiratory
problems (Glaser & Kiecolt-Glaser, 2005; Seaward, 1999; Schneiderman, Ironson, & Siegel,
2005). Therefore, perceived stress is a viable variable when measuring health, especially in
relation to marital functioning.
Similarly, a large amount of research has found that religion is positively associated with
health. Most notable is the relationship between attendance at religious services and lower all-
cause mortality (McCullough, Hoyt, Larson, Koenig, & Thoresen, 2000; Oman & Reed, 1998;
Strawbridge, Cohen, Shema, & Kaplan, 1997). McCullough et al. (2000) conducted a meta-
analysis that showed a positive association between religious involvement and longevity.
Another meta-analysis found that for those who were initially healthy, religious service
attendance was associated with reductions in cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality
(Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009). Moreover, Chida, Steptoe, and Powell (2009) found that the
combination of several religious/spiritual factors was associated with significantly reduced
mortality for both those who are healthy and those with a disease. Religiousness, often measured
as religious service attendance, has also been shown to positively relate with better health in
various health domains, such as ratings of global health, adherence to cardiac rehabilitation and
2


adjustment after surgery (Ai et al., 2010; Hummer, Rogers, Nam, & Ellison, 1999; Krause,
2011). It is possible that religion is related to health through four pathways: engagement in
health behaviors, increased social support, increased positive psychological states and a
superempirical influence (Oman & Thoresen, 2002; Ellison & Levin, 1988; Levin, 1996b).
Religion also seems to affect the way that couples view their marriage and/or the way
they interact with each other. According to Dollahite, Hawkins, & Parr (2012), Christian, Jewish
and Muslim couples voiced that marriage is inclusive of more than just the couple. For these
couples, God, or Allah, played a significant part in their marriage. These couples felt that (1)
God is the author of marriage; (2) God is present in the marriage; (3) husband, wife, and God are
a triad; (4) marriage is an image of God; and (5) marriage and God are interrelated. Allgood,
Harris, Skogrand, & Lee (2008) found that religious service attendance was related to a persons
attitude towards marriage. That is, the more frequently individuals attended religious services,
the less likely they were to feel committed to the marriage because they felt trapped; instead,
higher attending couples felt committed because they wanted to be in the marriage. Religion
also plays a role in a couples behavior and actions towards one another. For example, prayer
during a marital conflict was associated with reduced negativity and hostility towards ones
partner, an increase in relationship focus and empathy towards ones partner, increased
mindfulness of ones God, and an increased orientation towards self-change (Butler, Stout, &
Garder, 2002). Religion may affect a couples relationship because of the influence of
theological teachings of the importance of marriage, the emphasis on forgiveness and empathy,
and participation in shared religious practices (Atkins & Kessel, 2008; Mahoney, Pargament,
Tarakeshwar & Swank, 2001; Mahoney & Tarakeshwar, 2005). Overall, ones religion seems to
give meaning and/or perspective to marriage.
3


This meaning or perspective might be a reason why religious outcomes are related to
relationship outcomes, such as marital satisfaction and commitment. Religious attendance has
been shown to relate to increased marital satisfaction, lower risk of divorce, decreased marital
conflict and decreased infidelity (Atkins & Kessel, 2008; Burdette, Ellison, Sherkat, & Gore,
2007; Call & Heaton, 1997; Glenn & Supancic, 1984; Mahoney, 2010). Glenn and Supancic
(1984) also found that attendance at religious services, participation in religious activities, and
religious affiliation all played a role in marital stability. In this study, it is important to note that
attendance and participation played a greater role in marital stability than did religious or
denomination affiliation. Attendance might have played a greater role because attendance
provides a shared activity that is related to ones values, often provides social support, and might
remind a couple of the importance of marriage because they hear religious teachings on marriage
and/or compare themselves to other couples (Atkins & Kessel, 2008). Furthermore,
sanctification of marriage, or viewing ones marriage as sacred, has been correlated with better
relational functioning and was shown to mediate the relationship between religiousness and
marital quality in one study (DeMaris, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2010; Ellison, Henderson,
Glenn, & Harkrider, 2011; Mahoney, 2010; Mahoney et al, 1999).
A few studies have reported mixed findings concerning the relationship between general
religiousness and marital satisfaction (Mahoney, 2010). Clements, Stanley, & Markman (2004)
found that only the wives religiousness predicted marital stability for highly educated couples.
In contrast, Wolfinger and Wilcox (2008) found that in samples of low income and minority
couples, mens attendance, but not womens, predicted future satisfaction. These mixed findings
emphasize the need to move beyond general religiousness or attendance (Mahoney, 2010). In
fact, these results underscore the importance of viewing couples as two people, each with their
4


own beliefs and behaviors that are each capable of influencing the quality of the marriage.
Consequently, researchers have begun to study how the degree of religious homogamy, or
religious similarity, within a couple affects relational functioning.
Religious Homogamy
Religious homogamy (similarity) has generally been found to predict positive
relationship outcomes whereas religious heterogamy (dissimilarity) has been associated with
negative outcomes. Heterogamy in biblical conservatism, religious practices, theology and
attendance has been shown to relate to and predict increases in marital conflict (Mahoney, 2010;
Chinitz & Brown, 2001; Curtis & Ellison, 2002). Similarly, heterogamy in attendance increases
the risk of divorce compared to those who are horn ogam ous in attendance and differences in
denomination are associated with increased marital instability and marital conflict (Call &
Heaton, 1977; Heaton, 2002; Petts & Knoester, 2007; Blackwell & Lichter, 2004). Conversely,
couples who are homogamous in religious attendance (both spouses attend religious services
regularly) show the lowest risk of divorce and report greater relationship satisfaction (Call &
Heaton, 1977; Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010). Couples who are homogamous in religious
beliefs and values also tend to report greater relationship satisfaction (Ellison, Burdette, &
Wilcox, 2010). Within the beginning stages of marriage, homogamy in denomination has been
related to high marital adjustment scores for newly married couples (Schramm, Marshall, Harris,
& Lee, 2012). Homogamy in various religious outcomes is related to positive relationship
outcomes at most points in the relationship: marital adjustment, marital stability, satisfaction
with the relationship, decreased frequency of conflict, and decreased risk for divorce.
Although homogamy has been predictive of relationship functioning, researchers have
used multiple definitions and measures of homogamy; therefore, a standardized measure of
5


homogamy does not exist. The degree of similarity in denomination or religious affiliation has
been the most common measure of homogamy (Blackwell & Lichter, 2004; Call & Heaton,
1997; Curtis & Ellison, 2002; Ellison, Barrett & Moulton, 2008; Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox,
2010; Heaton, 2002; Petts & Knoester, 2007; Schramm, Marshall, Harris, & Lee, 2012). As is
common practice in the research on religion and health, religious attendance, including
attendance similarity and shared religion, has also been a common marker of homogamy
(Bartkowski, Xu, Levin 2008; Call & Heaton, 1997; Curtis & Ellison, 2001; Ellison, Burdette,
Wilcox, 2010; Petts, 2011; Williams & Lawler, 2003). Additionally, the degree of similarity in
the importance of religion in ones life and the importance of holding horn ogam ous views of
religion have been used as indicators of homogamy (Baker, Sanches, Nock & Wright,2009;
Petts, 2011). Researchers have also measured the differences between theology, beliefs,
religious views, attitudes about religious practices, and engagement in private practices as
indicators of homogamy (Call & Heaton, 1997; Chinitz & Brown, 2001; Curtis & Ellison, 2002;
Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010; Petts, 2011; Williams & Lawler, 2003). Lastly, Schramm,
Marhsall, Harris & Lee (2012) measured religious homogamy by comparing each spouses rating
of religiosity.
Moreover, individual measures are insufficient to address the multiple religious
indicators of homogamy, yet most studies have relied on a narrow range of indicators, such as
attendance and affiliation. Although attendance and affiliation may correlate with marital
outcomes, they provide little information about the intricacies of religious homogamy within
couples. For example, there can be a huge variety of beliefs and lifestyles within a
denomination; therefore, two spouses could live very differently and still report the same
affiliation. In fact, Ellison, Burdette, and Wilcox (2010) noted that affiliation may be less
6


meaningful as a description of theological, attitudinal, or lifestyle differences than in past
decades because individual expression of faith has become more common. Additionally,
although some researchers use a variety of religious indicators to measure homogamy, there is no
single measure that incorporates multiple dimensions of religion to measure religious homogamy
yet it seems apparent that homogamy is a multidimensional construct.
In addition to the lack of standardization and depth of the measurement of religious
homogamy, there is a dearth of research on how relationships, health, and religion are associated
with each other. Because all three areas are relevant to many people and have been shown to
relate with each other, it would be beneficial to understand their relations with each other. For
example, one study examined the relations that homogamy in religious affiliation has with
alcohol use. Ellison, Barrett, and Moulton (2008) found that religiously homogamous couples
who belonged to a conservative religious group, which has proscriptive norms against alcohol
use, had lower rates of alcohol use than mixed-faith couples and homogamous non-conservative
couples. Another study found that a spiritual coping style allowed couples, where one spouse
has diabetes, to better work together as a team as they coped with the disease (Cattich &
Knudson-Martin, 2009). Spiritual coping was found to increase collaboration, optimism and
emphasis on emotional acceptance of the situation and each other.
Research has shown relationships between relationship quality and health outcomes,
religiousness and health outcomes and religiousness and relationship outcomes. However, there
is limited research studying how these three areas are associated. That is, the association
between relationship quality, health outcomes and religiousness has not been well studied. This
seems to call for a more finely grained analysis of the religious factors that are related to martial
functioning.
7


In a concept analysis of religiosity, Bjamason (2007) found that religiosity is composed
of three main factors: religious affiliation, religious activities and religious beliefs. Likewise, if a
couple is religiously homogamous, they might be homogamous in all of these areas. In addition,
a couple might be homogamous in acceptance; that is, they accept each others beliefs and
practices, even if they are different from their own. Because there are multiple components to
religious homogamy, it is important to explore the variety of ways in which a couple could be
homogamous or heterogamous.
Within a specific denomination, there can be a spectrum of beliefs and practices. Further,
a person may believe the same thing as another person within his or her denomination, but
practice differently. For example, one person may attend religious services at least once a week,
pray regularly and read his or her religious text whereas another person may practice his or her
faith by him or herself and, therefore, rarely attend religious services. However, these two
people may espouse the same beliefs. Conversely, two people within a religious denomination
could have different beliefs but practice similarly. This might occur because people interpret
various passages in their religious text differently, resulting in differing beliefs. However, both
people may attend the same amount of religious services and practice the same religious
practices at home. In addition to differing beliefs and practices, individuals within a
denomination may apply and integrate their beliefs in a variety of ways. For example, with
regard to politics, two people from the same denomination could have different opinions about
certain issues. People could also choose to engage in different types of entertainment, consume
different types of beverages (e.g. alcohol), or support different organizations. These differences
among individuals within a denomination indicate that a couple could be either homogamous or
heterogamous across varying dimensions even when they affiliate with the same denomination.
8


A couple could, however, be homogamous even when they are not from the same
denomination. That is, the couple could be homogamous in how they practice their beliefs and
in what they believe (i.e. core beliefs), despite identifying with different denominations.
Furthermore, a couple may be homogamous in acceptance. The couple may discuss their
differences and agree to respect each others practices and beliefs. In this case, each member of
the couple has communicated, shown respect, and stayed true to his/her own beliefs. It is
important to recognize couples who respect different beliefs because this acceptance could have
an impact on the marital quality.
9


CHAPTER II.
STUDY AIMS AND HYPOTHESES
This study investigated a proposed scale designed to better represent the multiple facets
of religious homogamy, and consisted of 2 phases to analyze the psychometrics of the scale.
Based on the preceding, several categories provided the schematic foundation for scale content.
Religious homogamy was conceptualized into three categories: (1) horn ogam ous beliefs, (2)
homogamous practices and (3) homogamous acceptance. The first, homogamous beliefs, was
further broken down into 2 categories: (1) religious perspective and (2) importance of religion.
The second, homogamous practices, subdivided into 2 categories: (1) behavioral integration and
(2) joint religious activities. The third component, homogamous acceptance, was also broken
down into 2 categories: (1) conflict and (2) mutual religious respect.
Furthermore, to add to the limited literature on the association between relationship quality,
health outcomes and religiousness, the second phase also analyzed whether religious homogamy
explained variance in perceived stress beyond what is accounted for by two different measures of
marital functioning. These analyses were chosen because positive marital functioning has been
shown to buffer the effects of stress on health (Kaplan & Kronick, 2006; Robles & Kiecolt-
Glaser, 2003; Uchino, 2006). Consequently, perceived stress is an important health-related
variable, and a central goal of this study was to determine if homogamous religion added an
additional buffer beyond that conferred by a positive marital relationship. The relationship
qualities included were, relationship satisfaction and relationship commitment. Taken together,
the second phase also determined if 1) religious homogamy predicts perceived stress beyond
relationship satisfaction, and 2) religious homogamy predicts decreased perceived stress beyond
relationship commitment.
10


Therefore, the aims of this study were:
I. To develop the SHARE, a scale designed to better represent the multiple facets of
religious homogamy
II. To conduct a psychometric analysis of a new measure of couples religious
homogamy
a. Phase 1: Calculate and analyze an exploratory factor analysis and a confirmatory
factor analysis of the SHARE
b. Phase 2: Calculate and analyze a confirmatory factor analysis of the revised
SHARE and assess criterion and construct validity of the revised SHARE.
III. Determine the amount of variability of perceived stress that Religious Homogamy
predicts beyond Relationship Satisfaction.
IV. Determine the amount of variability of perceived stress that Religious Homogamy
predicts beyond Relationship Commitment.
Appendix D illustrates the hypothesized 3 factor and 6 factor models of the scale. It was
hypothesized that either the 3 factor or 6 factor model of the scale would exhibit a reasonable fit.
Further, it was hypothesized that the SHARE would positively correlate with other measures of
religious homogamy, thus supporting criterion validity, and that the SHARE would demonstrate
construct validity. Additionally, it was hypothesized that religious homogamy would predict
decreased perceived stress beyond both relationship satisfaction and relationship commitment.
11


CHAPTER III.
METHODS: PHASE 1
In Phase 1, the initial psychometric structure of the SHARE was examined. Item
development is described and the results of the exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory
factor analysis are presented.
Sample
Participants were recruited through StudyResponse, a research service that has a large
database of individuals who have agreed to take part in research. For this phase, StudyResponse
pre-screened for individuals who: 1) are married or in a serious relationship with a partner for at
least one year, 2) live with their partner, 3) are at least 18 years old and partners are at least 18
years old, and 4) live in the United States. The sample was also stratified so that it would
roughly approximate the United States population on gender and ethnicity.
One hundred and eighty four participants began the survey; however, 13 participants
were excluded from analyses because they did not complete the survey and 15 additional
participants were excluded because they incorrectly answered the informed consent
comprehension questions. Given this, 156 participants were included in analyses. As shown in
Table 1, participants were roughly equally represented by both genders (female = 46.8%),
primarily white (84%), overly represented by those with a higher education, and had a mean age
of 42.6. As shown in Table 2, participants primarily identified as Catholic or Protestant
Christian, about half identified as not religious at all or slightly religious, and about half
reported that they attend religious services two times a year or less.
12


Table 1
Phase 1 Participant Demographics (N = 156)
Variable Total Variable Total
Age in Years Times married nm
Range 24-72 (Not Including Current
Mean (SD) 42.62 Relationship)
(11.34) 0 50 (32.9)
1 73 (48)
Sex N{%) 2 18 (11.8)
Male 83 (53.2) 3+ 11 (7.3)
Female 73 (46.8) Missing 4 (2.6)
Ethnicity N (%) Length of Relationship with
White- not Hispanic 131(84) Current Parmer in Years
Black- not Hispanic 10 (6.4) Range 1 -45
Hispanic or Latino 11 (7.1) Mean (SD) 16. 01
Asian or Pacific Islander 4 (2.6) (11.37%)
Education (Highest Level Completed) N{%) Number of Children
High School Graduate 16 (10.3) Range 0-10
Some College 19 (12.2) Mean (SD) 1.67
Two Year College Degree Four Year College Degree 10 (6.4) 69 (44.2) Number of Children Currently (1.45%)
Graduate Study 42 (26.9) Living in Home
Range 0-7
Income N (%) Mean (SD) 1.21(1.2)
Under $24,999 4 (2.6)
$25,000to $34,999 9 (5.8)
$3 5,000 to $49,999 9 (5.8)
$50,000 to $74,999 31 (20.1)
$75,000 to $99,999 31 (20.1)
$100,000 to $ 149,999 32 (20.8)
$150,000 and Over 38 (24.7)
Missing 2 (1.3)
Living Location nm
Inner City 18 (11.6)
Urban 47 (30.3)
Suburban 66 (42.6)
Rural 24 (15.4)
Missing 1 (0.6)
13


Table 2
Phase 1 Religious Characteristics (N = 156)
Variable Total Variable Total
Religious Preference Affiliation N(%) Frequency of Religious Service V(%)
Catholic 52 (33.3) Attendance
Protestant Christian 62 (39.7) Never 34 (22.1)
Jewish 7 (4.6) Once or Twice a Year 40 (26.0)
Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) 1 (0.6) Every Month or So 18 (11.7)
Atheist 18 (11.5) Once or Twice a Month 29 (18.8)
Other 16 (10.3) Every Week or More Often 33 (21.4)
Missing 2 (1.3)
Partners Religious
Preference Affiliation Frequency of Religious Service am
Catholic 56 (36.1) Attendance With Parmer
Protestant Christian 61 (39.1) Never 35 (22.6)
Jewish 6 (3.9) Once or Twice a Year 38 (24.5)
Buddhist 2 (1.3) Every Month or So 20 (12.9)
Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) 1 (0.6) Once or Twice a Month 30 (19.4)
Atheist 15 (9.7) Every Week or More Often 32 (20.7)
Other 15 (9.7) Missing 1 (0.6)
Religiosity am Frequency of Participation in am
Not Religious At All 34 (21.9) Religious Activities Outside of a
Slightly Religious 43 (27.7) Place of Worship
Moderately Religious 58 (37.4) Never 35 (22.7)
Very Religious 20 (12-9) Less Than Once a Month 28 (18.2)
Missing 1 (0.6) Once a Month 16 (10.4)
A Few Times a Month 20 (13-0)
Parmers Religiosity V(%) lx. Week 10 (6.5)
Not Religious At All 33 (21.2) A Few Times a Week 12 (7.8)
Slightly Religious 44 (28.2) Once a Day or More 33 (21.4)
Moderately Religious 62 (39.7) Missing 2 (1.3)
Very Religious 17 (10.9)
Parmers Frequency of am
Spirituality am Participation in Religious
Not Spiritual At All 26 (17.3) Activities Outside of a Place of
Slightly Spiritual 38 (25.3) Worship
Moderately Spiritual 58 (38.7) Never 41 (26.3)
Very Spiritual 28 (18-7) Less Than Once a Month 23 (14-7)
Missing 6 (3.8) Once a Month 17 (10.9)
A Fewr Times a Month 28 (17.9)
Parmers Spirituality am lx. Week 7 (4.5)
Not Spiritual At All 34 (22.1) A Fewr Times a Week 15 (9.6)
Slightly Spiritual 40 (26.0) Once a Day or More 25 (12.8)
Moderately Spiritual 56 (35.9)
Very Spiritual 28 (17.9)
14


Measures
Demographics and Religious Characteristics
Participants completed 8 self-report demographic and 11 self-report religious
characteristic questions (see Appendix A). Age, gender, race, highest level of education
completed, number of times married, household income, state of residence, location (inner city,
urban, suburban, rural), religious preference/affiliation, partners religious preference/affiliation,
degree of religiosity, degree of spirituality, frequency of religious service attendance, partners
frequency of religious service attendance, frequency of joint religious service attendance,
frequency of participation in religious activities outside of the place of worship, partners
frequency of participation in religious activities outside of the place of worship and importance
that ones partner feels the same way about religion were measured.
Validity Questions
Three questions were randomly placed throughout the survey to ensure that the
participants carefully read the questions. These questions included: (1) For quality control,
please answer never to this question, (2) For quality control please answer I sometimes do
this for this question, and (3) For quality control, please respond strongly agree to this
question. If the participant incorrectly responded to two or more of these questions, he or she
was excluded from the study. None of the participants incorrectly responded to two or more of
the quality control questions; therefore, none of the participants were excluded on this basis.
Spiritual Homogamy and Religious Experiences (SHARE) Scale
A 22 question scale was developed to assess religious/spiritual homogamy within
couples. Items were developed after careful consideration of the various ways in which ones
religious faith could affect a persons thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. For example, in regard
15


to thoughts, people can differ in their core beliefs, and can have different thoughts about how to
integrate what they believe and the importance of their religious faith. Further, in regards to
emotions, a person may have varying degrees of desire to participate in religious practices, such
as prayer or reading religious texts. Likewise, a person could behave in different ways, by
attending religious services or not, or by participating in certain activities, such as drinking
alcohol or not. Appendix D lists each item on the SHARE and denotes how each was
categorized into thoughts, emotions, and/or behaviors. Additionally, items were developed after
examining measures of religion, religious orientation, and religious homogamy. Measures that
informed the development of the scale included the Religious Orientation Scale (Allport & Ross,
1967), the Religious Commitment Inventory-10 (Worthington et al., 2003), the Importance of
Religious Homogamy Index (Baker, Sanchez, Nock, & Wright, 2009), as well as items
measuring religious authority homogamy and joint attendance (Myers, 2006), shared religious
values (Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010), and family religious environment (Bartkowski, Xu,
& Levin, 2008).
Of note, items assessing affiliation were not included, but items assessing joint
attendance were included. Affiliation is a broad concept; consequently, couples of the same
affiliation can experience their religious faith very differently. For example, a husband and wife
may both indicate that their affiliation is protestant Christian, but they may have differing beliefs,
strength of commitment, and/or ways that they live out their faith. Additionally, one partner may
state a religious affiliation merely because his/her partner is of that affiliation; it may not be
internalized or important to that partner. Items assessing joint attendance were included because
it was thought that jointly attending (or not attending) religious services would add to the
concept of similarity in faith because the couple would be sharing an experience. However,
16


because it is possible for a partner to begrudgingly attend religious services, rather than to
individually desire to attend, items were included to assess a person desires to attend religious
services with his/her partner.
In developing the items, the researcher was careful not to include double-barreled
questions. That is, individual items that asked about two or more ideas were excluded. To
reduce the likelihood of acquiescence bias, both positively and negatively worded items were
included. A six category Likert-type response scale was chosen so that participants would have
adequate options for discrimination purposes and so that they could not choose a neutral
midpoint. The six anchors utilized were: strongly disagree (1), disagree, somewhat disagree,
somewhat agree, agree, and strongly agree (6). Further, as the items were developed, they were
mapped onto one of the three main and six sub-categories described earlier (pg. 10). Twenty
items were developed for the SHARE, with 7 items assessing Homogamous Beliefs, 9 items
assessing Homogamous Practices, and 6 items assessing Homogamous Acceptance.
After the items were generated, the SHARE was given to 7 doctoral students in clinical
psychology (1 male, 6 females) for their feedback on the wording, understandability, and content
relevance of each question. This provided information regarding the face and content validity of
the scale. The colleagues also provided feedback on how well the questions represent
religious/spiritual homogamy and made suggestions for questions that should be added or
removed. This feedback addresses additional concerns regarding the scales content validity.
There was unanimous agreement that the scale fully represented the construct of religious
homogamy, and no one recommended that any item be removed. However, the reviewers agreed
that 6 questions needed clarification and they provided suggestions for questions to add. Based
on this input, 7 questions were added to the scale. Specifically, 1 item was added to further
17


assess Homogamous Beliefs, 1 item was added to better measure Homogamous Practices, and 5
items were added to further assess Homomgamous Acceptance. In all, this first version of the
scale contained 29 questions (see Appendix B for the questions, see Appendix C for the
questions and sub-category labels, and see Appendix E for the concept map of the questions).
Procedure
StudyResponse recruited participants by sending an email containing eligibility
requirements. Following this, StudyResponse conducted a stratified random sampling of
respondents, in an attempt to roughly approximate the United States population on gender and
ethnicity. Those randomly chosen were sent an e-mail with a link to the survey, which was then
administered through REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Harris, et al., 2009). The
participants first read the informed consent and then agreed to the terms by checking a box next
to a sentence saying I understand and agree to the terms of this survey. Next, participants were
instructed to print a copy of the consent form if they desired to have it for their records and/or to
view during the comprehension questions. Then, participants answered comprehension
questions regarding what they had read in the informed consent. The required comprehension
questions were as follows (see Appendix F for the questions with the response choices): (1)
What are you being asked to do?, (2) Finish this sentence The purpose of this study is to find
out... (3) True or False: After beginning this study, you can decide not to continue at any time,
without penalty, and (4) What should you do if you have questions about this study? (Janofsky,
McCarthy, & Folstein, 1992). If participants responded to a comprehension question in a way
that indicated that they may not have understood what they had read, they were excluded from
analyses. As noted, 15 participants were excluded because they incorrectly answered the
informed consent comprehension questions.
18


Upon completion of the comprehension questions, participants proceeded to the survey.
Instructions were provided at the beginning of the survey and in a paragraph preceding each
section of the survey, which consisted of 19 demographic and religious characteristic questions
and the 29 item SHARE. Participants were instructed to choose their answers by clicking on the
answer that most appropriately reflected their agreement with the statements provided.
Participants were also asked to complete the online survey individually and anonymously.
Additionally, the participants were anonymous to the researchers, as they only reported their
StudyResponse identification number to the researcher. The participants were allotted unlimited
time to complete the survey, but it is estimated that it took between 10-15 minutes to complete
based on the amount of time that it took several graduate students to complete the survey. After
they finished the survey, the participants completed their participation in the study. A list of
identification numbers of those who completed the survey was sent to StudyResponse, who sent
payment to the participants for their participation (a $5.00 Amazon Gift card).
Data Analysis
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 21 software. Means,
standard deviations, and ranges were examined to ascertain that all items were within the correct
ranges.
Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFAs) and Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs)
To better understand the structure of the SHARE, EFAs and CFAs were conducted. The
EFAs helped determine the number of factors that were present and the CFAs tested the relative
fit of the hypothesized three-factor model (broad categories) and the six-factor model (specific
subscales). First, an EFA allowing factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 to be extracted was
19


conducted. Then, three factor and six factor solutions were examined. Following this, the 3
factor and 6 factor CFA models were tested.
Internal Consistencies, Correlations, and Factorability of Hypothesized Models.
Prior to conducting any of the EFAs or CFAs, the data were screened and the assumption of
factorability was assessed to ensure that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The internal
consistency reliability of the SHARE was determined to be adequate if coefficient alpha > 0.70.
Correlations of items within each subscale and between subscales were also analyzed. An item
was dropped if a correlation in the correlation matrix of items within each subscale was < 0.30.
If a correlation was > 0.90, the item was considered for elimination because this could have been
indicative of multicollinearity in the data (Field, 2009). Additionally, the overall Kaiser-Meyer-
Oklin (KMO) statistic and Bartletts test of sphericity were assessed to ascertain that the KMO
statistic was > 0.50 and the Barletts test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.05; Field, 2009).
EFAs. For the EFAs, principal axis factoring and a direct oblimin rotation were utilized.
The direct olbimin is an oblique rotation, which allows factors to correlate. This type of rotation
was most appropriate because the items on the SHARE were expected to correlate, which was
thought to lead to a correlation between the extracted factors (Henson & Roberts, 2006). For this
study, the eigenvalue > 1 rule (Guttman, 1954) and the scree test (Cattell, 1966) were used to
determine the number of factors to retain (Canivez & Watkins, 2010; Henson & Robert, 2006).
In addition to the eigenvalue rule and the scree test, correlations among the factors were
observed to assess that they are not too high, which might denote that they are not separate
factors. Correlations among the factors were deemed too high if the correlations were over 0.80
(Gorsuch, 1983). The information from these methods and the three different EFAs was then
integrated to determine the optimum factors to extract.
20


After the number of factors to retain was determined, the degree to which each item
loaded on the suggested factor was assessed. Stevens (2009) recommends that the significance
of a factor loading should depend on the sample size. Doing an interpolation of Stevens (2009)
recommended critical values, a loading greater than an absolute value of 0.41 was considered
significant. Therefore, an item was eliminated if the factor loading was < 0.40 and an item was
considered for elimination if it loaded on more than one factor. After the items were selected,
the internal consistency reliabilities of the factor scales were assessed.
CFAs. The 3 factor and 6 factor confirmatory factor analysis models were tested using
MPlus (Muthen & Muthen, 2011). The model fit was determined using several goodness-of-fit
indices, including the chi-square statistic (A2), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). For
smaller samples, a non-significant Vindicates a fitting model; however, not necessarily the right
model. The cut-off values for the other indices were as follows: CFI > 0.95, RMSEA < 0.06, and
SRMR < 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Best Fitting CFA. Based on the results of the EFAs and the hypothesized three and six
factor CFAs, other CFAs were examined in order to find the best fitting model. Model fit was
determined using the same goodness-of-fit indices and criteria.
21


CHAPTER IV.
RESULTS: PHASE 1
Descriptive Statistics
Participants responded using the full range of scores, 1-6. The means and standard
deviations of items within each of the 3 subscales of the best fitting CFA are presented in the
second columns of Tables 3-5.
Table 3.
Phase 1 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Beliefs Suhscale Items of the Best Fitting
CFA
Item Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(SD)
1. SHARE 1: 4.46
Same Page (1.15)
2. SHARE2: 3.94 .608**
Equal Role (1.55)
3. SHARE3: 4.33 .867** .626**
Views in (1.13)
Sync 4. SHARE4: 4.47 .731** 499** .695**
Practices in (1.22)
Sync 5. SHARE5: 4.25 .750** .705** .778** .660**
Equal Value (1.31)
6. SHARE7: 4.52 747** .626** .792** .627** .722**
Core Beliefs (1.26)
7. SHARE8: 4.58 .544** .440** .600** .501** .536** .518**
Actions (1.08)
Match Beliefs 8. SHARE9: 4.56 .822** .590** .850** .707** .724** .754** .508**
Agree About Role (1.09)
9. SHARE11: 4.14 .667** 499** .659** .678** .646** .675** .460** .680** -
Equally Prioritize (1.29)
10. 4.52 .555** .466** .567** .408** .540** .553** .558** .536** .487**
SHARE 18: (1.09)
Similarly APP'>
aHigher scores indicate more homogamy.
**p < .01
22


Table 4.
Phase 1 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Practices Subscale Items of the
Best Fitting CFA
Item Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5
1. SHARE24: Share Religious Service 3.70(1.79)
2. SHARE25:1 Want to Share Religious Service 4.06(1.66) .821**
3. SHARE26: 4.08 (1.62) .798** .826**
Partner Wants to Share Religious Service 4. SHARE27: Share Private Practice 3.47(1.70) .740** .731** .727**
5. SHARE28:1 Want to Share Private Practice 3.74(1.65) .736** .861** .737** .846**
6. SHARE29: Partner Wants to Share Private Practice 3.62(1.63) .712** .726** .783** .864** .875**
aHigher scores indicate more homogamy.
**p < .01
23


Table 5.
Phase 1 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Acceptance Subscale Items of the Best
Fitting CFA
Item Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(SD)
1. 5.03 --
SHARE 14r: (1.34)
Pressure From 2. 5.05 .908**
SHARE15r: Pressure Towards (1-26)
3. 5.09 .767** .821**
SHARE 16r: Argue (1-29)
4. 5.09 .841** .869** .860**
SHARE 17r: Conflict (1.25)
5. 4.86 .620** .658** .670** .679**
SHARE 19r: Avoid (1-29)
6. 5.09 .819** .814** .740** .805** .640**
SHARE20r: Cant Practice (1-24)
7. 5.03 .836** .840** .731** .821** .671** .830**
SHARE21r: Partner Cant Practice (1.30)
8. 5.13 .843** .882** .776** .840** .588** 797** .858** -
SHARE22r: My Activities Takes (1.30)
Away 9. 5.09 .839** .860** .829** .863** .597** .795** .796** .910**
SHARE23r: Partners Activities Takes Away (1.35)
aHigher scores indicate more homogamy.
**p < .01
24


EFAs and CFAs
Internal Consistencies, Correlations, and Factorability of Hypothesized Models.
The Cronbachs alpha of the SHARE with all hypothesized items, the hypothesized 3 factor and
6 factor models, the SHARE with items from the best fitting model, and the 3 factor model from
the best fitting model are presented in Table 6. Alphas ranged from .824 to .970, demonstrating
that the SHARE scale and subscales are internally consistent. The correlations of items within
each of the 3 subscales of the best fitting CFA are presented in Tables 3-5. Correlations among
the items in the Homogamous Beliefs subscale range from .440 to .867. Correlations among the
items in the Homogamous Practice subscale range from .712 to .875. Correlations among the
items in the Homogamous Acceptance subscale range from .588 to .910. None of the
correlations were <0.30; therefore, none of the items were dropped based on their correlation.
Although one correlation was >0.90, the two items were not dropped because one of the items
was examining the participants behavior and the other item was measuring the partners
behavior; therefore, each item is conceptually independent of the other. The correlations
between the 3 subscales of the best fitting CFA are presented in Table 7. Lastly, two empirical
indices of the samples correlation matrix revealed that the hypothesized 3 factor and 6 factor
models were suitable for factor-analytic procedures: Bartletts test of sphericity was significant,
X2(406) = 4572.898,/) = 0.00, and the overall Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO) statistic was .902.
25


Table 6.
Phase 1 Internal Consistency Reliabilities of SHARE (N = 156)
Scale A of items Alpha Standardized Item Alpha
SHARE (With All Items) 29 .929 .934
Hypothesized 3 Factor Model
Homogamous Beliefs 8 .912 .914
Homogamous Practices 10 .916 .910
Homogamous Acceptance 11 .966 .965
Hypothesized 6 Factor Model
Religious Perspective Subscale 4 .852 .844
Importance of Religion 4 .847 .852
Behavioral Integration 4 .824 .825
Joint Religious Activities 6 .956 .956
Conflict 6 .945 .946
Mutual Religious Respect 5 .919 .913
SHARE (With Items From Best Fitting Model) 25 .917 .921
3 Factor Model From Best Fitting Model
Homogamous Beliefs 10 .942 .944
Homogamous Practices 6 .956 .956
Homogamous Acceptance 9 .970 .970
Table 7.
Phase 1 Correlations Among the Subscales of the Best Fitting CFA
Sub scale 1 2
1. Homogamous Acceptance
2. Homogamous Practices -0.19
3. Homogamous Beliefs____.09_______________________,520____________________
EFA Based on Eigenvalues Greater or Equal to One. According to an EFA allowing
factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 to be extracted, the scree plot showed a point of inflexion
above the 4th component, indicating that 3 factors should be extracted. However, 4 factors were
extracted, based on the number of factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. The first factor
26


explained 35% of the variance, the second factor 30% of the variance, the third factor 9% of the
variance, and the fourth factor explained 4% of the variance. Of note, 74% of the variability in
the observed items is explained by the first 3 factors, and the fourth factor only accounts for 4%
of the variance.
Eleven items (1-5, 6r, 7-9, 11, and 18) loaded onto Factor 1. These items are as follows:
1: Same Page, 2: Equal Role, 3 Views in Sync, 4: Practices in Sync, 5: Equal Value, 6r: Not
Equally Religious/Spiritual, 7: Core Beliefs, 8: Actions Match Beliefs, 9: Agree About Role, 11:
Equally Prioritize, and 18: Similarly Apply. It is important to note that item 2 (Equal Role) also
loaded onto factor 3 in a similar magnitude. Overall, the items loading onto Factor 1 focus on
cognitive aspects of homogamy. Eleven items (12r, 13, 14r-17r, and 19r-23r) loaded onto Factor
2. These items are as follows: 12r: Difficult to Reconcile, 13: Respect Beliefs, 14r: Pressure
From, 15r: Pressure To, 16r: Argue, 17r: Conflict, 19r: Avoid, 20r: I Cant Practice, 21r: Partner
Cant Practice, 22r: Partners Activities Take Away, and 23r: My Activities Take Away. The
items loading onto Factor 2 focus on how the couple relates to one another (e.g. presence of
respect and/or conflict). Seven items (2 and 24-29) loaded highly onto Factor 3. These items are
as follows: 2: Equal Role, 24: Share Religious Service, 25:1 Want to Attend Service, 26: Partner
Wants to Attend Service, 27:1 Want Private Religious Practices (PRP), and 28: Partner Wants
PRP. These items focus on religious practices. Lastly, four items (8, 10, 13, and 18) loaded onto
Factor 4. These items are as follows: 8: Actions Match Beliefs, 10: Agree Right/Wrong, 13:
Respect Beliefs, and 18: Similarly Apply. However, items 8, 13, and 18 loaded onto other
factors in a similar magnitude as they loaded onto Factor 4. Because most of the items that
loaded onto Factor 4 loaded equally as high on other factors, and there is a lack of additional
27


variability explained by Factor 4, the structure matrix better supports a 3 factor model, rather
than a 4 factor model. The scree plot also supports a 3 factor model.
Three and Six Factor EFAs. Three and six factor solutions were examined, using a
direct oblimin rotation of the factor loading matrix. The three factor solution explained a total of
74% of the variance and the six factor solution explained 82% of the variance. The three factor
EFA seems to be a better fit; therefore, it is described below.
According to the three factor EFA, the first factor explained 36% of the variance, the
second factor 29% of the variance, and the third factor 9% of the variance. The same eleven
items (1-5, 6r, 7-9, 11, and 18) loaded onto Factor 1 as the items that loaded on the first factor of
the EFA in the above section. As in the EFA above, item 2 loaded onto factor 3 in a similar
magnitude. As in the EFA above, the same eleven items (12r, 13, 14r-17r, and 19r-23r) loaded
onto Factor 2. Lastly, as in the EFA above, the same seven items (2 and 24-29) loaded highly
onto Factor 3. Item 10 (Agree Right/Wrong) loaded somewhat lowly (.45 and .34, respectively)
onto Factor 1 and Factor 3. Given this, both EFAs seems to support a 3 factor model.
Additionally, items 2 and 10 should be considered for elimination because they both load onto
more than one factor.
Three Factor CFA Model. The three factor model did not fit well, according to the
goodness-of-fit indices: y? (406) = 5347.55,p = .000, CFI = .73, RMSEA = .15, and SRMR =
.21. Specifically, items 4, 8, 9, and 18 did not load highly onto the Homogamous Practices scale.
Furthermore, items 6r and 10 did not load highly on the Homogamous Beliefs subscale and items
12r and 13 did not load highly on Homogamous Acceptance subscale.
Six Factor CFA Model. Similarly, the six factor model did not fit well, according to the
goodness-of-fit indices: y? (406) = 5347.55, p = .000, CFI = .82, RMSEA = .12, SRMR = .21.
28


Overall, each item loaded highly onto each hypothesized subscale, however, there were
exceptions. Specifically, item 10 (Agree Right/Wrong) did not load highly on the Religious
Perspectives subscale, item 6r (Not Equally Religious/Spiritual) did not load highly on the
Importance of Religion subscale, item 12r (Difficult to Reconcile) did not load highly on the
Conflict subscale, and item 13 (Respect Beliefs) did not load highly on the Mutual Religious
Respect subscale.
Best Fitting CFA Model. Based on the results of the EFAs and the hypothesized three
and six factor CFAs, numerous CFAs were examined in order to find the best fitting model. In
the end, the best fitting model consisted of 3 factors, which did not include items 6r (Not Equally
Religious/Spiritual), 10 (Agree Right/Wrong), 12r (Difficult to Reconcile), or 13 (Respect
Beliefs). Items 4 (Practices in Sync), 8 (Actions Match Beliefs), 9 (Agree About Role), and 18
(Similarly Apply) were moved to the Homogamous Beliefs subscale. According to the
hypothesized 6 factor model, items 4, 8, 9, and 18 comprised the Behavioral Integration
subscale, which was part of the Homogamous Practices category. Upon further reflection on the
results of the EFAs and the CFAs, it became evident that items 4, 8, 9, and 18 were more related
to cognition than behavior. As described in the EFA section, the first extracted factor focused on
cognitions about religion and spirituality whereas the second factor focused on religious
behaviors. Thus, it was reasonable to move items 4, 8, 9, and 18 to the first factor, which maps
onto the items that comprise the hypothesized Homogamous Beliefs category. The goodness-of-
fit indices for this model are as follows: % (300) = 4736.79,/) = .000, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .11,
SRMR = .09. Please see Figures 1-3 for the variable loadings of each factor, and see Appendix
G for the concept map that represents these factor loadings.
29


Figure 1. Phase 1 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Beliefs
Figure 2. Phase 1 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Acceptance
30


Figure 3. Phase 1 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Practices


CHAPTER V.
METHODS: PHASE 2
Phases 2 analyzed a confirmatory analysis of the revised SHARE, addressed the criterion
and construct validity of the SHARE, and determined the amount of variability in perceived
stress predicted by religious homogamy.
Sample
Participants were recruited through StudyResponse, a research service that has a large
database of individuals who have agreed to take part in research. For this phase, StudyResponse
pre-screened for individuals who: 1) are married or in a serious relationship with a partner for at
least one year, 2) live with their partner, 3) are at least 18 years old and partners are at least 18
years old, and 4) live in the United States. The sample was also stratified so that it would
roughly approximate the United States population on gender and ethnicity.
Two hundred and forty participants began the survey; however, 25 participant records
were excluded from analyses because the participant had already completed the survey and/or
did not complete any items beyond the demographic items, 14 additional participants were
excluded from analyses because they incorrectly answered the informed consent comprehension
questions, and 13 additional participants were excluded from analyses because they incorrectly
responded to two or more of the quality control questions. Given this, 188 participants were
included in analyses. As shown in Table 8, participants were approximately equally represented
by both genders (female = 52.1%), primarily white (73.9%), overly represented by those with a
higher education, and had a mean age of 43.1. As shown in Table 9, participants primarily
identified as Catholic or Protestant Christian, over half (58.5%) identified as moderately
religious or very religious, and about half reported that they attend religious services two
32


times a year or less.
Table 8
Phase 2 Participant Demographics (N = 188)
Variable Total Variable Total
Age in Years Times married N (%)
Range 24-78 (Not Including Current
Mean (SD) 43.10 Relationship)
(11.07) 0 42 (22.3)
1 97 (51.6)
Sex N1%) 2 24 (12.8)
Male 86 (45.7) 3+ 16 (8.5)
Female 98 (52.1) Missing 9 (4.8)
Missing 4 (2.1)
Length of Relationship with
Ethnicity N(%) Current Partner in Years
White- not Hispanic 139(73.9) Range 1-53
Black- not Hispanic 14 (7.4) Mean (SD) 16.42
Hispanic or Latino 23 (12.2) (10.76)
Asian or Pacific Islander 6 (3.2)
American Indian or Alaskan 3 (1.6) Number of Children
Native Range 0-6
Other (Russian) 1 (0.5) Mean (SD) 1.66(1.22)
Missing 2 (1.1)
Number of Children Currently
Education (Highest Level Completed) nm Living in Home
High School Graduate 12 (6.4) Range 0-5
Some College 28 (14.9) Mean(SD) 1.19(1.09)
Two Year College Degree 24 (12.8)
Four Year College Degree 85 (45.2)
Graduate Study 37 (19.7)
Income
Under $24,999 N(%)
$25,000 to $34,999 8 (4.3)
$35,000 to $49,999 11 (5-9)
$50,000 to $74,999 17 (9.0)
$75,000 to $99,999 25 (13.3)
$100,000 to $149,999 64 (34.0)
$150,000 and Over 39 (20.7)
Missing 21 (11.2)
Living Location 3 (1.6) nm
Inner City 42 (22.3)
Urban 46 (24.5)
Suburban 74 (39.4)
Rural 24 (12.8)
Missing 2 (1.1)
33


Table 9
Phase 2 Religious Characteristics (N = 188)
Variable Total Variable Total
Religious Preference Affiliation *V(%) Parmers Spirituality
Catholic 82 (43.6) Not Spiritual At All 22 (11.7)
Protestant Christian 33 (17.6) Slightly Spiritual 42 (22.3)
Jewish 13 (6.9) Moderately Spiritual 85 (45.2)
Islamic Muslim 1 (0.5) Very Spiritual 34 (181)
Buddhist 8 (4.3) Missing 5 (2.7)
Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) 2 (1.1)
Atheist 14 (7.4) Frequency of Religious Service
Other 35 (18.6) Attendance With Parmer
Never 43 (22.9)
Parmers Religious am Once or Twice a Year 48 (25.5)
Preference. Affiliation Every Month or So 15 (8.0)
Catholic 91 (48.4) Once or Twice a Month 25 (13.3)
Protestant Christian 30 (16.0) Every Week or More Often 55 (29.2)
Jewish 11 (5.9) Missing 2 (1.1)
Islamic Muslim 5 (2.7)
Buddhist 8 (4.3) Frequency of Participation in Nm
Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) 2 (1.1) Religious Activities Outside of a
Atheist 7 (3.7) Place of Worship
Other 33 (17.6) Never 43 (22.9)
Missing 1 (0.5) Less Than Once a Month 21 (11.2)
Once a Month 14 (7.4)
Religiosity Nm A Few' Times a Month 30 (16-0)
Not Religious At All 30 (16.0) lx Week 18 (9.6)
Slightly Religious 43 (22.9) A Few' Times a Week 24 (12.8)
Moderately Religious 76 (40.4) Once a Day or More 36 (191)
Very Religious 34 (18.1) Missing 2 (1.1)
Missing 5 (2.7)
Parmers Frequency of V(%)
Parmers Religiosity N(%) Participation in Religious
Not Religious At All 29 (15.4) Activities Outside of a Place of
Slightly Religious 53 (28.2) Worship
Moderately Religious 69 (36.7) Never 48 (25.5)
Very Religious 34 (18.1) Less Than Once a Month 28 (14.9)
Missing 3 (1.6) Once a Month 12 (6.4)
A Fewr Times a Month 29 (15-4)
Spirituality xm lx Week 18 (9.6)
Not Spiritual At All 18 (9.6) A Few' Times a Week 30 (16.0)
Slightly Spiritual 41 (21.8) Once a Day or More 22 (11.7)
Moderately Spiritual 76 (40.4) Missing 1 (0.5)
Very Spiritual 53 (28.2)
34


Measures
Demographics, Religious Characteristics, and Validity Questions
The demographics, religious characteristics, and validity questions were the same as in
Phase 1.
Spiritual Homogamy and Religious Experiences (SHARE) Scale
Based on the results from Phase 1, items 10 (Agree Right/Wrong) and 13 (Respect
Beliefs) were eliminated from the SHARE used in Phase 2. However, though the results from
Phase 1 suggested their elimination, items 6r (Not Equally Religious/Spiritual) and 12r (Difficult
to Reconcile) were included because these items contained constructs that the researcher
believed were important to measure and thus added to the content validity of the scale.
In addition to dropping items 10 and 13, the Horn ogam ous Practices scale was changed.
Specifically, 4 items from the Religious Characteristics scale (Appendix A) were included in the
place of the 2 items, My partner and I attend together, and My partner and I participate
together in religious practices. Additionally, the desire to attend and the desire to participate
items were subtracted from each other to create items that better represent homogamy. An
explanation for and specific description of these changes are detailed below.
Upon review of the Homogamous Practice items, the researcher recognized that the item
My partner and I attend together, allowed for multiple situations to be applicable. When the
item was created, the researcher meant for it to clearly distinguish between homogamous and
heterogamous attendance. That is, if a person endorsed Disagree or Strongly Disagree, it
meant that the couple was heterogamous, where one partner attends and the other partner does
not attend. Likewise, if the person endorsed Strongly Agree, this represented that the couple
was homogamous. However, after the completion of Phase 1 data collection, the researcher
35


realized that it was possible for someone to rate this item as Disagree or Strongly Disagree
because neither partner attends; therefore, they do not attend together. In this case, the
participant and his/her partner would be homogamous, rather than heterogamous. To prevent
this from occurring, the researcher decided to create a new variable to measure homogamous
attendance, which subtracted the frequency of the participants service attendance from the
partners religious service attendance. Specifically, item 24 (My partner and I attend religious
services together) was deleted, and items 13 (How often do you attend religious services) and 14
(How often does your partner attend religious services) from the Religious Characteristics scale
(see Appendix A) were added in its place. This variable was named Homogamous Attendance.
Similarly, the item My partner and I participate together in religious practices, also
allowed for multiple situations to be true if a participant endorsed Disagree or Strongly
Disagree, one indicating heterogamy and the other homogamy. Therefore, item 27 (My partner
and I participate together in religious practices) was deleted, and item 16 (How often do you
participate in religious activities outside of a place of worship) and item 17 (How often does your
partner participate in religious activities outside of a place of worship) from the Religious
Characteristics scale (Appendix A) was added in its place. For analyses, a new variable,
Homogamous Participation in Religious Practices, was created. For this variable, the frequency
of the participants participation in religious practices was subtracted from the frequency of the
partners participation.
Further, upon review, the researcher recognized that one partners desire to attend
religious services or participate in religious practices did not indicate homogamy; rather, it was
the degree of similarity in two partners desire that would represent homogamy. Therefore,
items 25 (I want to attend religious services with my partner) and 26 (My partner wants to attend
36


religious services with me) were subtracted from each other to create a new variable,
Homogamous Desire to Attend. Additionally, items 28 (I want to participate in private religious
practices) and 29 (My partner wants to participate in private religious practices) were subtracted
from each other to create a new variable, the Homogamous Desire to Participate in Religious
Practices.
For each of the 4 new variables (Homogamous Attendance, Homogamous Participation
in Religious Practices, Homogamous Desire to Attend, and Homogamous Desire to Participate in
Religious Practices), the total score, taken from the subtraction of one item from the other, was
reverse coded so that the score mapped onto the Likert type scale used for the other items on the
SHARE. Specifically, a difference of an absolute value of 5 was recoded to be 1 {Strongly
Disagree), a difference of an absolute value of 4 was recoded to be 2 {Disagree), a difference of
an absolute value of 3 was recoded to be 3 {Somewhat Disagree), a difference of an absolute
value of 2 was recoded to be 4 {Somewhat Agree), a difference of an absolute value of 1 was
recoded to be 5 {Agree), and a difference of an absolute value of 0 was recoded to be 6 {Strongly
Agree).
Taken together, the SHARE used in Phase 2 differed from the scale utilized in Phase 1
because the scale in Phase 2 excluded items 10 and 13, and measured the construct of
homogamous practices in a different way. That is, 2 items were deleted from the scale, 4 items
were added, and 4 new variables were created to better measure homogamous practices.
Furthermore, the Homogamous Practices scale was renamed Practicing Together because this
more aptly expresses the content of the new variables. In the end, the Practicing Together scale
consisted of 4 items: (1) Homogamous desire to attend (SHARE Items 25-26, using the 1-6
Likert scale), (2) Homogamous desire to participate in religious practices (SHARE Items 28-29,
37


using the 1-6 Likert scale), (3) Homogamous attendance (Attendance minus Partner's attendance,
which are items taken from the religious characteristics questions and use a 1-5 Likert scale.
This replaces Item 24 on the SHARE), and (4) Homogamous participation in religious practices
(Participation in religious practices minus Partner's participation in religious practices, which are
items taken from the religious characteristics questions and use a 1-8 Likert scale. This replaces
Item 27 on the SHARE).
For analyses, the mean of all items on the SHARE was utilized as the total SHARE score.
Additionally, the mean of each subscale was included in analyses. Please see the Analysis
section below for information regarding the internal consistency of the SHARE and subscales.
Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale
The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (see Appendix H) is a brief self-report measure of
overall relationship satisfaction (KMSS; Schumm et al., 1986). It includes 3 items assessing
satisfaction with ones (1) relationship, (2) husband/wife as a spouse and (3) relationship with
ones husband/wife. However, for this study, the scale was revised to say relationship instead
of marriage, and partner instead of spouse, due to the fact that participants did not need to
be married in order to be included in the study. The items are rated on a 7-point Likert-type
scale that ranges from extremely dissatisfied (1) to extremely satisfied (7). For data analysis, the
mean was utilized; therefore, the possible range of scores was 1-7. For the sample included in
this phase, the Cronbachs alpha was .942. In previous studies, this scale has been found to
correlate highly with other measures of marital satisfaction, including the Dyadic Adjustment
Scale (DAS; r = .83) and Quality Marriage Index (QMI; r = .91; Schumm et al., 1986).
38


Commitment Inventory Subscales
Four subscales from The Commitment Inventory (see Appendix I) were included to
assess various aspects of relationship commitment (Stanley & Markman, 1992). The four
subscales included were (1) Relationship Agenda, (2) Couple Identity, (3) Primacy of
Relationship, and (4) Satisfaction with Sacrifice. Each subscale consisted of 6, self-report items
rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). For data
analysis, the mean was utilized for each subscale; therefore, the possible range of scores for each
subscale was 1-7. For the sample included in this phase, the Cronbachs alpha was .989 for the
Relationship Agenda subscale, .476 for the Couple Identity subscale, .862 for the Primacy of
Relationships subscale, and .839 for the Satisfaction with Sacrifice subscale. Additionally,
Stanley and Markman (1992) found that the subscales utilized in this study were significantly
correlated with other measures of commitment, including: Johnsons Personal Commitment
Measure (correlations with the subscales utilized in this study ranged from r = 16 .73),
Rusbults Commitment Scale (correlations with the subscales utilized in this study ranged from r
= .61 .92), and Beach and Brodericks Commitment Scale (correlations with the subscales
utilized in this study ranged from r = .50 .66).
Perceived Stress Scale
The perceived stress scale (see Appendix J) is one of the mostly widely used scales to
measure the perception of stress (Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein, 1983; Cohen & Williamson,
1988). The scale consists of 10 questions, each with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never
(0) to very often (4). For data analysis, all items were summed; therefore, the possible range of
scores was 0-40. For the sample included in this phase, the Cronbachs alpha was .839. In
previous samples, the Cronbachs alpha was between .84 and .86, and the scale demonstrated
39


concurrent validity when correlated with Impact of Life Event scores (correlations ranged from r
= .24 .49; Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein, 1983).
Satisfaction with Life Scale
The Satisfaction with Life Scale (see Appendix K) is a 5 item, self-report scale that
measures general satisfaction with life (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Items are
rated on a 7-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). For data
analysis, all items were summed; therefore, the possible range of scores was 5-35. For the
sample included in this phase, the Cronbachs alpha was .886. In general, this scale has a
reported Cronbachs alpha of .87, and has been found to correlate highly with other measures of
subjective well-being (Diener, Emmons, Larsem, & Griffin, 1985). These measures include:
Cantril's Self-Anchoring Ladder (r = .62 .66), Gurins item (r = .47- .59), Andrews and
Withey's D-T scale (r = .62 .68), Fordyce's single item measure of happiness (r = .57 .58),
Fordyce's percent of time happy question (r = .58 .62), Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers'
semantic differential-like scale (r = .59 .75), Bradbum's Affect Balance Scale-PAS (r = .50 -
.51), and Tellegen's well-being subscale of his Differential Personality Questionnaire (r = .68;
Diener, Emmons, Larsem, & Griffin, 1985).
Measures of Extramarital Involvement
Three items, created by Glass and Wright (1992), were utilized to measure extramarital
involvement. For this study, relationship was used for marriage, and partner was used for
spouse, due to the fact that participants did not need to be married in order to participate. Each
item is self-report and is rated on a 5-point or 7-point Likert scale (see Appendix L for the
anchors and questions). Each Likert scale is comprised of different anchors; however, each scale
begins with the anchor, no involvement (1). For data analysis, each item was dichotomized so
40


that no involvement was coded as (0) and any other type of involvement was coded as (1). The
items were then summed for a total score; therefore, the possible range of scores was 0-3. Glass
and Wright (1992) found that reported extramarital involvement (sexual and emotional) was
positively correlated with attitudes towards extramarital involvement; thus providing
convergence validity. Further, the items appear to be a face valid measurement of extramarital
involvement, including emotional and sexual involvement.
Marital Instability Index
Relationship Instability was measured by 3 items adapted from the short form of the self-
report, Marital Instability Index (see Appendix M; Booth, Johnson, & Edwards, 1983;
Mannering, et al., 2011; Stanley et al., 2014). Participants responded to the following items, (1)
In the last six months, have you thought your current relationship might be in trouble? (2) In
the last six months, has the thought of getting a divorce or separation crossed your mind? and
(3) In the last six months, have you or your partner seriously suggest the idea of divorce or
separation? and rated these items on a yes (1) or no (0) scale. For this study, relationship was
used instead of marriage, and partner was used instead of spouse, due to the fact that
participants did not need to be married in order to participate. For data analysis, the items were
summed; therefore, the possible range of scores was 0-3. For the sample included in this phase,
the Cronbachs alpha was .920. In previous samples, the Cronbachs alpha ranged from .77 to
.88 (Mannering, et al., 2011; Stanley et al., 2014). Rauer, Karney, Garvan, and Hou (2008)
found that a 12 item index score, including items that measured relationship commitment,
satisfaction, intimacy and the 3 marital instability items, demonstrated reliability with a
Cronbachs alpha of .88. This indicates that the marital instability items converge with other
41


theoretically related items and thus provides construct validity. Additionally, the items included
in this index appear to be a face valid measurement of the construct of relationship instability.
Danger Signs Scale
Negative interaction was measured by the 5 item Danger Signs Scale (see Appendix N;
Stanley & Markman, 1997). The questions are rated on a 3-point Likert scale ranging from
never or almost never (1) to frequently (3), and assess patterns of negative interaction, such as
escalation, invalidation, negative interpretation, and withdrawal. For data analysis, the items
were summed; therefore, the possible range of scores was 5-15. For the sample included in this
phase, the Cronbachs alpha was .835. For previous samples, the Cronbachs alpha has ranged
from .73 .91 (Stanley et al., 2005; Stanley et al., 2001). Different versions of this measure have
demonstrated good reliability, convergent validity, and construct validity (Allen, Rhoades,
Stanley, & Markman, 2010; Stanley et al., 2005). For construct validity, negative interaction has
been shown to positively correlate with posttraumatic stress disorder (r .28), and negatively
correlate with martial satisfaction (r = -.62), positive bonding (r = -.58), and parenting alliance (r
= -.31; Allen etal., 2010).
Procedures
As in Phase 1, StudyResponse recruited participants by distributing an email with
eligibility requirements. Following this, StudyResponse randomly sampled those who
responded, stratifying the sample to roughly approximate the United States population on gender
and ethnic specifications. Those randomly chosen were sent an e-mail with a link to the survey,
which was then administered through REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Harris, et al.,
2009). The participants first completed the informed consent process, which was the same as
Phase 1. That is, participants read the consent, indicated that they understood the terms of the
42


study, and answered comprehension questions regarding what they had read in the informed
consent (please see the Procedures section of Phase 1 for more information).
Upon completion of the comprehension questions, participants proceeded to the survey.
Instructions were given at the beginning of the survey and in a paragraph preceding each section
of the survey, which consisted of 19 demographic and religious characteristic questions and 70
additional items. Participants were instructed to choose their answers by clicking on the answer
that most appropriately reflected their agreement with the statements provided. Participants were
also asked to complete the online survey individually, privately, and anonymously. Additionally,
participants were given instructions on clearing browser history as an additional protective
measure. Furthermore, the participants were anonymous to the researchers, as they only reported
their StudyResponse identification number to the researcher.
The participants were allotted unlimited time to complete the survey, but it is estimated
that it took 60 minutes to complete, based on the amount of time that it has taken past
participants to complete a survey with a similar length. After they finished the survey, the
participants were finished with their participation in the study. A list of identification numbers
of those who completed the survey was sent to StudyResponse, who sent payment to the
participants for their participation (a $20.00 Amazon Gift card).
Data Analysis
Aim 2
To conduct a psychometric analysis of a new measure of couples religious homogamy
Phase 2: Calculate and analyze a confirmatory factor analysis of the revised SHARE and
assess the criterion and construct validity of the revised SHARE.
43


Descriptive Statistics, Correlations Among Scales, and Alpha Coefficients of All
Measures Besides the SHARE. Descriptive statistics of all measures were analyzed using IBM
SPSS version 21 software. Means, standard deviations, ranges, skew, and kurtosis were
examined to ascertain that all items were within the correct ranges, to assess normality of the
variables, and to understand the distribution of the variables. Correlations among the measures
were also analyzed using IBM SPSS version 21 software. Further, alpha coefficients were
calculated using IBM SPSS version 21 software to determine the internal consistency of each
measure. Measures were deemed internally consistent if Cronbachs alpha > 0.70.
Internal Consistencies, Correlations, Factorability of the 3 Factor Model of SHARE,
and Descriptive Statistics. First, the data were screened and the assumption of factorability was
assessed to ensure that the data were suitable for factor analysis. As stated above, the internal
consistency reliability of the SHARE was assessed via coefficient alpha, and an alpha coefficient
of > 0.70 was considered acceptable. Furthermore, correlations of items within each subscale
and between subscales were analyzed. An item was considered for elimination if a correlation in
the correlation matrix of items within each subscale was < 0.30. If a correlation was > 0.90, the
item was considered for elimination because this could have been indicative of multicollinearity
in the data (Field, 2009). Additionally, the overall Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO) statistic and
Bartletts test of sphericity were assessed to ascertain that the KMO statistic was > 0.50 and the
Barletts test of sphericity was significant (p < 0.05; Field, 2009). Lastly, means and standard
deviations of the items on the SHARE were examined. Further, the frequency of the new
variables on the Practicing Together scale was counted to determine the amount of homogamy
on these items.
44


CFA. Based on the results from Phase 1, a 3 factor CFA was conducted to re-examine
the characteristics and structure of the SHARE, using MPlus (Muthen & Muthen, 2011). As
described in the Measures section above, items 10 and 13 were excluded from the scale, and the
Homogamous Practices scale was changed and re-named Practicing Together. In addition to
these changes, items 4 (Practices in Sync), 8 (Actions Match Beliefs), 9 (Agree About Role), and
18 (Similarly Apply) were moved to the Homogamous Beliefs subscale, as suggested by the
results from Phase 1. For the CFA, model fit was determined using several goodness-of-fit
indices, including the chi-square statistic (A2), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). For
smaller samples, a non-significant Vindicates a fitting model; however, not necessarily the right
model. The cut-off values for the other indices are as follows: CFI > 0.95, RMSEA < 0.06, and
SRMR < 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Criterion Validity. Criterion validity was examined for the total SHARE score and the
3 subscales. The total SHARE score, the mean of all items, and the individual subscale scores,
the mean of each subscale, were each correlated to other measures of religious homogamy:
religious affiliation, joint attendance, and ratings of religiousness and spirituality. As mentioned
previously, a standard measure of religious homogamy does not exist; however, some of the
most common measures of religious homogamy were included in these analyses. Criterion
validity is evident if the other measures of religious homogamy converge positively with the
SHARE total and subscale scores.
Construct Validity. Construct validity was examined for the total SHARE score and the
3 subscales. Convergent validity was established if the SHARE correlated with specified
45


measures in the previously hypothesized direction. Discriminant validity was established if the
constructs predicted to be unrelated to the SHARE were not related.
The SHARE was predicted to converge with other constructs as follows. It was predicted
that the total SHARE score and the individual SHARE subscale scores would positively correlate
with (1) Relationship satisfaction, as measured by the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale
(KMSS), (2) Relationship commitment, as measured by the four Commitment Inventory
subscales (Cl subscales), and (3) Well-being, as measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale
(SWLS). Additionally, it was predicted that the total SHARE score and the individual SHARE
subscale scores would negatively correlate with (1) Infidelity, as measured by the Glass and
Wright Questions (GW questions), (2) Relationship Instability, as measured by the Marital
Instability Scale (MIS), (3) Negative Interactions, as measured by the Danger Signs Scale (DSS),
and (4) Perceived Stress, as measured by the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). To assess
discriminant validity, it was predicted that the total SHARE score and the individual SHARE
subscale scores would be unrelated to the gender (male or female) of the participant. To assess
these predictions, the total SHARE score (the mean of all items) and the individual SHARE
subscale scores (the mean of each subscale) were each correlated with the KMSS, Cl subscales,
SWLS, GW questions, MIS, DSS, PSS, and gender.
Aims 3 and 4
III. Determine the amount of variability of perceived stress that Religious Homogamy
predicts beyond Relationship Satisfaction.
Determine the amount of variability of perceived stress that Religious Homogamy
predicts beyond Relationship Commitment.
IV.
46


Aim 3.
For Aim 3, the sociodemographic variables were dummy coded and correlated with the
criterion variable (Perceived Stress). The sociodemographic variables that significantly
correlated with the criterion were included in the first step of the hierarchical regression.
Relationship satisfaction was entered in the second step, because of the known relationship of
marital satisfaction to perceived stress. Lastly, religious homogamy was entered in the third
step. The regression was conducted 5 times so that the SHARE mean, the SHARE mean without
Homogamous Acceptance, and each of the 3 SHARE subscales could be included as the
religious homogamy variable in the third step. The SHARE mean without Homogamous
Acceptance was included because the Homogamous Acceptance subscale seemed to be acting in
a different way than the other subscales in Phase 1. Excluding it in analyses could help
determine if the subscale changes the way that the total SHARE score relates to other variables.
Aim 4.
For Aim 4, the sociodemographic variables were dummy coded and correlated with the
criterion variable (Perceived Stress). The sociodemographic variables that significantly
correlated with the criterion were included in the first step of the hierarchical regression.
Relationship commitment (all four subscales of the Commitment Inventory) was entered into the
second step. Lastly, religious homogamy was entered in the third step. The regression was
conducted 5 times so that the SHARE mean, the SHARE mean without Homogamous
Acceptance, and each of the 3 subscales could be included as the religious homogamy variable in
the third step. As mentioned in Aim 3, the SHARE mean without Homogamous Acceptance was
included because the Homogamous Acceptance subscale seems to be acting in a different way
than the other subscales.
47


CHAPTER VI.
RESULTS: PHASE 2
Aim 2
Descriptive Statistics, Correlations Among Scales, and Alpha Coefficients of All
Measures Excluding the SHARE. The descriptives for all measures, besides the SHARE, are
presented in Table 10. Each scale was scored as described in the Measures section above;
therefore, some scales total scores are a reflection of the sum of the items whereas others are the
mean of the items. The scores for each measure all fall within the potential ranges. The skew
and kurtosis of all measures were found to be adequate; therefore, no transformations were made.
The skew of all measures ranged from -1.157 to 1.937 and the kurtosis of all measures ranged
from -1.843 to 2.235. The correlations among all measures, excluding the SHARE, are
presented in Table 11. Correlations among the measures ranged from -.589 to .754.
Additionally, the Cronbachs alphas are reported in the description of each measure in the above
Measures section. Overall, the alpha coefficients demonstrated that each measure is internally
consistent for the sample included in this phase. The only exception to this is the Couple Identity
subscale, whose Cronbachs alpha was .476, indicating that this subscale does not have good
internal consistency for the sample included in this phase.
Table 10.
Descriptive Statistics of Measures Utilized in Phase 2 (Excluding the SHARE)
Measure Name n M SD Range Potential Actual Skew (Std. Error) Kurtosis (Std. Error)
Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale 184 5.77 1.17 1 -7 2-7 -1.157 (.179) 1.300 (.356)
Cl: Relationship Agenda 181 6.03 1.15 1 -7 2.33-7 -1.081 (.181) .245 (.359)
48


Cl: Couple Identity 181 4.94 0.92
Cl: Primacy of Relationship 181 5.45 1.24
Cl: Satisfaction with Sacrifice 181 5.31 1.18
Perceived Stress Scale 188 13.5 5.99
Satisfaction with Life Scale 188 25.32 5.46
Glass and Wright questions 188 1.60 0.51
Marital Instability Index 184 0.44 0.94
Danger Signs Scale 184 7.98 2.54
1 -7 2.67- -.507 -.678
6.80 (.181) (.359)
1 -7 2.33-7 -.188 -1.215
(.181) (.359)
1 -7 2.17-7 -.322 -.516
(.181) (.359)
0-40 0-28 .030 -.419
(.177) (.353)
5-35 5-35 -.659 .335
(.177) (.353)
0-3 0-3 .170 -1.843
(.177) (.353)
0-3 0-3 1.937 2.235
(.179) (.356)
5 15 5-15 .603 -.459
(.179) (.356)
Table 11.
Correlations among Measures Utilized in Phase 2 (Excluding the SHARE)
Measure Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Kansas Marital
Satisfaction Scale 2. Cl: .610**
Relationship Agenda 3. Cl: Couple Identity .445** .745** -
4. Cl: Primacy of Relationship .539** .754** .754**
5 Cl: Satisfaction with Sacrifice .538** .629** .627** .752**
6. Perceived _ 361** - .332** -.265** . 309** -.323 **
Stress Scale 7. Satisfaction with Life Scale .322** .183* .122 .136 .128 -.327**
8. Glass and -.255** . 545** _ 579** -.580** _ 451** .152* -.134 -
49


Wright
questions
9. Marital -.450** -.516 ** -.347** -.331** -.400** .386** -.175* .169*
Instability Index
10. Danger -.487** -.422** -.263** -.369** -.357** .549** -.274** .067
Signs Scale_________________________________________________________________________________
**p < .01
*p< .05
Internal Consistencies, Correlations, Factorability of the 3 Factor Model of SHARE,
and Descriptive Statistics. The Cronbachs alphas of the SHARE are presented in Table 12.
Alphas ranged from .654 to .950, demonstrating that the SHARE scale and subscales are
internally consistent. The correlations and means of items within each of the 3 subscales are
presented in Tables 13-15. Correlations among the items in the Homogamous Beliefs subscale
ranged from .416 to .893. Correlations among the items in the Practicing Together subscale
ranged from .262 to .480. Correlations among the items in the Homogamous Acceptance
subscale ranged from .437 to .888. Although there were correlations < 0.30 (.282 and .262,
specifically) on the Practicing Together subscale, these items were conceptually important to the
content validity of the scale and thus were included. None of the correlations were >0.90;
therefore, none of the items were considered for elimination based on this criterion. The
correlations between the 3 subscales are presented in Table 16. The Homogamous Beliefs
subscale significantly correlated with the Practicing Together subscale; however, the
Homogamous Acceptance subscale did not correlate with either subscale (r = .132 and .042,
respectively). Additionally, two empirical indices of the samples correlation matrix revealed
that the 3 factor model was suitable for factor-analytic procedures: Bartletts test of sphericity
was significant, x2(300) = 3341.892,p = 0.00, and the overall Kaiser-Meyer-Oklin (KMO)
statistic was .905.
.517**
50


Lastly, the frequency of each new variable on the Practicing Together scale was counted
to determine the amount of homogamy on these items. For both the homogamous desire to
attend variable and the homogamous desire to participate in religious practices, 128 (out of 181)
people were coded as a 6, which indicates a difference of 0 (no difference) between the person's
and the partner's desire to attend/participate in religious practices. For the homogamous
attendance variable, 148 (out of 181) people were coded as a 5, which indicates a difference of 0
(no difference) between the person's and the partner's attendance. Lastly, for the homogamous
participation in religious practices variable, 132 (out of 185) people were coded as an 8, which
indicates a difference of 0 (no difference) between the person's and the partner's participation in
religious practices. This indicates that in this population variability on the Practicing Together
items is limited.
Overall, the correlations of items within each subscale were within an appropriate range
and alphas were good. However, not all subscales significantly correlated with each other. This
could indicate that each subscale may act differently in the subsequent analyses of phase 2;
therefore, the overall SHARE mean and the 3 subscales means were utilized in the following
analyses.
Table 12.
Phase 2 Internal Consistency Reliabilities of SHARE
Scale N N of items Alpha Standardized Item Alpha
SHARE 142 25 .912 .913
3 Factor Model
Homogamous Beliefs 165 11 .951 .955
Practicing Together 163 4 .654 .692
Homogamous Acceptance 167 10 .950 .950
51


Table 13.
Phase 2 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Beliefs Subscale Items (N = 178)
Item Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(SD)
1. SHARE1: 4.48
Same Page (1-23)
2. SHARE2: 4.19 .601**
Equal Role (1-53)
3. SHARE3: 4.51 .882** .642**
Views in (1.34)
Sync 4. SHARE4: 4.46 .862** .596** .851**
Practices in (1.35)
Sync 5. SHARE5: 4.44 .864** .636** .843** .893**
Equal Value (1.31)
6. SHARE 4.15 .589** .429** .556** .579** .616**
6r: Equally R/S (1.67)
7. SHARE7: 4.69 .758** .636** .789** 749** .722** .441
Core Beliefs (1.26)
8. SHARE8: 4.56 .730** .547** .701** .746** .713** .512** .640**
Actions Match Beliefs (1.14)
9. SHARE9: 4.56 .763** .589** .773** .772** .623** .667** .740
Agree About Role (1.25)
10. 4.44 .727** .606** .718** .682** .702** .455** .637** .726** .726**
SHARE11: Equally Prioritize (1.27)
11. 4.45 .579** .484** .588** .575** .564** .416** .533** .643** .624** .620**
SHARE18: (1.22)
Similarly APPlv
aHigher scores indicate more homogamy.
**p < .01
52


Table 14.
Phase 2 Means of and Correlations among the Practicing Together Subscale Items
Item Mean (SD) 1 2 3
1. Desire Attend 2. Desire PRP 5.51 (.98) 5.54 (.93) .370**
3. Homo Attend 4.75 (.65) 477** .282**
4. Homo PRP 7.35 (1.39) .344** .336** .262**
aHigher scores indicate more homogamy.
**p < .01
Table 15.
Phase 2 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Acceptance Subscale Items
Item Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6
(SD)
1. SHARE 4.80
12r: Reconcile R/S Diff. (1.27)
2. 4.87 .525**
SHARE 14r: Pressure From (1.50)
3. 4.88 .507** .816**
SHARE15r: Pressure Towards (1.50)
4. 5.13 .568** .576** .623**
SHARE 16r: Argue (1.28)
5. 5.01 .437** .770** .757** .670
SHARE 17r: Conflict (1.36)
6. 4.77 .580** .553** .592** .691** .574** -
SHARE 19r: Avoid (1.43)
7. 4.87 .462** .613** .582** .536** .592** .556
SHARE20r: (1.44)
Cant
Practice
9
53


.455** .719** .705** .555** .697** .697** .690**
8.
SHARE21r:
Partner
Cant
Practice
9.
SHARE22r:
My
Activities
Take Away
4.97 .528** .768** .806** .622** .707** .652** .602** .824**
(1.46)
5.04
(1.36)
10.
5.08 .534** .714** .797** .654* .679** .659** .597** .787** .888**
SHARE23r: (1.32)
Partners
Activities
Takes
Away______________
aHigher scores indicate more homogamy.
**p < .01
Table 16.
Phase 2 Correlations among the Subscales
Sub scale 1 2
1. Homogamous Acceptance
2. Practicing Together .042
3. Homogamous Beliefs .132 .539
**p < .01
CFA. The goodness-of-fit indices for the 3 factor CFA were as follows: % (272) =
704.18,/) = .000, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .11, SRMR = .08. These indices suggest that this model
has a reasonable fit. Please see Figures 4-6 for the variable loadings of each factor, Appendix O
for the final list and order of items included in the SHARE, and Appendix O for the concept map
representing the factor loadings. The SHARE item numbers included in the figures of the factor
loadings are the items numbers from the original version of the SHARE (Appendix B). For the
items whose number changed from the original version to the final version of the SHARE,
Appendix P lists the item number from the original version (Appendix B) and the item number
from the final version (Appendix O).
54


Figure 4. Phase 2 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Beliefs
Figure 5. Phase 2 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Acceptance
55


Figure 6. Phase 2 Factor Loadings of Practicing Together
Criterion Validity. The SHARE mean was significantly, positively correlated with
homogamous religious affiliation, r = .172, p < .05, homogamous attendance, r = 347, p= .00,
homogamous religiousness, r = .396,p = .00, and homogamous spirituality, r = .220,p < .01.
The Homogamous Beliefs subscale mean was also significantly, positively correlated with
homogamous religious affiliation, r = .364,p = .00, homogamous attendance, r = .325,p = .00,
homogamous religiousness, r = Al\,p = .00, and homogamous spirituality, r = .394,p = .00.
Additionally, the Practicing Together subscale mean was significantly, positively correlated with
homogamous religious affiliation, r = .310,/? = .00, homogamous attendance, r = .621, p = .00,
homogamous religiousness, r = .467,p = .00, and homogamous spirituality, r = All, p = .00.
Unlike the SHARE mean and the other subscale means, the Homogamous Acceptance subscale
mean did not positively correlate with the other measures of religious homogamy. In fact, the
56


Homogamous Acceptance subscale mean was non-significantly, negatively correlated with
homogamous religious affiliation, r = -.073,p = .34, homogamous attendance, r = -.028,/) = .72,
homogamous religiousness, r = -.067,p = .38, and homogamous spirituality, r = -.126,p= .01.
Construct Validity. To assess convergent validity, the SHARE was correlated with
measures which were hypothesized to produce a positive correlation. Data show that the
SHARE mean was significantly, positively correlated with (1) Relationship satisfaction, as
measured by the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS), (2) Relationship commitment, as
measured by the four Commitment Inventory subscales: Relationship Agenda, Couple Identity,
Primacy of Relationship, and Satisfaction with Sacrifice, and (3) Well-being, as measured by the
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Likewise, the Homogamous Beliefs and Homogamous
Acceptance subscales were significantly, positively correlated with (1) Relationship Satisfaction,
(2) Martial Commitment, and (3) Well-being. Lastly, the Practicing Together subscale was
significantly, positively correlated with (1) Relationship Satisfaction, and (2) Well-being.
However, the Practicing Together subscale did not correlate with the Commitment Inventory
subscales. Please see Table 17 for the correlations among these measures
To further assess convergent validity, the SHARE was also correlated with measures
which were hypothesized to produce a negative correlation. Data show that the SHARE mean
was significantly, negatively correlated with (1) Infidelity, as measured by the Glass and Wright
Questions (GW questions), (2) Relationship Instability, as measured by the Marital Instability
Scale (MIS), (3) Negative Interactions, as measured by the Danger Signs Scale (DSS), and (4)
Perceived Stress, as measured by the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS). The Homogamous Beliefs
subscale was significantly, negatively correlated with (1) Relationship Instability, (2) Negative
Interactions, and (3) Perceived Stress, and is non-significantly, negatively correlated with
57


Infidelity. The Homogamous Acceptance subscale was significantly, negatively correlated with
(1) Infidelity, (2), Relationship Instability, (3) Negative Interactions, and (4) Perceived Stress.
The Practicing Together subscale was significantly, negatively correlated with (1) Negative
Interactions and (2) Perceived Stress, and is non-significantly, negatively correlated with Martial
Instability or Infidelity. Please see Table 18 for the correlations among these measures.
Table 17.
Correlations among Measures That Were Hypothesized to Produce a Positive Correlation with
the SHARE
Measure Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. SHARE
Mean 2. HB Mean .775**
3. HA Mean .671** .132
4. PT Mean .521** .539** .042
5. Kansas .358** .370** .272** .157*
Marital Satisfaction Scale 6. Cl: Relationship Agenda 494** .266** .621** .004 .610**
7. Cl: Couple Identity .455** .146 .646** -.007 .445** .745**
8. Cl: Primacy of Relationship .521** .254** .690** .030 .539** .754** .754**
9. Cl: Satisfaction with Sacrifice .391** .268** .453** .037 .538** .629** .627** .752** -
10. Satisfaction with Life Scale .240** .162* .162* .176* .322** .183* .122 .136 .128
**p < .01
*p< .05
58


Table 18.
Correlations among Measures Which Were Hypothesized to Produce a Negative Correlation
with the SHARE
Measure Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. SHARE Mean
2. HB Mean .775**
3. HA Mean .671** .132
4. PT Mean .521** .539** .042
5. Glass and Wright -.325** .046** -.602** .091
6. Marital Instability Scale -.253** -.216** -.205** -.119 .169
7. Danger Signs Scale . 354** . 299** - .202** .240** .067 .517** -
8. Perceived Stress Scale .354** -.239** -.281** -.207** .152* .386** .549**
**p < .01 *p< .05
Lastly, to assess discriminant validity, it was predicted that the SHARE mean and
subscale means would be unrelated to the gender (male or female) of the participant. Data show
that the SHARE mean, r = .152,/? = .07, Horn ogam ous Beliefs mean, r = -.009, p= .90, and
Practicing Together mean, r = -.151,/? =.06, did not significantly correlate with gender.
However, the Homogamous Acceptance did significantly, positively correlate with gender, r =
.369,/) = .00, indicating that females reported more homogamous acceptance than males.
Because Homogamous Acceptance significantly correlated, this signifies that the Homogamous
Acceptance scale does not exhibit discriminant validity.
59


Aims 3 and 4
Aim 3. The criterion variable, Perceived Stress, significantly correlated with age, r =
.296,p< .05, and did not correlate with any of the other sociodemographic variables. Therefore,
age was included in the first step of the hierarchical regression.
When the SHARE mean was entered in the third step, the total variance in perceived
stress explained by the model as a whole was 23.7%, and the model remained significant (F (3,
136)= 15.390,p = .000). The R2 change was .034, indicating that religious homogamy (the
SHARE mean) explained an additional 3.4% of perceived stress, above age and relationship
satisfaction, and was significant atp= .014. When the SHARE mean without Homogamous
Acceptance was entered in the third step, the total variance in perceived stress explained by the
model as a whole was 23.9%, and the model remained significant (.F (3, 145) = 16.524,p =
.000). The R2 change was .037, indicating that religious homogamy (the SHARE mean)
explained an additional 3.7% of perceived stress, beyond age and relationship satisfaction, and
was significant atp = .008. When the Homogamous Beliefs subscale mean was entered in the
third step, R2= .216 (F (3, 173)= 17.120,p = .000), R2 change = .017, indicating that
Homogamous Beliefs explained an additional 1.7% of perceived stress, beyond age and
relationship satisfaction, and R2 change was significant at p = .049. When the Homogamous
Acceptance subscale mean was entered in the third step, R2 = .204 (.F (3, 173) = 16.040, p =
.000), indicating that the model remained significant. The R2 change = .006, indicating that
Homogamous Acceptance explained an additional 0.6% of perceived stress, beyond age and
relationship satisfaction, however, R2 change was not significant, p = .244. Lastly, when the
Practicing Together subscale mean was entered in the third step, R2 = .246 (F (3, 157) = 18.403,
p = .000), R2 change = .035, indicating that Practicing Together explained an additional 3.5% of
60


perceived stress, beyond age and relationship satisfaction, and was significant atp= .007. See
Tables 19-23 for the Model Parameters of each analysis.
Table 19.
Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction
b SEb P Sig.
Step 1
Constant 20.040 1.963 .000
Age -.154 .044 -.286 .001
Step 2
Constant 29.964 2.719 .000
Age -.129 .041 -.239 .002
KMSS -1.908 .389 -.373 .000
Step 3
Constant 35.436 3.451 .000
Age -.110 .041 -.204 .008
KMSS -1.564 .406 -.306 .000
SHARE -1.700 .680 -.202 .014
Table 20.
Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Without
Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction
b SEb P Sig.
Step 1
Constant 20.174 1.892 .000
Age -.154 .042 -.288 .000
Step 2
Constant 29.802 2.598 .000
Age -.130 .039 -.243 .001
KMSS -1.854 .369 -.370 .000
Step 3
Constant 34.791 3.155 .000
Age -.144 .039 -.269 .000
KMSS -1.514 .383 -.303 .000
SHARE without -1.328 .496 -.204 .008
HA
61


Table 21.
Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Beliefs Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction
b SEb P Sig.
Step 1
Constant 20.814 1.747 .000
Age -.168 .039 -.308 .000
Step 2
Constant 30.008 2.443 .000
Age -.143 .037 -.262 .000
KMSS -1.778 .351 -.344 .000
Step 3
Constant 32.172 2.657 .000
Age -.150 .037 -.275 .000
KMSS -1.496 .376 -.290 .000
Homogamous -.781 .394 -.143 .049
Beliefs
Table 22.
Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Acceptance Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction
b SEb P Sig.
Step 1
Constant 20.814 1.74 .000
Age -.168 7 -.308 .000
.039
Step 2
Constant 30.008 2.44 .000
Age -.143 3 -.262 .000
KMSS -1.778 .037 -.344 .000
.351
Step 3
Constant 30.880 2.55 .000
Age -.122 1 -.223 .004
KMSS -1.678 .041 -.325 .000
Homogamous -.480 .361 -.091 .244
Acceptance .410
62


Table 23.
Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Practicing Together Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction
b SEb P Sig.
Step 1
Constant 20.556 1.800 .000
Age -.164 .040 -.307 .000
Step 2
Constant 29.981 2.475 .000
Age -.138 .038 -.259 .000
KMSS -1.818 .353 -.364 .000
Step 3
Constant 38.834 4.038 .000
Age -.154 .037 -.288 .000
KMSS -1.649 .351 -.331 .000
Practicing -1.587 .579 -.193 .007
Together
Aim 4. The criterion variable, Perceived Stress, significantly correlated with age, r =
.296,p< .05, and did not correlate with any of the other sociodemographic variables. Therefore,
age was included in the first step of the hierarchical regression.
When the SHARE mean was entered in the third step, the total variance in perceived
stress explained by the model as a whole was 18.6%, and the model remained significant (F (6,
133) = 6.284, p = .000). The R2 change was .033, indicating that religious homogamy (the
SHARE mean) explained an additional 3.3% of perceived stress, beyond age and relationship
commitment, and was significant atp = .019. When the SHARE mean without Horn ogam ous
Acceptance was entered in the third step, the total variance in perceived stress explained by the
model as a whole was 20.1%, and the model remained significant (F (6, 142) = 16.5247.218,/) =
.000). The R2 change was .049, indicating that religious homogamy (the SHARE mean without
Homogamous Acceptance) explained an additional 4.9% of perceived stress, beyond age and
63


relationship commitment, and was significant atp = .003. When the Homogamous Beliefs
subscale mean was entered in the third step, R2= 187 (F (6, 170) = 1.16l,p= .000), R2 change =
.025, indicating that Homogamous Beliefs explained an additional 2.5% of perceived stress,
beyond age and relationship commitment, and R2 change was significant at p = .022. When the
Homogamous Acceptance subscale mean was entered in the third step, R2 = 162 (F (6, 170) =
6.664, p = .000), indicating that the model remained significant. The R2 change = .000, p = .981,
indicating that Homogamous Acceptance did not explain perceived stress, beyond age and
relationship commitment Lastly, when the Practicing Together subscale mean was entered in
the third step, R2= .215 (F (6, 154) = 8.299,p = .000), A2 change = .053, indicating that
Practicing Together explained an additional 5.3% of perceived stress, beyond age and
relationship commitment, and the R2 change was significant at p= .001. See Tables 24-28 for the
Model Parameters of each analysis.
Table 24.
Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment
b SEb P Sig.
Step 1
Constant 20.040 1.963 .000
Age -.154 .044 -.286 .001
Step 2
Constant 28.418 3.157 .000
Age -.099 .044 -.185 .027
Relationship Agenda -1.404 .703 -.259 .048
Couple Identity .709 .965 .099 .464
Primary of Relationship .025 .747 .005 .974
Satisfaction with Sacrifice -1.103 .598 -.210 .067
Step 3
Constant 33.330 3.735 .000
Age -.095 .044 -.177 .032
Relationship Agenda -1.149 .699 -.212 .103
Couple Identity .741 .949 .104 .437
64


Primary of Relationship .386 .750 .076 .607
Satisfaction with Sacrifice -1.089 .588 -.207 .066
SHARE -1.825 .772 -.217 .019
Table 25.
Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Without
Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship
Commitment
b SEb P Sig.
Step 1
Constant 20.174 1.892 .000
Age -.154 .042 -.288 .000
Step 2
Constant 29.014 2.995 .000
Age -.100 .043 -.188 .020
Relationship Agenda -1.251 .664 -.232 .062
Couple Identity .215 .854 .031 .801
Primary of Relationship .077 .718 .015 .914
Satisfaction with Sacrifice -.951 .578 -.183 .102
Step 3
Constant 35.143 3.549 .000
Age -.123 .042 -.229 .004
Relationship Agenda -1.002 .651 -.186 .126
Couple Identity .011 .833 .002 .990
Primary of Relationship .138 .698 .028 .844
Satisfaction with Sacrifice -.718 .567 -.138 .208
SHARE without HA -1.517 .502 -.233 .003
Table 26.
Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Beliefs Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment
b SEb P Sig.
Step 1 Constant 20.814 1.747 .000
Age -.168 .039 -.308 .000
65


Step 2
Constant 28.744 2.652 .000
Age -.112 .040 -.205 .006
Relationship Agenda -1.285 .611 -.241 .037
Couple Identity .421 .761 .064 .581
Primary of Relationship .001 .655 .000 .998
Satisfaction with Sacrifice -.881 .540 -.171 .104
Step 3
Constant 31.818 2.938 .000
Age -.127 .040 -.232 .002
Relationship Agenda -1.070 .611 -.200 .082
Couple Identity .161 .760 .024 .832
Primary of Relationship .140 .649 .028 .830
Satisfaction with Sacrifice -.713 .538 -.139 .187
Homogamous Beliefs -.920 .398 -.168 .022
Table 27.
Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Acceptance Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment
b SEb P Sig.
Step 1
Constant 20.814 1.747 .000
Age -.168 .039 -.308 .000
Step 2
Constant 28.744 2.652 .000
Age -.112 .040 -.205 .006
Relationship Agenda -1.285 .611 -.241 .037
Couple Identity .421 .761 .064 .581
Primary of Relationship .001 .655 .000 .998
Satisfaction with Sacrifice -.881 .540 -.171 .104
Step 3
Constant 28.745 2.660 .000
Age -.111 .043 -.204 .010
Relationship Agenda -1.283 .619 -.240 .040
Couple Identity .425 .783 .064 .588
Primary of Relationship .007 .702 .001 .992
Satisfaction with Sacrifice -.884 .554 -.172 .112
Homogamous Acceptance -.014 .566 -.003 .981
66


Table 28.
Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Practicing Together Predicting
Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment
b SEb P Sig.
Step 1
Constant 20.566 1.800 .000
Age -.164 .040 -.307 .000
Step 2
Constant 28.895 2.790 .000
Age -.106 .041 -.199 .011
Relationship Agenda -1.180 .633 -.244 .064
Couple Identity .119 .818 .018 .885
Primary of Relationship .026 .692 .005 .970
Satisfaction with Sacrifice -.825 .551 -.164 .137
Step 3
Constant 40.409 4.439 .000
Age -.126 .041 -.237 .002
Relationship Agenda -1.208 .614 -.229 .051
Couple Identity .011 .794 .002 .989
Primary of Relationship .149 .673 .030 .824
Satisfaction with Sacrifice -.750 .535 -.149 .163
Practicing Together -1.913 .585 -.232 .001
67


CHAPTER VII.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Religious homogamy has been previously shown to relate to various positive relationship
outcomes, including: marital adjustment, marital stability, satisfaction with the relationship,
frequency of conflict, and risk for divorce (negative relationship for conflict and divorce).
However, researchers have used multiple definitions and measures of homogamy, studies have
relied on a narrow range of indicators, such as attendance and affiliation, and/or researchers have
utilized a variety of somewhat unrelated or at least unsystematic religious indicators to measure
homogamy. Therefore, there is no standard measure of homogamy and there is no single
measure that incorporates multiple dimensions of religion to measure religious homogamy.
Thus, this study investigated a proposed scale designed to better represent the multiple facets of
religious homogamy, the Spiritual Homogamy and Religious Experiences (SHARE) scale.
To address the limitations in previous studies, the SHARE was developed (Aim 1) based
on a review of literature and constructs included in previous measures of religious homogamy,
and with a specific focus on the construct validity of the items. Specifically, items were
developed after examining measures of religion, religious orientation, and religious homogamy,
and after considering the various ways in which religion and spirituality could affect a persons
thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. During the development, items were conceptualized into
different categories, including a 3 factor model and a 6 factor model. The 3 factor model
consisted of (1) homogamous beliefs, (2) homogamous practices and (3) homogamous
acceptance. The 6 factor model included (1) religious perspective, (2) importance of religion, (3)
behavioral integration, (4) joint religious activities, (5) conflict, and (6) mutual religious respect.
68


It was hypothesized that either the 3 factor model or the 6 factor model would exhibit a
reasonable fit.
The results of Aim 2, the psychometric analysis of the SHARE, supported a 3 factor
model for the SHARE. Further, the data in Phase 1 and Phase 2 indicate that the 3 factor model
of the SHARE exhibited a reasonable model fit, construct validity, convergent validity and
discriminant validity, with good internal consistency. The first factor maps onto the
hypothesized Homogamous Beliefs category and describes the degree of similarity between
ones thoughts about religion and spirituality and ones partners thoughts about religion and
spirituality. The second factor, now labeled Practicing Together, maps onto the hypothesized
Homogamous Practices category and describes the degree to which ones religious practices
match ones partners practices. It also describes the degree to which ones desire to jointly
participate with ones partner matches his/her partners desire. The third factor maps onto the
hypothesized Homogamous Acceptance category and describes how a couple relates to one
another (e.g. presence of respect and/or conflict) in regards to religious and spiritual beliefs and
practices. Given these findings, it does indeed appear that religious homogamy is a multifaceted
construct and the SHARE demonstrates this multifaceted characteristic. Further, the SHARE
supports the argument that religious homogamy should be measured in ways beyond the narrow
range of indicators, such as attendance and affiliation, that have often been used in the past.
Although the SHARE demonstrated an overall reasonable fit, the RMSEA of the best
fitting model did not indicate a good fit. It is possible that the RMSEA was high due to the fact
that Homogamous Acceptance did not correlate significantly or highly with the other factors,
Homogamous Beliefs (r = .09) and Practicing Together (r = -.19). Of note, Homogamous
Beliefs and Practicing Together did correlate significantly (r = .52). During the construction of
69


the SHARE, the concept of Horn ogam ous Acceptance was included in the measurement of
Religious Homogamy because acceptance and respect were theorized to be important
components of the degree of similarity between partners, in regards to religion and spirituality.
However, throughout the analyses, the Homogamous Acceptance subscale acted differently than
the other subscales and the SHARE total. Specifically, criterion validity was not met for the
Homogamous Acceptance subscale. Rather than positively correlating with other measures of
religious homogamy, it non-significantly, negatively correlated with these measures.
Additionally, the Homogamous Acceptance subscale did not show discriminant validity, as the
other subscales and SHARE scale did, because it was significantly, positively correlated with
gender. The subscale was also not predictive of perceived stress, beyond age and relationship
satisfaction and commitment.
It is possible that though Homogamous Acceptance seems to have a conceptual
relationship with Religious Homogamy, it should not be considered a core subscale of the
SHARE. Upon review of the subscales, the items on the Homogamous Acceptance subscale
more directly reference the effects of homogamy on the relationship, rather than strictly focusing
on the degree of similarity (i.e. the homogamy). For example, one item assesses the degree to
which one person feels pressured to change his/her beliefs, which measures how a person may
interact with his/her partner when that partner has heterogamous beliefs. Another item on the
Homogamous Acceptance subscale measures the degree to which a couple engages in conflict
due to religious differences, which measures the effects of homogamy/heterogamy on marital
functioning. Given this, it seems as if Homogamous Acceptance is a separate concept. It
remains important, and therefore should be considered along with the SHARE (as measured by
Homogamous Beliefs and Practicing Together), but should be not be included as part of the
70


SHARE scale. In the future, researchers should consider using the total sum of the items from
the Horn ogam ous Beliefs and the Practicing Together scale as the measure of religious
homogamy (the SHARE), given that it appears that similarity in beliefs and similarity in
practices are the important constructs underlying religious homogamy. Interestingly, this
supports the idea espoused by Ellison, Burdette, and Wilcox (2010) that, theological, attitudinal,
and lifestyle differences may to be more meaningful descriptors of religious homogamy than
similarity in affiliation. Further, researchers should consider analyses including Homogamous
Acceptance as a moderator between the SHARE (religious homogamy) and health factors and/or
relationship factors. For example, data may show that heterogamous religion (differences in
beliefs and practices between a couple) may only be related to specific health and/or relationship
factors, when the partners do not accept each others beliefs and/or practices. Moreover, it will
be important for future researchers to look at a variety of health factors in relationship to
religious homogamy, and not just stress.
Notably, the SHARE is a measure of religious homogamy and not spiritual homogamy.
Religion and spirituality are complex terms that are multidimensional and share common
characteristics; however, they are distinct (Hill et a., 2000). Due to this, authors and researches
have developed various definitions for each term, and in everyday life people tend to use these
terms in a variety of ways. Despite the varying definitions, many define religion using terms
such as theology, rituals, and practices, and use it to refer to the concept of engaging with a
group or community of people. Further, definitions also describe religion as a supernatural
power and/or set of beliefs to which a person is committed and by which someone may be
motivated (Hill et al., 2000). Conversely, spirituality has been defined using terms as an
encounter with the transcendent or a search for meaning or truth. As stated, the SHARE is a
71


measure of religious homogamy, despite the fact that some of the items include the hybrid term
religious/spiritual. This hybrid was included due to the fact that some people use these terms
interchangeably, while others use the term spiritual to describe what the researcher would define
as religious. Although this is not a measure of spiritual homogamy, it is possible that spiritual
homogamy may be an important construct to measure in future research.
In addition to the development (Aim 1) and the psychometric analysis (Aim 2) of the
SHARE, this study also investigated SHARES predictive ability of perceived stress beyond that
of Relationship Satisfaction (Aim 3) and Relationship Commitment (Aim 4). Previous research
has shown that positive intimate relationships are protective against the effects of stress on
physical and mental health, and this study examined whether religious homogamy added any
further buffering. Results of Aims 3 and 4 found that religious homomgamy did indeed explain
a significant portion of perceived stress beyond what relationship satisfaction and relationship
commitment could explain. Although homogamous religion and relationship factors have been
shown to be related, results of this study indicate that homogamous religion is different than
relationship satisfaction and relationship commitment. Additionally, homogamous religion was
shown to add explanatory value beyond relationship factors that have already shown to predict
perceived stress. Given this, future researchers should consider measuring religious homogamy
when assessing relationship factors and/or perceived stress. Furthermore, increased marital
satisfaction has been shown to predict decreased morbidity and mortality from serious illnesses,
and women who are martially satisfied are at a lower risk of developing the metabolic syndrome
(Kaplan & Kronick, 2006; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001; Troxel, Matthews, Gallo, Lewis, &
Kuller, 2005). Because religious homogamy accounted for approximately a 5% reduction of
72


perceived stress beyond marital satisfaction, it is possible that religious homogamy could
contribute to a decreased risk of health problems which are specifically exacerbated by stress.
In regards to Aim 3 and 4, Homogamous Acceptance was thought to be an important
component of how Religious Homogamy might relate to perceived stress. That is, it was thought
that if a partner did not accept the other partners beliefs and ways of living out faith, that couple
might experience more perceived stress. However, results showed that Homogamous Beliefs
and Practicing together were the only subscales which significantly contributed to the model
predicting perceived stress, and the Homogamous Acceptance scale did not add or take away
significant predictive value of the SHARE scale on perceived stress. This indicates that
similarity in beliefs and similarities in practices are factors which are predictive of less perceived
stress. It also indicates that Homogamous Acceptance, as measured here, is not a significant
component in the prediction of perceived stress. This provides additional evidence that the
Homogamous Acceptance subscale is measuring something different from the other SHARE
subscales. As mentioned before, it is possible that Homogamous Acceptance may act as a
moderator for the association between the SHARE (Homogamous Beleifs and Practicing
Together) and perceived stress.
Another interesting finding was that there was a lack in variability in the degree of
similarity of the couples reported religious beliefs and practices. For the items on the
Participating Together subscale, a majority of the participants indicated that they were
completely homogamous. Further, there was little variability in the participants own rating of
religiosity and the participants rating of his/her partners level of religiosity. Additionally, there
was little variability in the participants own rating of spirituality and the participants rating of
his/her partners level of spirituality. It is possible that if there were more variability in the
73


samples degree of homogamy, then the model fit of the SHARE scale would be different.
Additionally, it is possible that participants reported that they were more homogamous than is
true, or that the single self-report of both partners (i.e. one person provided information for
him/herself and his/her partner) provided inaccurate information. Given this, future researchers
should consider having both partners in a couple complete the SHARE, and then comparing the
results of each partner to see if there is consistency between partners. However, it is important to
consider that the single self-report provides information about the participants perceived
religious homogamy, which might be just as important as the actual degree of homogamy
because people interact with their partner based off of their own perceptions.
This lack of variability speaks to the need of further research with a variety of samples.
For example, it may be helpful to utilize the SHARE scale with couples who are experiencing
marital trouble or who have separated. One explanation of the lack of variability in this studys
sample is that all participants identified as being in a committed relationship, and it is possible
that they have at least in part, maintained their relationship because they are homogamous. That
is, people who are heterogamous may be less likely to remain in a relationship and/or may be
experiencing difficulties in their relationship and therefore did not participate in a study about
relationships. Further, future researchers should consider using the SHARE with couples who
are in differing phases of a relationship, as the importance of religious homogamy may ebb and
flow and the relationship changes over time. For example, religious homogamy may be more
important for couples that have children than for newly weds without children. Additionally, the
importance of religious homogamy may change once a couples children grow up and/or the
couple retires.
74


In summary, the development of the SHARE addressed important limitations of previous
studies (i.e. lack of a single measure of religious homogamy, and lack of depth of measurement
of the multiple dimensions of religious homogamy). Results indicated that the SHARE has 2
core subscales, Homogamous Beliefs and Practicing Together. Although the Homogamous
Acceptance subscale was hypothesized to be part of the SHARE, throughout analyses it acted
differently than the other subscales, and therefore should not be considered a core subscale of the
SHARE. However, Homogamous Acceptance remains important to measure, and it is possible
that it may act as a moderator. Results also indicated that religious homogamy, as measured by
the SHARE, predicted less perceived stress above that predicted by relationship factors which
have been found to be a buffer against the negative effects of perceived stress. This
demonstrates that religious homogamy is not subsumed by positive relationship factors, and adds
explanatory value when predicting perceived stress. Failure to find variability in the
participants degree of homogamy with their partners speaks to the need of further research with
a variety of samples. In the end, the SHARE is a viable measure of religious homogamy and
religious homogamy is an important construct to measure when studying perceived stress and/or
relationship factors.
75


CHAPTER VIII.
LIMITATIONS
This study involved a survey; therefore, it has the limitations of any self-report study. To
minimize the potential effects of these limitations, several precautions were put in place. The
SHARE included both positively and negatively worded questions so that random responding
would be more evident. Additionally, in the second phase, validity questions were added
throughout the survey to assess invalid responding. Another potential limitation of this study
relates to the parameters of the subject pool (e.g., members of Study Response, access to the
internet, willingness to participate, overly representative of those who are white, have higher
levels of education, and receive higher levels of income), which create possible limitations on
generalizability. Lastly, participants provided self-report information for their partners religious
behaviors. This is likely a less reliable and valid measurement of their partners actual behaviors
than if the partners provided the information, though it does provide an indication of the
perception of the partners religious behaviors.
There is also a possibility that participants did not honestly answer sensitive questions.
However, to mitigate this effect, participants were reminded that participation was anonymous.
To help minimize the risk that other people may see the participants responses on their
computer screen, participants were asked to complete the survey individually and in privacy.
The participants were also made aware of the nature of the questions in the consent form.
Additionally, participants were given instructions on clearing their browser history as an
additional protective measure.
Lastly, there are limitations due to the fact that this was a cross-sectional study and
utilized an observational design. Because it was a cross-sectional study, responses were only
76


measured at one time point. This could be a limitation because it is not possible to determine the
temporal sequence and a causal relationship cannot be shown. Further, because this was an
observational design (Kazdin, 2003), participants were not assigned into experimental groups;
therefore, participants responses could have been influenced by unsystematic error.
77


REFERENCES
Ai, A. L., Ladd, K. L., Peterson, C., Cook, C. A., Shearer, M., & Koenig, H. g. (2010).
Long-term adjustment after surviving open heart surgery: The effect of using prayer for
coping replicated in a prospective design. The Gerentologist, 50, 798-809.
Allen, E. S., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Hitting home:
Relationships between recent deployment, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and marital
functioning for Army couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 280.
Allgood, S. M., Harris, S., Skogrand, L., & Lee, T. R. (2009). Marital commitment and
religiosity in a religiously homogenous population. Marriage & Family Review, 45, 52-
67.
Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 432.
Atkins, D. C., & Kessel, D. E. (2008). Religiousness and infidelity: Attendance, but not
faith and prayer, predict marital fidelity. Journal of Marriage andFamily, 70, 407-418.
Baker, E. H., Sanches, L. A., Nock, S. L., & Wright, J. D. (2009). Covenant marriage and
the sanctification of gendered marital roles. Journal of Family Issues, 30, 147- 178. doi:
10.1177/0192513X08324109
Bartkowski, J. P., Xu, X., & Levin, M. L. (2008). Religion and child development:
Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Social Science Research, 37, 18-
36. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.02.001
Blackwell, D. L. & Lichter, D. T. (2004). Homogamy among dating, cohabiting and
married couples. The Sociological Quarterly, 45, 719-737.
Booth, A., Johnson, D. & Edwards, J. N. (1983). Measuring marital instability. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 45, 387-394.
Burdette, A. M., Ellison, C.G., Sherkat, D. E. & Gore, K. A. (2007). Are there religious
variations in marital infidelity? Journal of Family Issues, 28, 1553-1581.
Burman, B. & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital
relationships and health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological Bulletin,
112, 39-63.
Butler, M. H., Stout, J. A. & Gardner, B. C. (2002). Prayer as a conflict resolution ritual:
Clinical implications of religious couples' report of relationship softening, healing
perspective, and change responsibility. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30, 19-37.
78


Call, V. A., & Heaton, T. B. (1997). Religious influence on marital stability. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 382-392.
Canivez, G. & Watkins, M. (2010). Investigation of the factor structure of the Weschsler
Adult Intelligence ScaleFourth Edition (WAIS-IV): Exploratory and higher order
factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 22, 827-836.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral
Research, 1, 245-276.
Cattich, J., & Knudson-Martin, C. (2009). Spirituality and relationship: A holistic
analysis of how couples cope with diabetes. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35,
111-124.
Chida, Y., Steptoe, A., & Powell, L. H. (2009). Religiosity/spirituality and mortality.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 78, 81-90.
Chinitz, J., & Brown, R.A., (2001). Religious homogamy, marital conflict, and stability
in same-faith and interfaith Jewish marriages. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
40, 723-733. doi: 10.1111/0021-8294.00087
Clements, M. L., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2004). Before they said I do:
Discriminating among marital outcomes over 13 years. Journal of Marriage and Family,
66, 613-626.
Cohn, D., Passel, J., Wang, W., & Livingston, G. (2011). Barely half of U.S. adults are
marriedA record low. Retrieved from
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely-half-of-u-s-adults-are- married-a-
record-low/
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived
stress .Journal of Flealth and Social Behavior, 24, 386-396. doi: 10.2307/2136404
Cohen, S. & Williamson, G. (1988) Perceived stress in a probability sample of the
United States.
Spacapan, S. & Oskamp, S. (Eds.) The Social Psychology of Health. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310-357.
Curtis, K. T., & Ellison, C. G. (2002). Religious heterogamy and marital conflict:
Findings from the national survey of families and households. Journal of Family Issues,
23, 551- 576. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02023004005
79


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.
Dollahite, D. C., Hawkins, A. J., & Parr, M. R. (2012). Something more: The meanings
of marriage for religious couples in America. Marriage & Family Review, 48, 339-362
Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social
Indicators Research, 31, 103-157.
Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life
Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Ellison, C. G., Barrett, J. B., & Moulton, B. E. (2008). Gender, marital status, and alcohol
behavior: The neglected role of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47,
660-677. doi: 10.1111/j. 1468-5906.2008.00434.x
Ellison, C. G., Burdette, A. M., & Wilcox, W. B. (2010). The couple that prays together:
Race and ethnicity, religion, and relationship among working-age adults. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 72, 963-975.
Ellison, C. G., Henderson, A. K., Glenn, N. D., Harkrider, R. E. (2011). Sanctification,
stress, and marital quality. Family Relations, 60, 404-420.
Ellison, C. G., & Levin, J. S. (1988). The religion-health connection: Evidence, theory,
and future directions. Health Education and Behavior, 25, 700-720.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible
statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.
Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191.
Field, A. (2009).Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.) Los Angeles: Sage.
Glaser, R. & Kiecolt-Glaser (2005). Stress-induced immune dysfunction: Implications for health.
Nature Reviews: Immunology, 5 (3), 243-251.
Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1992). Justifications for extramarital relationships: The
association between attitudes, behaviors, and gender. The Journal of Sex Research, 29,
361-387.
Glenn, N. D. & Supancic, M. (1984). The social and demographic correlates of divorce
and separation in the United States: An update and reconsideration. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 46, 563-575.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
80


Associates.
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of
component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 265- 275.
Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary and sufficient conditions for common factor
analysis. Psychometrika, 19, 149-161.
Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde, F. G. (2009).
Research electronic data capture (REDCap) A metadata-driven methodology and
workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of
Biomedical Information, 42, 377-381.
Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United
States. Journal of Family Issues, 23, 392-409. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02023003004
Henson, R.K., and Robers, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published
research: Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66, 393-416. doi: 10.1177/001364405282485
Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., McCullough, J. M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D. B., &
Zinnbauer, B. J. (2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of commonality,
points of departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30, 51-77.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis.
Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.
Hu, I., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes for covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,
1-55.
Hummer, R. A., Rogers, R. G., Nam, C. B., & Ellison, C. G. (1999). Religious
involvement and U.S. adult mortality. Demography, 36, 273-285.
IBM Corp. Released 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk,
NY: IBM Corp.
Janofsky, J. S., McCarthy, R. A., & Folstein, M. F. (1992). The Hopkins Competency
Assessment Test: A brief method for evaluating patients' capacity to give informed
consent. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 43, 132-136.
Kaplan, R. M., & Kronick, R. G. (2006). Marital status and longevity in the United States
population. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60, 760-765.
Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
81


Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., Loving, T. J., Stowell, J. R., Malarkey, W. b., Lemeshow, S.,
Dickinson, S. G., & Glaser, R. (2005). Hostile marital interactions, proinflammatory
cytokine production, and wound healing. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 1377-1384.
doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.12.1377.
Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriage and health: His and hers.
Psychological Bulletin, 127, 472-503.
Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos-Gallo, P. An. Peters, M. Whitton, S.
W., & Prado, L. M. (2004). Timing is everything: Pre-engagement cohabitation and
increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 311-318.
Krause, N. (2011). Religion and health: Making sense of a disheveled literature. Journal
of Religion and Health, 50, 20-35.
Levin, J. S. (1996). How religion influences morbidity and health: Reflections on natural
history, salutogenesis and host resistance. Social Science and Medicine, 43, 849-864.
Mahoney, A. (2010). Religion in families 1999 to 2009: A relational spirituality
framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 805-827.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., 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.
Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion in the
home in the 1980s and 1992: a meta-analytic review and conceptual analysis of links
between religion, marriage, and parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 559- 596.
Mahoney, A., & Tarakeshwar, N. (2005). Religions role in marriage and parenting in
daily life during family crises. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of
Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (pp. Ill 195). New York: Guilford.
Mannering, A. M., Harold, G. T., Leve, L. D., Shelton, K. H., Shaw, D. S., Conger, R.
D., . Reiss, D. (2011). Longitudinal associations between marital instability and child
sleep problems across infancy and toddlerhood adoptive families. Child Development, 82,
1252-1266. doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-8624.2011.01594.x
Martos, T., Kezdy, A., & Horvarth-Szabo, K. (2011). Religious motivations for everyday
goals: Their religious context and potential consequences. Motivation and Emotion, 35,
75-88. doi: 10.1007/s 11031-010-9198-1
Masters, K. S., & Hooker, S. A. (2013). Religiousness/spirituality, cardiovascular disease, and
cancer: Cultural integration for health research and intervention. Journal of consulting
and clinical psychology, 81(2), 206.
82


McCullough, M. E., Hoyt, W. T., Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., & Thoresen, C. (2000).
Religious involvement and mortality: A meta-analytic review. Health Psychology, 19,
211-222.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2011). Mplus User's Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles,
CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Myers, S. M. (2006). Religious homogamy and marital quality: Historical and
generational patterns, 1980-1997. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 292-304.
Oman, D., & Reed, D. (1998). Religion and mortality among the community-dwelling
elderly. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1469-1475.
Oman, D. & Thoresen, C. E. (2002). Does religion cause health?: Differing
interpretations and diverse meanings. Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 365-380.
Park, N., Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-
being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603-619. doi:
10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748
Petts, R. J. (2011). Parental religiosity, religious homogamy, and young childrens well-
being. Sociology of Religion, 72, 389-414. doi: 10.1093/socrel/srr021
Petts, R. J. & Knoester, C. K. (2007). Parents religious heterogamy and childrens well-
being. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 373- 389. doi: 10.1111/j. 1468-
5906.2007.00364.x
Pew Research Center. (2012, October). Nones on the rise: One-in-five adults have no
religious affiliation. Washington, DC: Author.
Rauer, A. J., Kamey, B. R., Garvan, C. W., & Hou, W. (2008). Relationship risks in context: A
cumulative risk approach to understanding relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage
and Family, 70(5), 1122-1135.
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of
commitment dynamics in cohabiting relationship. Journal of Family Issues, 33, 369-390.
Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., (2012). The impact of the transition to
cohabitation on relationship functioning in cross-sectional longitudinal findings. Journal
of Family Psychology, 26, 348-358.
Robles, T. F. & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (2003). The physiology of marriage: Pathways to
health. Physiology & Behavior, 79, 409-416.
Schramm, D. G., Marshall, J. P., Harris, V. W., & Lee, T. R. (2011). Religiosity,
83


homogamy, and marital adjustment: An examination of newlyweds in first marriages and
remarriages. Journal ofFamily Issues, 33, 246-268. doi: 10.1177/0192513X11420370
Schumm, W. R., Paff-Bergen, L. a., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C. Copeland, J. M., Meens,
L. D., Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Concurrent and discriminant validity of the Kansas
Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 381-387.
Seaward, B. (1999). Managing Stress: Principles and strategies for health and wellbeing.
Boston, Mass: Jones and Bartlett.
Schneiderman, N., Ironson, G., & Siegel, S. D. (2005). Stress and health: Psychological,
behavioral, and biological determinants. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 607-
628.
Stanley, S. M., Allen, E. S., Markman, H. J., Saiz, C. C., Bloomstrom, G., Thomas, R., ... &
Bailey, A. E. (2005). Dissemination and evaluation of marriage education in the Army.
Family Process, 44(2), 187-201.
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal
relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 595-608.
Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1997). The Communication Danger Signs Scale.
Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver, Colorado.
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Prado, L. M., Olmos-Gallo, P. A., Tonelli, L., St. Peters, M.,
Leber, B. D.,...Whitton, S. W. (2001), Community-based premarital prevention: Clergy
and lay leaders on the front lines. Family Relations, 50: 67-76. doi: 10.1111/j. 1741-
3729.2001.00067.x
Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Loew, B. A., Allen, E. S., Carter, S., Osborne, L. J., ... Markman,
H. J. (2014). A randomized controlled trial of relationship education in the US army: 2 -
year outcomes. Family Relations, 63(4), 482-495.
Strawbridge, W. J., Cohen, R. D., Shema, S. J., & Kaplan, G. A. (1997). Frequent
attendance at religious services and mortality over 28 years. American Journal of Public
Health, 87, 957-961.
Troxel, W. M., Matthews, K. a., Gallo, L. c., & Kuller, L. H. (2005). Marital quality and
occurrence of the metabolic syndrome in women. Archives of Internal Medicine,
165, 1022-1027. doi: 10.1001/archinte. 165.9.1022
Uchino, B. N. (2006). Social support and health: A review of physiological processes
potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29,
377-387
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial
84


correlations. Psychometrika, 31, 321-327.
Vennuum, A. & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Assessing decision making in young adult
romantic relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 739-751.
Williams, L. M., & Lawler, M. G. (2003). Marital satisfaction and religious heterogamy:
A comparison of interchurch and same-church individuals. Journal of Family Issues, 24,
1070-1092. doi: 10.1177/0192513X03256497
Wolfinger, N. H. & Wilcox, W. B. (2008). Happily ever after? Religion, marital status,
gender and relationship quality in urban families. Social Forces, 86, 1311-1337.
Worthington Jr, E. L., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E.,
Berry, J. W., ... & O'Connor, L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory-
10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and
counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 50, 84.
85


APPENDIX A
DEMOGRAPHICS AND RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS
1. Age (in years)- fill in the blank
2. Sex
o Male
o Female
3. How do you describe yourself?
o White-not Hispanic
o Black-not Hispanic
o Hispanic or Latino
o Asian or Pacific Islander
o American Indian or Alaskan Native
o Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
o Other (please specify)
4. What is your highest level of education completed?
o Some high school
o High school graduate
o Some college
o Two year college degree
o Four year college degree
o Graduate Study
5. How many times have you been married, not including your current marriage?
6. What is your yearly household income in US dollars?
o Under $15,000
o $15,000-$24,999
o $25,000-$34,999
o $35,000- $49,999
o $50,000-$74,000
o $75,000-$99,999
o $100,000-$ 149,999
o $150,000 and over
7. In what state do you reside?
8. How would you describe the location of where you live?
o Inner City
o Urban
o Suburban
o Rural
86


9. What is your current religious preference/affiliation?
o If protestant, which specific denomination is that?
10. What is your partners current religious preference/affiliation?
o If protestant, which specific denomination is that?
11. To what extent do you consider yourself a religious person?
o Very religious
o Moderately religious
o Slightly religious
o Not religious at all
12. To what extent do you consider yourself a spiritual person?
o Very spiritual
o Moderately spiritual
o Slightly spiritual
o Not spiritual at all
13. How often do you attend religious services?
14. How often does your partner attend religious services?
15. How often do you and your partner attend religious services together?
16. How often do you participate in religious activities outside of a place of worship (e.g.
praying, reading scripture, etc.)?
17. How often does your partner participate in religious activities outside of a place of worship
(e.g. praying, reading scripture, etc.)?
18. How often do you and your partner participate in religious activities outside of a place of
worship together (e.g. praying, reading scripture, etc.)?
19. It is important that my partner and I feel the same way about religion
o Strongly agree strongly disagree
87


Full Text

PAGE 1

! PSYCHOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF A NEW MEASURE OF COUPLES' RELIGIOUS HOMOGAMY : THE SPIRITUAL HOMOGAMY AND RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES (SHARE) SCALE by MEGAN E. GRIGSBY B.A., Cedarville University, 2011 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Clinical Health Psychology Program 2015

PAGE 2

"" ! This thesis for the Master of Arts degree by Megan E. Grigsby has been approved for the Clinical Health Psychology Program by Kevin S. Masters, Chair Elizabeth S. Allen Krista W. Ranby Date : 7/6/201 5

PAGE 3

""" ! Grigsby, Megan E. (M.A., Clinical Health Psychology) Psychometric Analysis of a New Measure of Religious Homogamy Within a Couple: The Spiritual Homogam y and Religious Experiences (SHA RE) Scale Thesis directed by Professor Kevin S. Masters ABSTRACT Religious homogamy has generally been found to predict positive relationship outcomes ; however, the re is lack of standardization and depth of measurement Previous res earch demonstrated associat i ons between relationship quality and health outcomes, religiousness and health outcomes and religiousness and relationship outcomes ; however, there is a paucity of research studying how these three areas are associated. Consequently this study investigated a proposed scale designed to better represent the multip le facets of religious homogamy the Spiritual Homogamy an d Religious Experiences scale (SHARE) and sought to determine if the SHARE predicts decreased perceived stress beyond relationship satisfactio n and commitment The results of Phase 1 and 2 indicate that SHARE exhibited a reasonable fit, construct validity, convergent validity and discriminant validity, with good internal consistency. Further, the data in Phase 1 and Phase 2 supported a three factor model for the SHARE including Homogamous Beliefs, Homogamous Practices, and Practicing Together The results also suggest that age, relationship satisfaction, and religious homogamy explain approximately 24% of the variance in perceived stress, wi th religious homogamy accounting for an additional 3.7% reduction of perceived stress beyond what is accounted for by relationship satisfaction and age. Further, t he results suggest that a ge, relationship commitment, and religious homogamy (without the Ho mogamous Acceptance subscale)

PAGE 4

"# ! explained approximately 20% of the variance in perceived stress, with religious homogamy accounting for an additional 5% reduction of perceived stress beyond what is accounted for by relationship commitment and age. Overall it appears that religious homogamy is a multifaceted construct and the SHARE is an acceptable measure of religious homogamy. Additionally, it appears that religious homogamy predict s perceived stress beyond relationship qualities which have previously bee n shown to predict perceived stress. Because most studies have relied on a narrow range of indicators, such as attendance and affiliation, it will be important for future researchers to consider broadening their measurement of religious homogamy. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Kevin S. Masters

PAGE 5

# ! DEDICATION I dedicate this work to my mom : Sue Grigsby dad : Randy Grigsby, grandpa and grand m a : Charles and Helen Rogers sister : Katie Mul ler roommate for life: Cammie Walters Carlson, and mentor and friend: Lisabeth Jui Thank you for listening to me when I was stressed, for taking joy and pride in what I do, and for being an amazing source of encouragement and support.

PAGE 6

#" ! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Kevin Masters, for his continual guidance and support throughout this project. I would also like to thank Drs. Beth Allen and Krista Ranby for their guidance and encouragement. Specifically, I would like to thank Dr. Ranby for imparting her statistical knowledge! Drs. Masters, Allen, and Ranby, thank you for taking time to help me make decisions at each fork in the road. Additionally, I t hank all the members of my cohort, Kellie Martens, Stephanie Hooker, and Ryan Asherin, for being consultants and fantastic friends during this process. Kellie, I am so glad that we were both working on our own theses at the same time; it made the process much more enjoyable. Lastly, I thank all the members of Masters' lab, Lacey Clement, Kaile Ross, and Stephanie Hooker for helping me ascertain that the SHARE scale encompassed the depth and breadth of the construct of r eligious and spiritual homogamy, and for being a source of support.

PAGE 7

#"" ! TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 1 Marriage, Religion and Health....1 Religious Ho mogamy.. 5 II. STUDY AIMS AND HYPOTHESES ................................ ................................ ....... 10 III. METHODS: PHASE 1 ................................ ................................ .............................. 12 Sample12 Measures1 5 Demographics and Religious Characteristics.. ..1 5 Validity Questions 1 5 Spiritaul Homogamy and Religious Experiences (SHARE) Scale . .1 5 Procedure...1 8 Data Analysis.1 9 Descrip tive St atistics..1 9 Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFAs) and Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFAs). .1 9 Internal Consistences, Correlations, and Factorabiliy of Hypothesized Models. 20 EFAs.... 20 CFAs 2 1 Best Fitting CFA.. 2 1 IV. RESULTS: PHASE 1 . 22 Descriptive St atistics.. 22

PAGE 8

#""" ! EFA s and CFA s. 25 Internal Consistences, Correlations, and Factorabiliy of Hypothesized Models. 25 EFA Based on Eigenvalues Greater or Equal to One.. 26 Three and Six Factor EFAs.. 28 Three Fac tor CFA Model. 2 8 Six Fact or CFA Model.2 8 Best Fitting CFA Model...2 9 V METHODS: PHASE 2 ................................ ................................ .............................. 3 2 Sample 3 2 Measur es 3 5 Demographics, Religious Characteristic s, and Validity Questions... 3 5 Spiritual Homogamy and Religious Experience (SHARE) Scale . 3 5 Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale 3 8 Commitment Inventory Subscales.... 3 9 Perceived Stress Scale... 3 9 Satisfaction with Life Scale.. 40 Measures of Extramarital Involvement. 40 Marital Instability Index 41 Danger Signs Scale 4 2 Procedure s.. ... 4 2 Data Ana lysis 4 3 Aim 2.. . . 4 3 Descriptive Statisics, Correlations Among Scales, and Alpha

PAGE 9

"$ ! Coefficients of All Measures Besides the SHARE ....................... 4 4 Internal Consistencies, Correlations, Factorability of the 3 Factor Model of SHARE, and Descriptive Statistics .. .. 4 4 CFA. ... ... 4 5 Criterion Validity... ......... .. 4 5 Construct Validity ... .. 4 5 Aim s 3 and 4 ...... 4 6 Aim 3 ...... 4 7 Aim 4 ...... 4 7 V I RESULTS : PHASE 2.. 4 8 Aim 2 . .. .. 4 8 Descriptive Statisics, Correlations Among Scales, and Alpha Coefficients of All Measures Besides the SHARE........................4 8 Internal Consistencies, Correlations, Factorability of the 3 Factor Model of SHARE, and Descriptive Statistics....50 CFA ... 54 Criterion Validity... ........... 56 Construct Validity ..... 5 7 Aim s 3 and 4 ...... 60 Aim 3 ...... 60 Aim 4 ...... 6 3 VI I DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ..... 6 8 VII I LIMITATIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 76 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 7 8 APPENDICES........ 86 A: DEMOGRAPHICS AND RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS . 8 6

PAGE 10

$ ! B: SPIRITUAL HOMOGAMY AND RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES (SHARE) .. 8 8 C: SHARE QUESTIONS WITH SUBSCALE LABELS .. . 90 D: SHARE SCALE WITH COGNITIVE, BEHAVIORAL, AND EMOTIVE LABELS93 E: CONCEPT MAP OF SHARE .. 94 F : INFORMED CONSENT COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS . 95 G : CONCEPT MAP OF SHARE: BEST FITTING MODEL OF PHASE 1.. 96 H : KANSAS MARITAL SATI SFACTION SCALE...... 97 I : COMMITMENT INVENTORY SUBSCALES...... .............................. 9 8 J : PERCEIVED STRESS SCALE... .. 100 K : SATISFACTIO N WITH LIFE SCALE.. ... 101 L : GLASS AND WRIGHT QUESTIONS.. .. ... .. 102 M : MARITAL INSTABILITYX 103 N : DANGER SIGNS SCALE .. .. 104 O : FINAL LIST OF ITEMS INCLUDED IN SHARE . 105 P : CONCEPT MAP OF SHARE:PHASE 2 10 8

PAGE 11

$" ! LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 Phase 1 Participant Demographics. ................................ ................................ ............... 13 2 Phase 1 Religious Characteristics.. 14 3 Pha se 1 Means of and Correlations a mong the Homogamous Beliefs Subscale Items of the Best Fitting CFA.. . 2 2 4 Pha se 1 Means of and Correlations a mong the Homogamous Practices Subscale Items of the Best Fitting CFA.. . 2 3 5 Pha se 1 Means of and Correlations a mong the Homoga mous Acceptance Subscale Items of the Best Fitting CFA . 2 4 6 Phase 1 Internal Consistency Reliabilities of SHARE Scale 2 6 7 Phase 1 Correlations Among the Subscales of the Best Fitting CFA.... 2 6 8 Phase 2 Parti cipant Demographics 3 3 9 Phase 2 Religious Characteristics.. 3 4 10 Descriptive Statistics of Measures Utilized in Phase 2 (Excluding the SHARE Scale) .. 4 8 11 Correlations a mong Measures Utilized in Phase 2 (Excluding the SHARE Scale).. 4 9 12 Phase 2 Internal Consistency Reliabilities of SHARE.. ... 51 13 Pha se 2 Means of and Correlations a mong the Homogamous Beliefs Subscale Items 5 2 14 Pha se 2 Means of and Correlations a mong the Pra cticing Together Subscale Items 5 3 15 Pha se 2 Means of and Correlations a mong the Homogamous Acceptance Subscale Items 5 3 16 Phase 2 Correlations a mong the Subscales . . 5 4 17 Correlat ions a mong Measures That Were Hypothesized to Produce a Positive Correlation w ith the SHARE .. .. 58 18 Co rrelations a mong Measures Which Were Hypothesized to Produce a Negative Correlation w ith the SHARE . ... 5 9

PAGE 12

$"" ! 19 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction . .. 61 20 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Without Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction 61 21 Model Parameters of Hiera rchical Regression Ana lysis of Homogamous Beliefs Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction .. .6 2 22 Model Parameters of Hiera rchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfacti on .. .. ... .. .6 2 23 Model Parameters of Hiera rchical Regression Analysis of Practicing Together Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction .. .. 6 3 24 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment. 6 4 25 Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Without Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment .6 5 26 Model Parameters of Hiera rchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Beliefs Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment ... . .6 5 27 Model Parameters of Hiera rchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment. ... .6 6 28 Model Parameters of Hiera rchical Regression Analysis of Practicing Together Predicting Perceiv ed Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment .. ...6 7

PAGE 13

$""" ! LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 Phase 1 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Beliefs .. 30 2 Phase 1 Factor Loadings of Hom ogamous Acceptance.. 30 3 Phase 1 Factor Loadings of Ho mogamous Practices... 31 4 Phase 2 Factor Loadings of Homogamous Beliefs.. 55 5 Phase 2 Factor Loadings of Ho mogamous Acceptance.. 5 5 6 Phase 2 Factor Loadings of Pract icing Together. 5 6

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION Religion, relationships and health are salient t o many Americans. Specifically, a Pew survey (Pew Research Center, 2012) of the United States population found that 58% indicated that religion is very important to their lives and 22% indicated that religion is somewhat important to their lives. Additionally, 91% of the population expr essed belief in God (Pew Research Center, 2012). Intimate relationships are also valued and 51% of Americans are married and many others are in committed relationships (Cohn, Passel, Wang & Livingston, 2011). Because both religion and intimate relations hips are important for many people, researchers have begun to study how religion within close relationships may impact health. Marriage, Religion, and Health In general, being married is related to positive health outcomes and those who are married tend to be healthier than those who are unmarried (Burman & Margolin, 1992). Increased marital satisfaction has been shown to predict decreased morbidity and mortality from serious illnesses (Kaplan & Kronick, 2006; Kiecolt Glaser & Newton, 2001). Researchers h ave also found that positive intimate relationships are protective against the effects of stress on physical and mental health (Kaplan & Kronick, 2006; Robles & Kiecolt Glaser, 2003; Uchino, 2006). Additionally, women who are maritally satisfied, in a hig h quality marriage, are at a lower risk of developing the metabolic syndrome (Troxel, Matthews, Gallo, Lewis, & Kuller, 2005). Conversely, negative dimensions of marital functioning, such as conflict and hostility, have direct negative effects on the immu ne, cardiovascular, neurosensory and endocrine systems (Kiecolt Glaser & Newton, 2001; Kiecolt Glaser, et al., 2005).

PAGE 15

2 It is hypothesized that marriage is related to better health because it provides a social network that encourages health behavior and wh en it is a positive relationship, it provides positive well being and is associated with positive effects on physiological mechanisms (Burman & Margolin, 1992; Cohen & Wills, 1985; Kie colt Glaser & Newton, 2001). For example, as mentioned, positive marita l functioning acts as a buffer against stress, which is known to have negative effects on physical health. R esearch has demonstrated the relationship s between stress including perceived stress, and cardiovascular disease, increased susceptibility to infe ctious disease, exacerbations in autoimmune diseases, headaches, and gastrointestinal and respiratory problems (Glaser & Kiecolt Glaser, 2005; Seaward, 1999; Schneiderman, Ironson, & Siegel, 2005). Therefore, perceived stress is a viable variable when mea suring hea lth, especially in relation to marital functioning. Similarly, a large amount of research has found that religion is positively associated with health. Most notable is the relationship between attendance at religious services and lower all cause mortality (McCullough, Hoyt, Larson, Koenig, & Thoresen, 2000; Oman & Reed, 1998; Strawbridge, Cohen, Shema, & Kaplan, 1997). McCullough et al. (2000) conducted a meta analysis that showed a positive association between religious involvement and longevit y. Another meta analysis found that for those who were initially healthy, religious service attendance was associated with reductions in cardiovascular mortality and all cause mortality (Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009). Moreover, Chida, Steptoe, and Powe ll (2009) found that the combination of several religious/spiritual factors was associated with significantly reduced mortality for both those who are healthy and those with a disease. Religiousness, often measured as religious service attendance, has als o been shown to positively relate with better health in various health domains, such as ratings of global health, adherence to cardiac rehabilitation and

PAGE 16

3 adjustment after surgery (Ai et al., 2010; Hummer, Rogers, Nam, & Ellison, 1999; Krause, 2011). It is possible that religion is related to health through four pathways: engagement in health behaviors, increased social support, increased positive psychological states and a "superempirical" influence (Oman & Thoresen, 2002; Ellison & Levin, 1988; Levin, 199 6b). Religion also seems to affect the way that couples view their marriage and/or the way they interact with each other. According to Dollahite, Hawkins, & Parr (2012), Christian, Jewish and Muslim couples voiced that marriage is inclusive of more than just the couple. For these couples, God, or Allah, played a significant part in their marriage. These couples felt that (1) God is the author of marriage; (2) God is present in the marriage; (3) husband, wife, and God are a triad; (4) marriage is an imag e of God; and (5) marriage and God are interrelated. Allgood, Harris, Skogrand, & Lee (2008) found that religious service attendance was related to a person's attitude towards marriage. That is, the more frequently individuals attended religious services, the less likely they were to feel committed to the marriage because they felt trapped; instead, higher attending couples felt committed because they wanted to be in the marriage. Religion also plays a role in a couple's behavior and actions towards one another. For example, prayer during a marital conflict was associated with reduced negativity and hostility towards one's partner, an increase in relationship focus and empathy towards one's partner, increased mindfulness of one's God, and an increased or ientation towards self change (Butler, Stout, & Garder, 2002). Religion may affect a couple's relationship because of the influence of theological teachings of the importance of marriage, the emphasis on forgiveness and empathy, and participation in share d religious practices (Atkins & Kessel, 2008; Mahoney, Pargament, Tarakeshwar & Swank, 2001; Mahoney & Tarakeshwar, 2005). Overall, one's religion seems to give meaning and/or perspective to marriage.

PAGE 17

4 This meaning or perspective might be a reason why reli gious outcomes are related to relationship outcomes, such as marital satisfaction and commitment. Religious attendance has been shown to relate to increased marital satisfaction, lower risk of divorce, decreased marital conflict and decreased infidelity ( Atkins & Kessel, 2008; Burdette, Ellison, Sherkat, & Gore, 2007; Call & Heaton, 1997; Glenn & Supancic, 1984; Mahoney, 2010). Glenn and Supancic (1984) also found that attendance at religious services, participation in religious activities, and religious affiliation all played a role in marital stability. In this study, it is important to note that attendance and participation played a greater role in marital stability than did religious or denomination affiliation. Attendance might have played a greater role because attendance provides a shared activity that is related to one's values, often provides social support, and might remind a couple of the importance of marriage because they hear religious teachings on marriage and/or compare themselves to other couples (Atkins & Kessel, 2008). Furthermore, sanctification of marriage, or viewing one's marriage as sacred, has been correlated with better relational functioning and was shown to mediate the relationship between religiousness and marital quality in o ne study (DeMaris, Mahoney, & Pargament, 2010; Ellison, Henderson, Glenn, & Harkrider, 2011; Mahoney, 2010; Mahoney et al, 1999). A few studies have reported mixed findings concerning the relationship between general religiousness and marital satisfacti on (Mahoney, 2010). Clements, Stanley, & Markman (2004) found that only the wives' religiousness predicted marital stability for highly educated couples. In contrast, Wolfinger and Wilcox (2008) found that in samples of low income and minority couples, m en's attendance, but not women's, predicted future satisfaction. These mixed findings emphasize the need to move beyond general religiousness or attendance (Mahoney, 2010). In fact, these results underscore the importance of viewing couples as two people each with their

PAGE 18

5 own beliefs and behaviors that are each capable of influencing the quality of the marriage. Consequently, researchers have begun to study how the degree of religious homogamy, or religious similarity, within a couple affects relational f unctioning. Religious Homogamy Religious homogamy (similarity) has generally been found to predict positive relationship outcomes whereas religious heterogamy (dissimilarity) has been associated with negative outc omes. Heterogamy in biblical conservatism, religious practices, theology and attendance has been shown to relate to and predict increases in marital conflict (Mahoney, 2010; Chinitz & Brown, 2001; Curtis & Ellison, 2002). Similarly, heterogamy in attendance increases the risk of divorce compared to those who are homogamous in attendance and differences in denomination are associated with increased marital instability and marital conflict (Call & Heaton, 1977; Heaton, 2002; Petts & Knoester, 2007; Blackwell & Lichter, 2004). Conversely, couples w ho are homogamous in religious attendance (both spouses attend religious services regularly) show the lowest risk of divorce and report greater relationship satisfaction (Call & Heaton, 1977; Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010). Couples who are homogamous in religious beliefs and values also tend to report greater relationship satisfaction (Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010). Within the beginning stages of marriage, homogamy in denomination has been related to high marital adjustment scores for newly marr ied couples (Schramm, Marshall, Harris, & Lee, 2012). Homogamy in various religious outcomes is related to positive relationship outcomes at most points in the relationship: marital adjustment, marital stability, satisfaction with the relationship, decrea sed frequency of conflict, and decreased risk for divorce. Although homogamy has been predictive of relationship functioning, researchers have used multiple definitions and measures of homogamy; therefore, a standardized measure of

PAGE 19

6 homogamy does not exist. The degree of similarity in denomination or religious affiliation has been the most common measure of homogamy (Blackwell & Lichter, 2004; Call & Heaton, 1997; Curtis & Ellison, 2002; Ellison, Barrett & Moulton, 2008; Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010; H eaton, 2002; Petts & Knoester, 2007; Schramm, Marshall, Harris, & Lee, 2012). As is com mon practice in the research on religion and health, religious attendance, including attendance similarity and shared religion, has also been a common marker of homogam y (Bartkowski, Xu, Levin 2008; Call & Heaton, 1997; Curtis & Ellison, 2001; Ellison, Burdette, Wilcox, 2010; Petts, 2011; Williams & Lawler, 2003). Additionally, the degree of similarity in the importance of religion in one's life and the importance of ho lding homogamous views of religion have been used as indicators of homogamy (Baker, Sanches, Nock & Wright,2009; Petts, 2011). Researchers have also measured the differences between theology, beliefs, religious views, attitudes about religious practices, and engagement in private practices as indicators of homogamy (Call & Heaton, 1997; Chinitz & Brown, 2001; Curtis & Ellison, 2002; Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010; Petts, 2011; Williams & Lawler, 2003). Lastly, Schramm, Marhsall, Harris & Lee (2012) mea sured religious homogamy by comparing each spouse's rating of religiosity. Moreover, individual measures are insufficient to address the multiple religious indicators of homogamy, yet most studies have relied on a narrow range of indicators, such as atte ndance and affiliation. Although attendance and affiliation may correlate with marital outcomes, they provide little information about the intricacies of religious homogamy within couples. For example, there can be a huge variety of beliefs and lifestyle s within a denomination; therefore, two spouses could live very differently and still report the same affiliation. In fact, Ellison, Burdette, and Wilcox (2010) noted that affiliation may be less

PAGE 20

7 meaningful as a description of theological, attitudinal, or lifestyle differences than in past decades because individual expression of faith has become more common. Additionally, although some researchers use a variety of religious indicators to measure homogamy, there is no single measure that incorporates mult iple dimensions of religion to measure religious homogamy yet it seems apparent that homogamy is a multidimensional construct. In addition to the lack of standardization and depth of the measurement of religious homogamy, there is a dearth of research on how relationships, health, and religion are associated with each other. Because all three areas are relevant to many people and have been shown to relate with each other, it would be beneficial to understand their relations with each other. For example, one study examined the relations that homogamy in religious affiliation has with alcohol use. Ellison, Barrett, and Moulton (200 8) found that religiously homogamous couples who belonged to a conservative religious group, which has proscriptive norms against alcohol use, had lower rates of alcohol use than mixed faith couples and homogamous non conservative couples. Another study f ound that a spiritual coping style allowed couples, where one spouse has diabetes, to better work together as a team as they coped with the disease (Cattich & Knudson Martin, 2009). Spiritual coping was found to increase collaboration, optimism and emphas is on emotional acceptance of the situation and each other. Research has shown relationships between relationship quality and health outcomes, religiousness and health outcomes and religiousness and relationship outcomes. However, there is limited resea rch studying how these three areas are associated. That is, the association between relationship quality, health outcomes and religious ness has not been well studied. This seems to call for a more finely grained analysis of the religious factors that are related to martial functioning.

PAGE 21

8 In a concept analysis of religiosity, Bjarnason (2007) found that religiosity is composed of three main factors: religious affiliation, religious activities and religious beliefs. Likewise, if a couple is religiously ho mogamous, they might be homogamous in all of these areas. In addition, a couple might be homogamous in acceptance; that is, they accept each other's beliefs and practices, even if they are different from their own. Because there are multiple components t o religious homogamy, it is important to explore the variety of ways in which a couple could be homogamous or heterogamous. Within a specific denomination, there can be a spect rum of beliefs and practices. Further, a person may believe the same thing as a nother person within his or her denomination, but practice differently. For example, one person may attend religious services at least once a week, pray regularly and read his or her religious text whereas another person may practice his or her faith by h im or herself and, therefore, rarely attend religious services. However, these two people may espouse the same beliefs. Conversely, two people within a religious denomination could have different beliefs but practice similarly. This might occur because people interpret various passages in their re ligious text differently, resulting in differing beliefs. However, both people may attend the same amount of religious services and practice the same religious practices at home. In addition to differing belie fs and practices, individuals within a denomination may apply and integrate their beliefs in a variety of ways. For example, with regard to politics, two people from the same denomination could have different opinion s about certain issues. P eople could a lso choose to engage in different types of entertainment, consume different types of beverages (e.g. alcohol), or support different organizations. These differences among individuals within a denomination indicate that a couple could be either homogamous or heterogamous across varying dimensions even when they affiliate with the same denomination.

PAGE 22

9 A couple could, however, be homogamous even when they are n ot from the same denomination. That is, the couple could be homogamous in how they practice their b eliefs and in what they believe (i.e. core beliefs), despite identifying with different denominations. Furthermore a couple may be homogamous in acceptance. The couple may discuss their differences and agree to respect each other's practices and beliefs In this case, each member of the couple has communicated, shown respect an d stayed true to his/her own beliefs. It is important to recognize couples who respect different beliefs because this acceptance could have an impact on the marital quality.

PAGE 23

10 CHAPTER II. STUDY AIMS AND HYPOTHES E S This study investigated a proposed scale designed to better represent the multiple facets of religious homogamy, and consisted of 2 phases to analyze the psychometrics of the scale. Based on the preceding several categories provided the schematic foundation for scale content. Religious homogamy was conceptualized into three categories: (1) homogamous beliefs, (2) homogamous practices and (3) homogamous acceptance. The first, homogamous beliefs, wa s furt her broken down into 2 categories: (1) religious perspective and (2) importance of religion. The second, homogamous practices, subdivided into 2 categories: (1) behavioral integration and (2) joint religious activities. The third com ponent, homogamous ac ceptance, wa s also broken down into 2 categories: (1) conflict and (2) mutual religious respect. Furthermore, to add to the limited literature on the association between relationship quality, health outcomes and religiousness, the second phase also analyz ed whethe r religious homogamy explained variance in perceived stress beyond what is accounted for by two different measures of marital functioning. These analyses were chosen because positive marital functioning has been shown to buffer the effects of str ess on health (Kaplan & Kronick, 2006; Robles & Kiecolt Glaser, 2003; Uchino, 2006). Consequently, perceived stress is an important health related variable, and a central goal of this study was to determine if homogamous religion added an additional buffer beyond that conferred by a positive marital relationship The relationship qualities included were, relationship satisfaction and relationship commitment. Taken together, the second phase also determined if 1) religio us homogamy predicts perceived stress beyond relationship satisfaction, and 2) religious homogamy predicts decreased perceived stress beyond relationship commitment.

PAGE 24

11 Therefore, the aims of this study were: I. To develop the SHARE, a scale designed to better represent the multiple facets of religious homogamy II. To conduct a p sychometric analysis of a new measure of couples' religious homogamy a. Phase 1: Calculate and analyze an e xploratory factor analysis and a confirmatory factor analysis of the SHARE b. Phase 2: Calculate and analyze a c onfirmatory factor analysis of the revised SHARE and assess criterion and c onstruct validity of the revised SHARE. III. Determine the amount of variability of perceived stress that Religious Homogamy predicts beyond Relationship Satisfa ction. IV. Determine the amount of variability of perceived stress that Religious Homogamy predicts beyond Relationship Commitment Appendix D illustrates the hypothesized 3 factor and 6 factor models of the scale. It was hypothesized that either the 3 facto r or 6 factor model of the scale would exhibit a reasonable fit. Further, it was hypothesized that the SHARE would positively correlate with other measures of religious homogamy, thus supporting criterion validity, and that the SHARE would demonstrate con struct validity. Additionally, it was hypothesized that religious homogamy would predict decreased perceived stress beyond b oth relationship satisfaction and relationship commitment.

PAGE 25

12 CHAPTER III. METHODS: PHASE 1 In Phase 1, the initial psychometric structu re of the SHARE was examined. Item development is described and the results of the ex ploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis are presented. Sample Participants were recruited through StudyResponse, a research service that has a l arge database of individuals who have agreed to take part in research For this phase, StudyResponse pre screened for individuals who : 1) a re married or in a serious relationship with a partner for at least one year, 2) live with their partner, 3) a re at least 18 years old and partners are at least 18 years old, and 4) l ive in the United States. The sample was also stratified so that it would roughly approximate the United States population on gender and ethnicity One hundred and eighty four parti ci pants began the survey ; however, 13 pa r ticipants were excluded from analyses because they did not complete the survey and 15 additional participants were excluded because they incorrectly answered the informed c onsent comprehension questions. Given this 156 participants were included in analyses As shown in Table 1, participants were roughly equally represented by both genders (female = 46.8%), primarily white (84%), overly represented by those with a higher education, and had a mean age of 42.6. As shown in Table 2, participants primarily identified as Catholic or Protestant Christian, about half identified as "not religious at all" or "slightly religious," and about half reported that they attend religious services two times a year or less.

PAGE 26

13

PAGE 27

14

PAGE 28

15 Mea sures Demographics and Religious Characteristics Participants completed 8 self report demographic and 11 self report religious characte ristic questions (see Appendix A ). Age, gender, race, highest level of education completed, number of times married, household income, state of residence, location (inner city, urban, suburban, rural), religious preference/affiliation, partner's religious preference/affiliation, degree of religiosity, degree of spirituality, frequency of religious service attendance, partner's frequency of religious service attendance, frequency of joint religious service attendance, frequency of participation in religious activities outside of the place of worship, partner's frequency of participation in religious activities outside of the place of worship and importance that one's partner feels the same way about religion were measured. Validity Questions Three questions were randomly placed throughou t the survey to ensure that the participants carefully read the questions. These questions included: (1) For quality control, please answer "never" to this question, (2) For quality control please answer "I sometimes do this" for this question, and (3) Fo r quality control, please respond "strongly agree" to this question. If the participant incorrectly responded to two or more of these questions, he or she was excluded from the study. None of the participants incorrectly responded to two or more of the q uality control questions; therefore, none of the participants were excluded on this basis. Spiritual Homogamy and Religious Experiences (SHARE) Scale A 22 question scale was developed to assess religious/spiritual homogamy within couples. Items were deve loped after careful consideration of the various ways in which one's religious faith could affect a person's th oughts, emotions, and behaviors. For example, in regard

PAGE 29

16 to thoughts, people can differ in their core beliefs, and can have different thoughts ab out how to i ntegrate what they believe and the importance of their religious faith Further, in regards to emotions, a person may have varying degrees of desire to participate in religious practices, such as prayer or reading religious texts. Likewise a person cou ld behave in different ways, by attendin g religious services or not, or by participating in certain activi ties, such as drinking alcohol or not. Appendix D lists each item on the SHARE and denotes how each was categorized into thoughts, emotion s, and/or behaviors Additionally, items were developed after examining measures of religion, religious orientation, and religious homogamy Measures that informed the development of the scale included the Religious Orientation Scale (Allport & Ross, 1967), the Religious Commitment Inventory 10 (Worthington et al., 2003), the Importance of Religious Homogamy Index (Baker, Sanchez, Nock, & Wright, 2009), as well as items measuring religious authority homogamy and joint attendance (Myers, 2006), shared religious values (Ellison, Burdette, & Wilcox, 2010), and family religious environment (Bartkowski, Xu, & Levin, 2008). Of note, items assessing affiliation were not included, but items assessing joint attendance were included Affiliation is a broad concept; consequently, couples of the same affiliation can experience their religious faith very differently For example, a husband and wife may both indicate that their affiliation is protestant Christian, but they may have differing beliefs, stre ngth of commitment, and/or ways that they live out their faith. Additionally, one partner may state a religious affiliation merely because his/her partner is of that affiliation; it may not be internalized or important to that partner. Items assessing jo int attendance were included because it was thought that jointly attending (or not attending ) religious services would add to the concept of similarity in faith because the couple would be sharing an experience. However,

PAGE 30

17 because it is possible for a partn er to begrudgingly attend religious services, rather than to individually desire to attend, items were included to assess a person desires to attend religious services with his/her partner. In developing the items, the researcher was careful not to include double barreled questions. That is, individual items that ask ed about two or more ideas were excluded To reduce the likelihood of acquiescence bias, both positively and negatively worded items were included A six category Likert type response scale w as chosen so that participants would have adequate options for discrimination purposes and so that they could not choose a neutral midpoint. The six anchors utilized were : strongly disagree (1) disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, and strongly agree (6) Fur ther as the items were developed, they were mapped o nto one of the three main and six sub categories described earlier (pg. 10). Twenty items were developed for the SHARE, with 7 items assessing Homogamous Beliefs, 9 items assess ing Homogamous Practices, and 6 items assessing Homogamous Acceptance. After the items were generated the SHARE was given to 7 doctoral students i n clinical psychology (1 male, 6 female s ) for their feedback on the wording, understandability, and content relevance of each question. This provided information regarding the face and content validity of the scale. The colleagues also provided feedback on how well the questions represent religious/spiritual homogamy and made suggestions for questions that sh ould be added or removed. This feedback addresses additional concerns regarding the scale's content validity. There was unanimous agreement that the scale fully represented the construct of religious homogamy, and no one recommended that any item be remo ved. However, the reviewers agreed that 6 questions needed clarification and they provided suggestions for questions to add. Based on this input, 7 questions were added to the sc ale. Specifically, 1 item was added to further

PAGE 31

18 assess Homogamous Beliefs, 1 item was added to better measure Homogamous Practices, and 5 items were added to further assess Homomgamous Acceptance. In all, this first version of the scale contained 29 questions (see Appendix B f or the questions, see Appendix C for the questions and sub category labels, and see Appendix E for the concept map of the questions). Procedure StudyResponse recruited participa n t s by sending an email containing eligibility requirements. Following this, StudyResponse conducted a stratified random sampling of respondents in an attempt to roughly approximate the United States population on gender and ethnicity Those randomly chosen were sent an e mail with a link to the survey, which was then administered through REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Har ris, et al., 2009). The participants first read the informed consent and then agreed to the terms by checking a box next to a sentence saying "I understand and agree to the terms of this survey." Next, p articipants were instructed to print a copy of the c onsent form if they desired to have it for their records and /or to view during the comprehension questions. Then participants answered comprehension questions regarding what they had read in the informed consent. The required comprehension questions wer e as follows (see Appendix F for the questions with the response choices): (1) What are you being asked to do?, (2) Finish this sentence The purpose of this study is to find out (3) True or False: After beginning this study, you can decide not to contin ue at any time, without penalty, and (4) What should you do if you have questions about this study ? (Janofsky, McCarthy, & Folstein, 1992). If participants responded to a comprehension question in a way that indicated that they may not have understood wha t they had read, they were excluded from analyses. As noted 15 participants were excluded because they incorrectly answered the informed consent comprehension questions.

PAGE 32

19 Upon completion of the comprehension questions, participants proceeded to the survey Instructions were provided at the beginning of the survey and in a paragraph preceding each section of the survey, which consisted of 19 demographic and religious characteristic questions and the 29 item SHARE. Participants were instructed to choose th eir answers by clicking on the answer that most appropriately reflected their agreement with the statements provided. Participants were also asked to complete the online survey individually and anonymously. Additionally, the participants were anonymous to the researchers, as they only reported their StudyResponse identification number to the researcher. The participants were allotted unlimited time to complete the survey, but it is estimated that it took between 10 15 minutes to complete based on th e amou nt of time that it took several graduate students to complete the survey. After they finished the survey, the participants completed their participation in the study. A list of identification numbers of those who completed the survey was sent to StudyResp onse, who sent payment to the participants for their participation (a $5.00 Amazon Gift card). Data Analysis Descriptive Statistics Descriptive statistics were an alyzed using IBM SPSS version 21 software. Mean s, standard deviations, and r anges were examined to ascertain that all items we re within the correct range s Exploratory Factor Analyses ( EFA s ) and Confirmatory Factor Analyses ( CFA s) T o better understand the structure of the SHARE EFAs and CFAs were conducted. The EFA s helped determine the number of factors that were present and the CFA s tested the relative fit of the hypothesized three factor model (broad categories) and the six factor model (specific subscales ). First, an EFA allowing factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 to be extracted was

PAGE 33

20 conducted. Then, three factor and six factor solutions were examined. Following this, the 3 factor and 6 factor CFA models were tested. Internal Consistencies, Correlations, and Factorability of Hypothesized Models. Prior to conducti ng any of the EFAs or CFAs the data were screened and the assumption of factorability was asse ssed to ensure that the data were suitable for factor analysis. The internal consistency reliability of the SHARE was determined to be adequate if coefficient a lpha > 0.70. C orrelations of items within each subscale and between subscales were also analyzed. An item was dropped if a correlation in the correlation matrix of items within each subscale was < 0.30. If a correlation wa s > 0.90, the item was consider ed for elimination because this could have been indicative of multicollinearity in the data (Field, 2009). Additionally, the overall Kaiser Meyer Oklin (KMO) statistic and Bartlett's test of sphericity were assessed to ascertain that the KMO statistic was > 0.50 and the Barlett's test of sphericity was significant ( p < 0.05 ; Field, 2009). EFAs. For the EFA s principal axis factoring and a direct oblimin rotation were utilized. The direct olbimin is an oblique rotation, which allows factors to correlate. This type of rotation was most appropriate because the items on the SHARE were expected to correlate, which was thought to lead to a correlation between the extracted factors (Henson & Roberts, 2006). For this study, the eigenvalue > 1 rule (Guttman, 1954) and the scree test (Cattell, 1966) were used to determine the number of factors to retain (Canivez & Watkins, 2010; Henson & Robert, 2006). In addition to the eigenvalue rule and the scree te st, correlations among the factors were observed to assess that they are not too high, which might denote that they are not separate factors. Correlations among the factors were deemed too high if the correlations were over 0.80 (Gorsuch, 1983). The info rmation from these methods and the three different EFAs was then integrated to determine the optimum factors to extract.

PAGE 34

21 After the number of factors to retain was determined, the degree to which each item loaded on the suggested factor was assessed. Steve ns (2009) recommends that the significance of a factor loading should depend on the sample size. Doing an interpolation of Stevens' (2009) recommended critical values, a loading greater than an absolute value of 0.41 was considered significant. Therefore an item was eliminated if the factor loading was < 0.40 and an item was consid ered for elimination if it loaded on more than one factor. After the items were selected, the internal consistency reliabilities of the factor scales were assessed. CFAs. T he 3 factor and 6 factor confirmatory factor analysis models were tested using MPlus (MuthÂŽn & MuthÂŽn, 2011). The model fit was determined using several goodness of fit indices, including the chi square statistic ( X 2 ), comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). For smaller samples, a non significant X 2 indicates a fitting model; however, not necessarily the right model. The cut off values for the other indices were as follows: CFI > 0.95, RMSEA < 0.06, and SRMR < 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Best Fitting CFA Based on the results of the EFAs and the hypothesized three and six factor CFAs, other CFAs were examined in order to find the best fitting model. Model fit was determined using the same goodn ess of fit indices and criteria

PAGE 35

22 C HAPTER IV. RESULTS: PHASE 1 Descriptive Statistics Participants responded using the full range of scores, 1 6. The means and standard deviations of item s with in each of the 3 subscales of the best fitting CFA are presented in the second columns of Tables 3 5 Table 3. Phase 1 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Beliefs Subscale Items of the Best Fitting CFA Item Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. SHARE1: Same Page 4.46 (1.15) -2. SHARE2: Equal Role 3.94 (1.55) .608** -3. SHARE3: Views in Sync 4.33 (1.13) .867** .626** -4. SHARE4: Practices in Sync 4.47 (1.22) .731** .499** .695** -5. SHARE5: Equal Value 4.25 (1.31) .750** .705** .778** .660** -6. SHARE7: Core Beliefs 4.52 (1.26) .747** .626** .792** .627** .722** -7. SHARE8: Actions Match Beliefs 4.58 (1.08) .544** .440** .600** .501** .536** .518** -8. SHARE9: Agree About Role 4.56 (1.09) .822** .590** .850** .707** .724** .754** .508** -9. SHARE11: Equally Prioritize 4.14 (1.29) .667** .499** .659** .678** .646** .675** .460** .680** -10. SHARE18: Similarly Apply 4.52 (1.09) .555** .466** .567** .408** .540** .553** .558** .536** .487** a Higher scores indicate more homogamy. ** p < .01

PAGE 36

23 Table 4. Phase 1 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Practices Subscale Items of the Best Fitting CFA Item Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 1. SHARE24: Share Religious Service 3.70 (1.79) -2. SHARE25: I Want to Share Religious Service 4.06 (1.66) .821** -3. SHARE26: Partner Wants to Share Religious Service 4.08 (1.62) .798** .826** -4. SHARE27: Share Private Practice 3.47 (1.70) .740** .731** .727** -5. SHARE28: I Want to Share Private Practice 3.74 (1.65) .736** .861** .737** .846** -6. SHARE29: Partner Wants to Share Private Practice 3.62 (1.63) .712** .726** .783** .864** .875** a Higher scores indicate more homogamy. ** p < .01

PAGE 37

24 Table 5. Phase 1 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Acceptance Subscale Items of the Best Fitting CFA Item Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. SHARE14r: Pressure From 5.03 (1.34) -2. SHARE15r: Pressure Towards 5.05 (1.26) .908** -3. SHARE16r: Argue 5.09 (1.29) .767** .821** -4. SHARE17r: Conflict 5.09 (1.25) .841** .869** .860** -5. SHARE19r: Avoid 4.86 (1.29) .620** .658** .670** .679** -6. SHARE20r: Can't Practice 5.09 (1.24) .819** .814** .740** .805** .640** -7. SHARE21r: Partner Can't Practice 5.03 (1.30) .836** .840** .731** .821** .671** .830** -8. SHARE22r: My Activities Takes Away 5.13 (1.30) .843** .882** .776** .840** .588** .797** .858** -9. SHARE23r: Partner's Activities Takes Away 5.09 (1.35) .839** .860** .829** .863** .597** .795** .796** .910** a Higher scores indicate more homogamy. ** p < .01

PAGE 38

25 EFAs and CFAs Internal Consistencies, Correlations, and Factorability of Hypothesized Models The Cronbach's alpha of the SHARE with all hypothesized items, the hypothesized 3 factor and 6 factor models the SHARE with items from the best fitting model, and the 3 factor model from the best fitting model are presented in Tab le 6 Alphas ranged from .824 to .970, demonstrating that the SHARE scale and subscales are internally consistent. The correlations of items within each of the 3 subscales of the best fitting CFA are presented in Tables 3 5 Correlations among the items in the Homogamous Beliefs subscale range from .440 to .867. Correlations among the items in the Homogamous Practice subscale range from .712 to .875. Correlations among the items in the Homogamous Acceptance subscale range from .588 to .910. None of the correlations wer e <0.30; therefore, none of the items were dropped based on their correlation. Although one correlation was >0.90, the two ite ms were not dropped because one of the items was examining the participant's behavior and the other item was measuring the partne r' s behavior; therefore, each item is conceptually independent of the other. The correlations between the 3 subscales of the best fitting CFA are presented in Table 7 Lastly, t wo empirical indices of the sample's correlation matrix revealed that the hyp othesized 3 factor and 6 factor models were suitable for factor analytic procedures: Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant, 2(406) = 4572.898, p = 0.00, and the overall Kaiser Meyer O klin (KMO) statistic was .902.

PAGE 39

26 Table 6 Phase 1 Internal Consistency Reliabilities of SHARE (N = 156) Scale N of items Alpha Standardized Item Alpha SHARE (With All Items) 29 .929 .934 Hypothesized 3 Factor Model Homogamous Beliefs 8 .912 .914 Homogamous Practices 10 .916 .910 Homogamous Acceptance 11 .966 .965 Hypothesized 6 Factor Model Religious Perspective Subscale 4 .852 .844 Importance of Religion 4 .847 .852 Behavioral Integration 4 .824 .825 Joint Religious Activities 6 .956 .956 Conflict 6 .945 .946 Mutual Religious Respect 5 .919 .913 SHARE (With Items From Best Fitting Model) 25 .917 .921 3 Factor Model From Best Fitting Model Homogamous Beliefs 10 .942 .944 Homogamous Practices 6 .956 .956 Homogamous Acceptance 9 .970 .970 Table 7. Phase 1 Correlations Among the Subscales of the Best Fitting CFA Subscale 1 2 1. Homogamous Acceptance -2. Homogamous Practices 0.19 -3. Homogamous Beliefs .09 .520 EFA B ased on Eigenvalues Greater or Equal to One According to an EFA allowing factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 to be extracted, the scree plot showed a point of inflexion above the 4 th component, indicating that 3 factors should be extracted. However, 4 factors were extracted based on the number of factors with ei genvalues greater than 1 T he first factor

PAGE 40

27 explained 35% of the variance, the second factor 30% of the variance, the third factor 9% of the variance, and the fourth factor explained 4% of the variance. Of note, 74% of the variability in the observed item s is ex plained by the first 3 factors, and the fourth factor only accounts for 4 % of the variance Eleven items (1 5, 6r, 7 9, 11, and 18) loaded onto Factor 1. These items are as follows: 1: Same Page, 2: Equal Role, 3 Views in Sync, 4: Practices in Sy nc, 5: Equal Value, 6r: Not Equally Religious/Spiritual, 7: Core Beliefs, 8: Actions Match Beliefs, 9: Agree About Role, 11: Equally Prioritize, and 18: Similarly Apply. It is important to note that item 2 (Equal Role) also loaded onto factor 3 in a simil ar magnitude. Overall, the items loading onto Factor 1 focus on cognitive aspects of homogamy. Eleven items (12r, 13, 14r 17r, and 19r 23r) loaded onto Factor 2. These items are as follows: 12r: Difficult to Reconcile, 13: Respect Beliefs, 14r: Pressure From, 15r: Pressure To, 16r: Argue, 17r: Conflict, 19r: Avoid, 20r: I Can't Practice, 21r: Partner Can't Practice, 22r: Partner's Activities Take Away, and 23r: My Activities Take Away. The items loading onto Factor 2 focus on how the couple relates to o ne another (e.g. presence of respect and/or conflict). Seven items (2 and 24 29) loaded highly onto Factor 3. These items are as follows: 2: Equal Role, 24: Share Religious Service, 25: I Want to Attend Service, 26: Partner Wants to Attend Service, 27: I Want Private Religious Practices (PRP), and 28: Partner Wants PRP. These items focus on religious practices. Lastly, four items (8, 10, 13, and 18) loaded onto Factor 4. These items are as follows: 8: Actions Match Beliefs, 10: Agree Right/Wrong, 13: Respect Beliefs, and 18: Similarly Apply. However, items 8, 13, and 18 loaded onto other factors in a similar magnitude as they loaded onto Factor 4. Because most of the items that loaded onto Factor 4 loaded equally as high on other factors, and there i s a lack of additional

PAGE 41

28 variability explained by Factor 4, the structure matrix better supports a 3 factor model, rather than a 4 factor model. The scree plot also supports a 3 factor model. T hree and Six Factor EFAs Three and six factor solutions were e xamined, using a direct oblimin rotation of the factor loading matrix. The three factor solution explained a total of 74% of the variance and the six factor solution explained 82% of the variance. The three facto r EFA seems to be a better fit ; therefore, it is described below According to the three factor EFA, t he first factor explained 36 % of the variance, the second factor 29 % of the variance, and the third factor 9% of the variance. The same e leven items (1 5, 6r, 7 9, 11, and 18) loade d onto Factor 1 as the items that loaded on the first fa ctor of the EFA in the above section As in the EFA above, item 2 loaded onto factor 3 in a similar magnitude. As in the EFA above the same e leven items (12r, 13, 14r 17r, and 19r 23r) loaded onto Factor 2. Lastly, as in the EFA above the same s even items (2 and 24 29) loaded highly onto Factor 3. Item 10 (Agree Right/Wrong) loaded somewhat lowly (.45 and .34, respectively) onto Factor 1 and Factor 3. Given this, both EFA s seems to support a 3 f actor model. Additionally, items 2 and 10 should be considered for elimination because they both load onto more than one factor. Three Factor CFA Model. The three factor model did not fit well, according to the goodness of fit indices : 2 (406) = 5347.55, p = .000, CFI = .73, RMSEA = .15, and SRMR = .21. Specifically, items 4, 8, 9, and 18 did not load highly onto the Homogamous Practices scale. Furthermore, items 6r and 10 did not load highly on the Homogamous Beliefs subscale and items 12r and 13 did not load highly on Homogamous Acceptance subscale. Six Factor CFA Model. Similarly, the six factor model did not fit well, according to the goodness of fit indices : 2 (406) = 5347.55, p = .000, CFI = .82, RMSEA = .12, SRMR = .21

PAGE 42

29 Overal l, each item loaded highly onto each hypothesized subscale, however, there were exceptions. Specifically, item 10 (Agree Right/Wrong) did not load highly on the Religious Perspectives subscale, item 6r (Not Equally Religious/Spiritual) did not load highly on the Importance of Religion subscale, item 12r (Difficult to Reconcile) did not load highly on the Conflict subscale, and item 13 (Respect Beliefs) did not load highly on the Mutual Religious Respect subscale. Best Fitting CFA Model. Based on the resul ts of the EFAs and the hypothesized three and six factor CFAs, numerous CFAs were examined in order to find the best fitting model. In the end, the best fitting m odel consisted of 3 factors, which did no t include items 6r (Not Equally Religious/Spiritual) 10 (Agree Right/Wrong) 12r (Difficult to Reconcile) or 13 (Respect Beliefs) Items 4 (Practices in Sync) 8 ( A ctions Match Beliefs) 9 (Agree About Role) and 18 (Similarly Apply) were moved to the Homogamous Beliefs subscale. According to the hypoth esized 6 factor model, items 4, 8, 9, and 18 comprised the Behavioral Integration subscale, which was part of the Homogamous Practices category. Upon further reflection on the results of the EFAs and the CFAs, it became evident that items 4, 8, 9, and 18 were more related to cognition than behavior. As de scribed in the EFA section the first extracted factor focused on cognitions about religion and spirituality whereas the second factor focused on religious behaviors. Thus it was reasonable to move item s 4, 8, 9, and 18 to the first factor, which maps onto the items that comprise the hypothesized Homogamous Beliefs category. The goodness of fit indices for this model are as follows : 2 (300) = 4736.79, p = .000, CFI = .89, RMSEA = .11, SRMR = .09. Plea se see Figures 1 3 for the variable loadings of each factor and see Appendix G for the concept map that represents these factor loadings

PAGE 43

30

PAGE 44

31

PAGE 45

32 CHAPTER V. METHODS: PHASE 2 Phases 2 analyzed a confirmatory analysis of the revised SHARE, addressed the criterion and construct validity of the SHARE, and determined the amount of variability in perceived stress predicted by religious homogamy. Sample Participants were recruited through StudyResponse, a research service that has a large databas e of individuals who have agreed to take part in research. For this phase, StudyResponse pre screened for individuals who: 1) are married or in a serious relationship with a partner for at least one year, 2) live with their partner, 3) are at least 18 yea rs old and partners are at least 18 years old, and 4) live in the United States. The sample was also stratified so that it would roughly approximate the United States population on gender and ethnicity. Two hundred and forty participants began the survey ; however, 25 participant records were excluded from analyses because the participant had already completed the survey and/or did not complete any items beyond the demographic items, 14 additional participants were excluded from analyses because they incor rectly answered the informed consent comprehension questions, and 13 additional participants were excluded from analyses because they incorrectly responded to two or more of the quality control questions. Given this, 188 participants were included in anal yses. As shown in Table 8, participants were approximately equally represented by both genders (female = 52.1%), primarily white (73.9%), overly represented by those with a higher education, and had a mean age of 43.1. As shown in Table 9, participants pr imarily identified as Catholic or Protestant Christian, over half (58.5%) identified as "moderately religious" or "very religious," and about half reported that they attend religious services two

PAGE 46

33 times a year or less.

PAGE 47

34

PAGE 48

35 Measures Demographics, Religio us Characteristics, and Validity Questions The demographics, religious characteristics, and validity questions were the same as in Phase 1. Spiritual Homogamy and Religious Experiences (SHARE) Scale Based on the results from Phase 1, items 10 (Agree Right /Wrong) and 13 (Respect Beliefs) were eliminated from the SHARE used in Phase 2. However, though the results from Phase 1 suggested their elimination, items 6r (Not Equally Religious/Spiritual) and 12r (Difficult to Reconcile) were included because these items contained constructs that the researcher believed were important to measure and thus added to the content validity of the scale. In addition to dropping items 10 and 13, the Homogamous Practices scale was c hanged. Specifically, 4 items from the Re ligious Characteristics scale (Appendix A) were included in the place of the 2 items, "My partner and I attend together," and "My partner and I participate together in religious practices." Additionally, the desire to attend and the desire to participate items were subtracted from each other to create items that better represent homogamy An explanation for and specific description of these changes are detailed below. Upon review of the Homogamous Practice items, the researcher recognized that the item "My partne r and I attend together," allowed for multiple situations to be applicable. When the item was created, the researcher meant for it to clearly distinguish between homogamous and heterogamou s attendance. That is, if a person endorsed "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree," it meant that the couple was heterogamous, where one partner attends and the other partner does not attend. Likewise, if the person endorsed "Strongly Agree," this represented that the couple was homogamous. However, after the completion of Phase 1 data collection, the researcher

PAGE 49

36 realized that it was possible for someone to rate this item as "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree" because neither partner attends; therefore, they do not attend together. In this case, the participant and his/her partner would be homogamous, rather than heterogamous. To prevent this from occurr ing, the researcher decided to create a new variable to measure homogamous attendance, which subtracted the f requency of the participant's service attendance from the partner's religious service attendance Specifically, item 24 (My partner and I attend religious services together) was deleted, and items 13 (How often do you attend religious services) and 14 (Ho w often does your partner attend religious services) from the Religious Characteristics scale (see Appendix A) were added in its place. This variable wa s named Homogamous Attendance. Similarly, the item "My partner and I participate together in religious practices," also allowed for multiple situations to be true if a participant endorsed "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree," one indicating heterogamy and the other homogamy. Therefore, item 27 (My partner and I participate together in religious practices) was deleted, and item 16 (How often do you participate in religious activities outside of a place of worship) and item 17 (How often does your partner participate in religious activities outside of a place of worship) from the Religious Characteristics scale (Appendix A) was added in its place. For analyses, a new variable, Homogamous Participation in Religious Practices, was created. For this variable, the frequency of the participant's participa tion in religious practices was subtracted from the frequency of the partner's participation. Further, upon review, the researcher recognized that one partner's desire to attend religious services or participate in religious practices did not indicate ho mogamy; rather, it was the degree of similarity in two partner's desire that would represent homogamy. Therefore, i tems 25 (I want to attend religious services with my partner) and 26 (My partner wants to attend

PAGE 50

37 religi ous services with me) were subtracted from each other to create a new variable, Homogamous Desire to Attend. Additionally, items 28 (I want to participate in private religious practices) and 29 (My partner wants to participate in private religious practices) were subtracted from each other t o create a new variable, the Homogamous Desire to Participate in Religious Practices. For each of the 4 new variables (Homogamous Attendance, Homogamous Participation in Religious Practices, Homogamous Desire to Attend, and Homogamous Desire to Participate in Religious Practices), the total score, taken from the subtraction of one item from the other, was reverse coded so that the score mapped onto the Likert type scale used for the other items on the SHARE. Specifically, a difference of an absolute value of 5 was recoded to be 1 ( Strongly Disagree ), a difference of an absolute value of 4 was recoded to be 2 ( Disagree), a difference of an absolute value of 3 was recoded to be 3 ( Somewhat Disagree ), a difference of an absolute value of 2 was recoded to be 4 ( Somewhat Agree ), a difference of an absolute value of 1 was recoded to be 5 ( Agree ), and a difference of an absolute value of 0 was recoded to be 6 ( Strongly Agree ). Taken together, the SHARE used in Phase 2 differed from the scale utilized in Phase 1 because the scale in Phase 2 excluded items 10 and 13, and measured the construct of homogamous practices in a different way. That is, 2 items were deleted from the scale, 4 items were added, and 4 new variables were created to better measure homogamous p ractices. Furthermore, the Homogamous Practices scale was renamed Practicing Together because this more aptly expresses the content of the new variables. In the end, the Practicing Together scale consisted of 4 items: (1) Homogamous desire to attend (SHA RE Items 25 26, using the 1 6 Likert scale), (2) Homogamous desire to participate in religious practices (SHARE Items 28 29,

PAGE 51

38 using the 1 6 Likert scale), (3) Homogamous attendance (Attendance minus Partner's attendance, which are items taken from the relig ious characteristics questions and use a 1 5 Likert scale. This replaces Item 24 on the SHARE), and (4) Homogamous participation in religious practices (Participation in religious practices minus Partner's participation in religious practices, which are i tems taken from the religious characteristics questions and use a 1 8 Likert scale. This replaces Item 27 on the SHARE). For analyses, the mean of all items on the SHARE was utilized as the total SHARE score. Additionally, the mean of each subscale was included in analyses. Please see the Analysis section below for information regarding the internal consistency of the SHARE and subscales. Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale The Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (see Appendix H ) is a brief self report meas ure of overall relationship satisfaction (KMSS; Schumm et al., 1986). It includes 3 items assessing satisfaction with one's (1) relationship (2) husband/wife as a spouse and (3) relationship with one's husband/wife. However, for this study, the scale wa s revised to say "relationship" instead of "marriage," and "partner" instead of "spouse," due to the fact that participants did not need to be married in order to be included in the study. The items are rated on a 7 point Likert type scale that ranges fro m extremely dissatisfied (1) to extremely satisfied (7) For data analysis the mean was utilized ; therefore, the possible range of scores wa s 1 7. For the sample included in this phase, t he Cronbach's alpha was .942. In previous studies this scale has been found to correlate highly with other measures of marital satisfaction including the Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS ; r = .83 ) and Quality Marriage Index (QMI ; r = .91; Schumm et al., 1986)

PAGE 52

39 Commitment Inventory S ubscales Four subscales from The Commitment Inventory (see Appendix I) were included to assess various aspects of relationship commitm ent (Stanley & Markman, 1992). The four subscales included were (1) Relationship Agenda, (2) Couple Identity, (3) Primacy of Relationship, and (4) Satisf action with Sacrifice. Each subscale consisted of 6, self report items rated on a 7 point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) For data analysis, the mean was utilized for each subscale ; therefore, the possible range of scores for each subscale wa s 1 7. For the sample included in this phase, t he Cronbach's alpha was .989 for the Relationship Agenda subscale, .476 for the Couple Identity subscale, .862 for the Primacy of Relationships subscale, and .839 for the Satisfacti on with Sacrifice subscale. Additionally, Stanley and Markman (1992) found that the subscales utilized in this study were significantly correlated with other measures of commitment, including: Johnson's Personal Commitment Measure ( correlations with the s ubscales utilized in this study ranged from r = .16 .73) Rusbult's Comm itment Scale ( correlations with the subscales utilized in this study ranged from r = .61 .92) and Beach and Broderick's Commitment Scale ( correlations with the subscales utilized in this study ranged from r = .50 .66) Perceived Stress Scale The perceived stress scale (see Appendix J ) is one of the mostly widely used scales to measure the perception of stress (Cohen, Kama r ck & Mermelstein, 1983; Cohen & Williamson, 1988). The scale consists of 10 questions, each with a 5 point Likert scale ranging from never (0) to very often (4) For data analysis, all items were summed; therefore, the poss ible range of scores was 0 40. For the sample included in thi s phase, the Cronbach's alpha was .839 In previous samples, the Cronbach's alpha was between .84 and .86, and the scale demonstrated

PAGE 53

40 concurrent validity when correlated with Impact of Life Event scores ( correlations ranged from r = .24 .49; Cohen, Kam arck & Mermelstein, 1983). Satisfaction with Life Scale The Satisfaction with Life Sca le (see Appendix K ) is a 5 item, self report scale that measures general satisfaction with life (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Items are rated on a 7 point L ikert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) For data analysis, all items were summed; therefore, the possible range of scores was 5 35 For the sample included in this phase, the Cronbach's alpha was .886. In general, this scale has a reported Cronbach's alpha of .87, and has been found to correlate highly with other measures of subjective well being (Diener, Emmons, Larsem, & Griffin, 1985). These measures include: Cantril's Self Anchoring Ladder ( r = .62 .66), Gurin's item ( r = .47 .59), Andrews and Withey's D T scale ( r = .62 .68), Fordyce's single item measure of happiness ( r = .57 .58), Fordyce's percent of time happy question ( r = .58 .62), Campbell, Converse, and Rodgers' semantic differential like scale ( r = .59 .75), Bradburn's Affect Balance Scale PAS ( r = .50 .51), and Tellegen's well being subscale of his Differential Personality Questionnaire ( r = .68; Diener, Emmons, Larsem, & Griffin, 1985). Measures of Extramarital Involvement Three items created by Glass and Wright (1992) were utilized t o measure extramarital involve ment For this study, "relationship" was used for "marriage," and "partner" was used for "spouse," due to the fact that participants did not need to be married in order to participate. E ach ite m is self report and is rated on a 5 point or 7 point Likert scale (see Appendix L for the anchors and questions). E ach Likert scale is comprised of different anchors ; h owever, each scale begins with the anchor, n o involvement (1). For data analysis, eac h item was dichotomized so

PAGE 54

41 that n o involvement was coded as (0) and any other type of involvement was coded as (1). The items were then summed for a total score; therefore, the possible range of scores was 0 3 Glass and Wright (1992) found that reported extramarital involvement (sexual and emotional) was positively correlated with attitudes towards extramarital involvement; thus providing convergence validity. Further, the items appear to be a face valid measurement of extramarital involvement, includin g emotional and sexual involvement. Marital Instability Index Relationship Instability was measured by 3 item s adapted from the short form of the self report Marital Instability Index (see Appendix M ; Booth, Johnson, & Edwards, 1983 ; Mannering, et al., 2011 ; Stanley et al., 2014 ). Participants responded to the following items, (1) "In the last six months, have you thought your current relationship might be in trouble?" (2) "In the last six months, has the thought of getting a divorce or separation cross ed your mind?" and (3) "In the last six months, have you or your partner seriously suggest the idea of divorce or separation?" and rated these items on a yes (1) or no (0) scale. For this study, "relationship" was used instead of "marriage," and "partner" was used instead of "spouse," due to the fact that participants did not need to be married in order to participate. For data analysis, the items were summed; therefore, the possible range of scores was 0 3. For the sample included in this phase, the Cro nbach's alpha was .920. In previous samples, the Cronbach's alpha ranged from .77 to .88 (Mannering, et al., 2011 ; Stanley et al., 2014 ). Rauer, Karney, Garvan, and Hou (2008) found that a 12 item index score, including items that measured relationship c ommitment, satisfaction, intimacy and the 3 marital instability items, demonstrated reliability with a Cronbach's alpha of .88. This indicates that the marital instability items converge with other

PAGE 55

42 theoretically related items and thus provides construct va lidity. Additionally, the items included in this index appear to be a face valid measurement of the construct of relationship instability. Danger Signs Scale Negative interaction was measured by the 5 item Danger Signs Scale (see Appendix N ; Stanley & Markman, 1997). The questions are rated on a 3 point Likert scale ranging from never or almost never (1) to frequently (3) and assess patterns of negative interaction, such as escalation, invalidation, negative interpretation, and withdrawal. For data a nalysis, the items were summed; therefore, the possible range of scores was 5 15. For the sample included in this phase, the Cronbach's alpha was .835. For previous samples, the Cronbach's alpha has ranged from .73 .91 ( Stanley et al., 2005; Stanley et al., 2001). Different versions of this measure have demonstrated good reliability, convergent validity, and construct validity ( Allen, Rhoades, Stanley, & Markman, 2010; Stanley et al., 2005). For construct validity, negative interaction has been shown to positively correlate with post traumatic stress disorder ( r .28), and negatively correlate with martial satisfaction ( r = .62), positive bonding ( r = .58), and parenting alliance ( r = .31; Allen et al., 2010). Procedures As in Phase 1, StudyResponse r ecruited participants by distributing an email with eligibility requirements. Following this, StudyResponse randomly sampled those who responded, stratifying the sample to roughly approximate the United States population on gender and ethnic specification s. Those randomly chosen were sent an e mail with a link to the survey, which was then administered through REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture; Harris, et al., 2009). The participants first completed the informed consent process, which was the same as Phase 1. That is, participants read the consent, indicated that they understood the terms of the

PAGE 56

43 study and answered comprehension questions regarding what they had read in the informed consent (please see the Procedures section of Phase 1 for more in formation). Upon completion of the comprehension questions, participants proceeded to the survey. Instructions were given at the beginning of the survey and in a paragraph preceding each section of the survey, which consisted of 19 demographic and religious character istic questions and 70 additional items Participants were instructed to choose their answers by clicking on the answer that most appropriately reflected their agreement with the statements provided. Participants were also asked to complete the online su rvey individually, privately, and anonymously Additionally, participants were given instructions on clearing browser history as an additional protective measure. Furthermore the participants were anonymous to the researchers, as they only reported thei r StudyResponse identification number to the researcher. The participants were allotted unlimited time to complete the survey, but it is estimated that it took 60 minutes to complete based on the amount of time that it has taken past participants to com plete a survey with a similar length After they finished the survey, the participants were finished with their participation in the study. A list of identification numbers of those who completed the survey was sent to StudyResponse, who sent payment to the participants for their partic ipation (a $20 .00 Amazon Gift card). Data Analysis Aim 2 To conduct a psychometric analysis of a new measure of couples' religious homogamy Phase 2: Calculate and analyze a confirmatory factor analysis of the revised SHAR E and assess the criterion and construct validity of the revised SHARE.

PAGE 57

44 Descriptive Statistics Correlations Among Scales, and Alpha Coefficients of All Measures Besides the SHARE Descriptive statistics of all measures were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 21 software. Means, standard deviations, ranges, skew, and kurtosis were examined to ascertain that all items wer e within the correct ranges, to assess normality of the variables, and to understand the distribution of the variables Correlations among the measures were also analyzed using IBM SPSS version 21 software. Further, alpha coefficients were calculated using IBM SPSS version 21 software to determine the internal consistency of each measure. Measures were de emed internally consistent if Cronbach's alpha > 0.70. Internal Consistencies, Correlations, Factorability of the 3 Factor Model of SHARE and Descriptive Statistics First the data were screened and the assumption of factorability w as assessed to ensure that the data were suitable for factor analysis. As stated above, t he internal consistency reliability of the SHARE was assessed via coefficient alpha and an alpha coefficient of > 0.70 was considered acceptable. Furthermore, correlations of items within each subscale and between subscales were analyzed. An item was considered for elimination if a correlation in the correlation matrix of items within each subscale was < 0.30. If a correlation was > 0.90, the item was considered for elimination because this could have been indicative of multicollinearity in the data (Field, 2009). Additionally, the overall Kaiser Meyer Oklin (KMO) statistic and Bartlett's test of sphericity were assessed to ascertain that the KMO statistic was > 0.50 and the Barlett's test of sphericity was significant ( p < 0.05; Field, 2009). Lastly, means and standard deviations of the items on the SHARE were examined. Further, the frequency of the new variables on the Practicing Together scal e was counted to determine the amount of homogamy on these items.

PAGE 58

45 CFA. Based on the results from Phase 1, a 3 factor CFA was conducted t o re examine the characteristics and structure of the SHARE, using MPlus (MuthÂŽn & MuthÂŽn, 2011). As described in the Measures section above items 10 and 13 were excluded from the scale, and the Homogamous Practices scale was changed and re named Practicing Together. In addition to these changes, items 4 (Practices in Sync), 8 (Actions Match Beliefs), 9 (Agree About Role), and 18 (Similarly Apply) were moved to the Homogamous Beliefs subscale, as suggested by the results from Phase 1. For the CFA, model fit was determined using several goodness of fit indices, including the chi square statistic ( X 2 ) comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). For smaller samples, a non significant X 2 indicates a fitting model; however, not necessarily the right model. The cut off values for the oth er indices are as follows: CFI > 0.95, RMSEA < 0.06, and SRMR < 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Criterion Validity Criterion validity was examined for the total SHARE score and the 3 subscales. The total SHARE score, the mean of all items and the individual subscale scores, the mean of each subscale, were each correlated to other measures of religious homogamy : r eligious affiliation, joint attendance and rating s of religiousness and spirituality As mentioned previously, a standard measu re of religious h omogamy does not exist; h owever, some of the most common measures of religious homogamy were included in these analyses Criterion validity is evident if the other measures of religious homogamy converge positively with the SHARE total an d subscale scores. Construct Validity Construct validity was examined for the total SHARE score and the 3 subscales. Convergent validity was established if the SHA RE correlated with specified

PAGE 59

46 measures in the previously hypothesized direction. Discrimina nt validity was established if the constructs predicted to be unrelated to the SHARE were n ot related. The SHARE was predicted to converge with other constructs as follows. It was predicted that the total SHARE score an d the individual SHARE subscale scor es would positively correlate with (1) Relationship satisfaction, as measured by the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS) (2) Relationship commitment, as measured by the four Commitment Inventory subscales (CI subscales) and (3) Well being, as measured by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) Additionally, it was predicted that the total SHARE score and the individual SHARE subscale scores would negatively correlate with (1) Infidelity, as measured by the Glass and W right Questions (GW questions) (2) Relationship Instability, as measured by the Marital Instability Scale (MIS) (3) Negative Interactions, as measured by the Danger Signs Scale (DSS) and (4) Perceived Stress, as measured by the Perceived Stress Scale (P SS) To assess discriminant validity, it was predicted that the total SHARE score and the individual SHARE subscale scores would be unrelated to the gender (male or female) of the participant. To assess these predictions, the total SHARE score (the mean of all items) and the individual SHARE subscale scores (the mean of each subscale) were each correlated with the KMSS, CI subscales, SWLS, GW questions, MIS, DSS, PSS, and gender. Aim s 3 and 4 III. Determine the amount of variability of perceived stress that Religious Homogamy predicts beyond Relationship Satisfaction. IV. Determine the amount of variability of perceived stress that Religious Homogamy predicts beyond Relationship Commitment

PAGE 60

47 Aim 3 For Aim 3 the sociodemogra phic variables were dummy coded and correlated with the criterion variable (Perceived Stress) The sociodemographic variables that significantly correlated with the criterion were included in the first step of the hierarchical regression Relationship satisfaction was entered in the s econd step, because of the known relationship of marital satisfaction to perceived stress. Lastly, religious homogamy was entered in the third step The regression was conducted 5 times so that the SHARE mean, the SHARE mean without Homogamous Acceptance and each of the 3 SHARE subscales could be included as the religious homogamy variable in the third step. The SHARE mean without Homogamous Acceptance was included because the Homo gamous Acceptance subscale seemed to be acting in a different way than th e other subscales in Phase 1 Excluding it in analyses could help determine if the subscale changes the way that the total SHARE score relates to other variables. Aim 4 For Aim 4 the sociodemographic variables were dummy coded and correlated with the cr iterion variable (Perceived Stress) The sociodemographic variables that significantly correlated with the criterion were included in the first step of the hierarchical regression. Relationship commitment (all four subscales of the Commitment Inventory) was entered into the second step Lastly, religious homogamy was entered in the third step The regression was conducted 5 times so that the SHARE mean the SHARE mean without Homogamous Acceptance, and each of the 3 subscales could be included as the religious homogamy variable in the third step. As mentioned in Aim 3, the SHARE mean without Homogamous Acceptance was included because the Homogamous Acceptance subscale seems to be acting in a differ ent way than the other subscales.

PAGE 61

48 CHAPTER VI. RESULTS : PHASE 2 Aim 2 Descriptive Statistics, Correlations Among Scales, and Alpha Coefficients of All Measures Excluding the SHARE. The descriptives for all measures, besides the SHARE are presented in Table 10 Each scale was scored as described in the Measures section above; therefore, some scales' total scores are a reflection of the sum of the items whereas others are the mean of the items. The scores for each measure all fall with in the potential ranges. The skew and kurtosis of all measures were found to be adequate; therefore, no transformations were made. The skew of all measures ranged from 1.157 to 1.937 and the kurtosis of all measures ranged from 1.843 to 2.235. The c or relations among all measures excluding the SHARE are present ed in Table 11 Correlations among the measures range d from .589 to .754. Additionally, t he C ronbach's alpha s are reported in the description of each measure in the above Measures section. Overall, the alpha coefficients demonstrate d that each measure is internally consistent for t he sample included in this phase. The only exception to this is the Couple Identity s ubscale, whose Cronbach's alpha was .476, indicating that this subscale does not have good internal consistency for the sample included in this phase. Table 10. Descriptive Statistics of Measures Utilized in Phase 2 (Excluding the SHARE) Measure Name n M SD Range Potential Actual Skew (Std. Error) Kurtosis (Std. Error) Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale 184 5.77 1.17 1 7 2 7 1.157 (.179) 1.300 (.356) CI: Relationship Agenda 181 6.03 1.15 1 7 2.33 7 1.081 (.181) .245 (.359)

PAGE 62

49 CI: Couple Identity 181 4.94 0.92 1 7 2.67 6.80 .507 (.181) .678 (.359) CI: Primacy of Relationship 181 5.45 1.24 1 7 2.33 7 .188 (.181) 1.215 (.359) CI: Satisfaction with Sacrifice 181 5.31 1.18 1 7 2.17 7 .322 (.181) .516 (.359) Perceived Stress Scale 188 13.5 5.99 0 40 0 28 .030 (.177) .419 (.353) Satisfaction with Life Scale 188 25.32 5.46 5 35 5 35 .659 (.177) .335 (.353) Glass and Wright questions 188 1.60 0.51 0 3 0 3 .170 (.177) 1.843 (.353) Marital Instability Index 184 0.44 0.94 0 3 0 3 1.937 (.179) 2.235 (.356) Danger Signs Scale 184 7.98 2.54 5 15 5 15 .603 (.179) .459 (.356) Table 11. Correlations among Measures Utilized in Phase 2 (Excluding the SHARE) Measure Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale -2. CI: Relationship Agenda .610** -3. CI: Couple Identity .445** .745** -4. CI: Primacy of Relationship .539** .754** .754** -5 CI: Satisfaction with Sacrifice .538** .629** .627** .752** -6. Perceived Stress Scale .361** .332** .265** .309** .323 ** -7. Satisfaction with Life Scale .322** .183* .122 .136 .128 .327** -8. Glass and .255** .545** .579** .580** .451** .152* .134 -

PAGE 63

50 Wright questions 9. Marital Instability Index .450** .516 ** .347** .331** .400** .386** .175* .169* -10. Danger Signs Scale .487** .422** .263** .369** .357** .549** .274** .067 .517** ** p < .01 p < .05 Internal Consistencies, Correlations, Factorability of the 3 Factor Model of SHARE, and Descriptive Statistics. T he Cronbach's alphas of the SHARE are presented in Table 12. Alphas ranged from .654 to .950, demonstrating that the SHARE scale and subscales are internally consistent. The correlations and means of items within each of the 3 subscales are presented in Tables 13 15. Correlations among the items in the Homogamous Beliefs subscale ranged from .416 to .893. Correlations among the items in the Practicing Together subscale ranged from .262 to .480. Correlations amo ng the items in the Homogamous Acceptance subscale ranged from .437 to .888. Although there were correlations < 0.30 (.282 and .262, specifically) on the Practicing Together subscale these items were conceptually important to the content validity of the scale and thus were included None of the correlations were >0.90; therefore, none of the items were considered for el imination based on this criterion The correlations between the 3 subscales are presented in Table 16. The Homogamous Beliefs subscale significantly correlated with the Practicing Together subscale; however, the Homogamous Acceptance subscale did not correlate with either subscale ( r = .132 and .042, respectively). Additionally, two empirical indices of the sample's cor relation matrix revealed that the 3 factor model was suitable for factor analytic procedures: Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant, 2( 300 ) = 3341.892 p = 0.00, and the overall Kaiser Meyer Oklin (KMO) statistic was 905

PAGE 64

51 Lastly, the frequency of each new variable on the Practicing Together scale was counted to determine the amount of homogamy on these items. For both the homogamous desire to attend variable and the homogamous desire to participate in religious practices, 128 (out of 181) people were coded as a 6, which indicates a difference of 0 (no difference) between the person's and the partner's desire to attend/participate in religious practices. For the homogamous attendance variable, 148 (out of 181) people were coded as a 5, which indic ates a difference of 0 (no difference) between the person's and the partner's attendance. Lastly, for the homogamous participation in religious practices variable, 132 (out of 185) people were coded as an 8, which indicates a difference of 0 (no differenc e) between the person's and the partner's partici pation in religious practices. This indicates that in this population variability on the Practicing Together items is limited. Overall, the correlations of items within each subscale were within an appropri ate range and alphas were good. However, not all subscales significantly correlated with each other. This could indicate that each subscale may act differently in the subsequent analyses of phase 2; therefore, the overall SHARE mean and the 3 subscales m eans were utilized in the following analyses. Table 12. Phase 2 Internal Consistency Reliabilities of SHARE Scale N N of items Alpha Standardized Item Alpha SHARE 142 25 .912 .913 3 Factor Model Homogamous Beliefs 165 11 .951 .955 Practicing Together 163 4 .654 .692 Homogamous Acceptance 167 10 .950 .950

PAGE 65

52 Table 13. Phase 2 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Beliefs Subscale Items (N = 178) a Higher scores indicate more homogamy. ** p < .01 Item Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. SHARE1: Same Page 4.48 (1.23) -2. SHARE2: Equal Role 4.19 (1.53) .601** -3. SHARE3: Views in Sync 4.51 (1.34) .882** .642** -4. SHARE4: Practices in Sync 4.46 (1.35) .862** .596** .851** -5. SHARE5: Equal Value 4.44 (1.31) .864** .636** .843** .893** -6. SHARE 6r: Equally R/S 4.15 (1.67) .589** .429** .556** .579** .616** 7. SHARE7: Core Beliefs 4.69 (1.26) .758** .636** .789** .749** .722** .441 -8. SHARE8: Actions Match Beliefs 4.56 (1.14) .730** .547** .701** .746** .713** .512** .640** -9. SHARE9: Agree About Role 4.56 (1.25) .763** .589** .719** .773** .772** .623** .667** .740 -10. SHARE11: Equally Prioritize 4.44 (1.27) .727** .606** .718** .682** .702** .455** .637** .726** .726** -11. SHARE18: Similarly Apply 4.45 (1.22) .579** .484** .588** .575** .564** .416** .533** .643** .624** .620**

PAGE 66

53 Table 14. Phase 2 Means of and Correlations among the Practicing Together Subscale Items Item Mean (SD) 1 2 3 1. Desire Attend 5.51 (.98) -2. Desire PRP 5.54 (.93) .370** -3. Homo Attend 4.75 (.65) .477** .282** -4. Homo PRP 7.35 (1.39) .344** .336** .262** a Higher scores indicate more homogamy. ** p < .01 Table 15. Phase 2 Means of and Correlations among the Homogamous Acceptance Subscale Items Item Mean (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. SHARE 12r: Reconcile R/S Diff. 4.80 (1.27) -2. SHARE14r: Pressure From 4.87 (1.50) .525** -3. SHARE15r: Pressure Towards 4.88 (1.50) .507** .816** -4. SHARE16r: Argue 5.13 (1.28) .568** .576** .623** -5. SHARE17r: Conflict 5.01 (1.36) .437** .770** .757** .670 -6. SHARE19r: Avoid 4.77 (1.43) .580** .553** .592** .691** .574** -7. SHARE20r: Can't Practice 4.87 (1.44) .462** .613** .582** .536** .592** .556 -

PAGE 67

54 8. SHARE21r: Partner Can't Practice 5.04 (1.36) .455** .719** .705** .555** .697** .697** .690** -9. SHARE22r: My Activities Take Away 4.97 (1.46) .528** .768** .806** .622** .707** .652** .602** .824** -10. SHARE23r: Partner's Activities Takes Away 5.08 (1.32) .534** .714** .797** .654* .679** .659** .597** .787** .888** a Higher scores indicate more homogamy. ** p < .01 Table 16. Phase 2 Correlations among the Subscales Subscale 1 2 1. Homogamous Acceptance -2. Practicing Together .042 -3. Homogamous Beliefs .132 .539 ** p < .01 CFA The goodness of fit indices for the 3 factor CFA were as follows : 2 (272 ) = 704.18 p = .000, CF I = .89, RMSEA = .11, SRMR = .08 These indices suggest that this model has a reasonable fit. P lease see Figures 4 6 for the v ar iable loadings of each factor Appendix O for the final list and order of items included in the SHARE and Appendix O for the concept map representing the factor loadings. The SHARE item numbers included in the figures of the factor loadings are the items numbers from th e original version of the SHARE (Appendix B). For the items whose number changed from the original v ersion to the final version of the SHARE, Appendix P lists the item number from the original version ( Appendix B ) and the item number from the final version ( Appendix O )

PAGE 68

55

PAGE 69

56 Criterion Validity The SHARE mean was significantly, positively correlated with homogamous religious affiliation, r = .172, p < .05, homogamous attendance, r = .347, p = .00, homogamous religiousness, r = .396, p = .00, and homogamous spirituality r = .220, p < .01 The Homogamous Beliefs subscale m ean was also significantly, positively correlated with homogamous religious affiliation, r = .364, p = .00, homogamous attendance, r = .325, p = .00, homogamous religiousness, r = .471, p = .00, and homogamous spirituality, r = .394, p = .00. A dditionally, the Practicing Together subscale mean was significantly, positively correlated with homogamous religious affiliation, r = .310, p = .00, homogamous attendance, r = .621, p = .00, homogamous religiousness, r = .467, p = .00, and homogamous spir ituality, r = .417, p = .00. Unlike the SHARE mean and the other subscale means, the Homogamous Acceptance subscale mean did not positive ly correlate with the other mea sures of religious homogamy. In fact, the

PAGE 70

57 Homogamous Acceptance subscale mean was non significantly, negatively correlated with homogamous religious affiliation, r = .073, p = .34, homogamous attendance, r = .028, p = .72, homogamous religiousness, r = .067, p = .38, and homogamous spirituality, r = .126, p = .01. Construct Validity To assess convergent validity, the SHARE was correlated with measures which were hypothesized to produce a positive correlation. Data show that t he SHARE mean was significantly, positively correlated with (1) Relationship satisfaction, as measured by t he Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale (KMSS), (2) Relationship commitment, as measured by the four Commitment Inventory subscales: Relationship Agenda Couple Identity, Primacy of Relationship, and Satisfaction with Sacrifice, and (3) Well being, as measure d by the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS). Likewise, the Homogamous Beliefs and Hom ogamous Acceptance subscales were significantly, positively correlated with (1) Relationship Satisfaction, (2) Martial Commitment, and (3) Well being. Lastly, the Pract icing Together subscale was significantly, positively correlated with (1) Relationship Satisfaction, and (2) Well being. However, the Practicing To gether subscale did not correlate with the Commitment Inventory subscales. Please see Table 17 for the corr elations among these measures To further assess convergent validity, the SHARE was also correlated with measures which were hypothesized to produce a negative correlation. Data show that the SHARE mean wa s significantly, negatively correlate d with (1) Inf idelity, as measured by the Glass and Wright Questions (GW questions) (2) Relationship Instability, as measured by the Marital Instability Scale (MIS), (3) Negative Interactions, as measured by the Danger Signs Scale (DSS), and (4) Perceived Stress, as me asured by the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) T he Homogamous Beliefs subscale wa s significantly, negatively correlated with (1) Relationship Instability, (2) Negative Interactions, and (3) Perceived Stress, and is non significantly, negatively correlated with

PAGE 71

58 Infidelity. The Homogamous Acceptance subscale wa s significantly, negatively correlated with (1) Infidelity, (2), Relationship Instabil ity, (3) Negative Interactions, and (4) Perceived Stress. The Practicing Together subscale wa s significantly, negatively correlated with (1) Negative Interactions and (2) Perceived Stress, and is non significantly, negatively correlated with Martial Insta bility or Infidelity. Please see Table 18 for the correlations among these measures. Table 17. Correlations among Measures That Were Hypothesized to Produce a Positive Correlation with the SHARE Measure Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1. SHARE Mean -2. HB Mean .775** -3. HA Mean .671** .132 -4. PT Mean .521** .539** .042 -5. Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale .358** .370** .272** .157* -6. CI: Relationship Agenda .494** .266** .621** .004 .610** -7. CI: Couple Identity .455** .146 .646** .007 .445** .745** -8. CI: Primacy of Relationship .521** .254** .690** .030 .539** .754** .754** -9. CI: Satisfaction with Sacrifice .391** .268** .453** .037 .538** .629** .627** .752** -10. Satisfaction with Life Scale .240** .162* .162* .176* .322** .183* .122 .136 .128 ** p < .01 p < .05

PAGE 72

59 Table 18. Correlations among Measures Which Were Hypothesized to Produce a Negative Correlation with the SHARE Measure Name 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. SHARE Mean -2. HB Mean .775** -3. HA Mean .671** .132 -4. PT Mean .521** .539** .042 -5. Glass and Wright .325** .046** .602** .091 -6. Marital Instability Scale .253** .216** .205** .119 .169 -7. Danger Signs Scale .354** .299** .202** .240** .067 .517** -8. Perceived Stress Scale .354** .239** .281** .207** .152* .386** .549** ** p < .01 p < .05 Lastly, t o assess discriminant validity, it was predicted that the S HARE mean and subscale means would be unrelated to the gender (male or female) of the participant. D ata show that the SHARE mean, r = .152, p = .07, Homogamous Beliefs mean, r = .009, p = .90, and Practicing Together mean, r = .151, p =.06, did not significantly correlate with gen der. However the Homogamous Acceptance did significantly, positively correlate with gender, r = .369, p = .00, indicating that females reported more homogamous acceptance than males. Because Homogamous Acceptance significantly correlated, this signifies that the Homogamous Acceptance scale does not exhibit discriminant validity.

PAGE 73

60 Aim s 3 and 4 Aim 3 The criterion variable, Perceived Stress, significantly correlated with age, r = 296 p < .05, and did not correlate with any of the other sociodemographic variables Therefore, age was included in the first step of the hierarchical regression. When the SHARE mean was entered in the third step, t he total variance in perceived stress explained by the model as a whole wa s 23.7 % and the model remained significant ( F (3, 136) = 15.390, p = 000 ). The R 2 change wa s 034 indicating that r eligious homogamy (the SHARE mean) explained an additional 3.4 % of perceived stress, above age and r elationship satisfaction and was significant at p = .014 When the SHARE mean without Homogamous Acceptance was entered in the third step, the total variance in perceived stress explained by the model as a whole was 23.9 % and the model remained significant ( F (3, 145) = 16.524, p = .00 0 ). The R 2 chang e was .037, indicating that religious homogamy (the SHARE mean) explained an additional 3.7% of perceived stress, beyond age and relationship satisfaction and was significant at p = .008 When the Homogamous Beliefs subscale mean wa s entered in the third step, R 2 = 216 ( F (3, 173) = 17.120, p = .000) R 2 change = .0 17 indicating that Homogamous Beliefs explained an additional 1.7 % of perceived stress, beyond age and relationship satisfaction and R 2 change was significant at p = .049 When the Homogamous Acceptance subscale mean wa s entered in the third step, R 2 = .2 04 ( F (3, 173) = 16.040, p = .000) indicating that the model remained significant. The R 2 change = 0 06 indicating that Homogamous Acceptance explained an additional 0.6 % of perceived stress, beyond age and relationship satisfaction however, R 2 change was not significant p = .244 Lastly, when the Practicing Together subscale mean wa s entered in the third step, R 2 = 246 ( F (3, 157) = 18.403, p = .000) R 2 change = 0 3 5 indicating that Practicing Together explained an additional 3.5 % of

PAGE 74

61 perceived stress, beyond age and relationship satisfaction and was significant at p = .007 See Tables 19 23 for the Model Parameters of each analysis. Table 19. Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction b SE b Sig. Step 1 Constant Age 20.040 .154 1.963 .044 .286 .000 .001 Step 2 Constant Age KMSS 29.964 .129 1.908 2.719 .041 .389 .239 .373 .000 .002 .000 Step 3 Constant Age KMSS SHARE 35.436 .110 1.564 1.700 3.451 .041 .406 .680 .204 .306 .202 .000 .008 .000 .014 Table 20. Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Without Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction b SE b Sig. Step 1 Constant Age 20.174 .154 1.892 .042 .288 .000 .000 Step 2 Constant Age KMSS 29.802 .130 1.854 2.598 .039 .369 .243 .370 .000 .001 .000 Step 3 Constant Age KMSS SHARE without HA 34.791 .144 1.514 1.328 3.155 .039 .383 .496 .269 .303 .204 .000 .000 .000 .008

PAGE 75

62 Table 21. Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Beliefs Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction b SE b Sig. Step 1 Constant Age 20.814 .168 1.747 .039 .308 .000 .000 Step 2 Constant Age KMSS 30.008 .143 1.778 2.443 .037 .351 .262 .344 .000 .000 .000 Step 3 Constant Age KMSS Homogamous Beliefs 32.172 .150 1.496 .781 2.657 .037 .376 .394 .275 .290 .143 .000 .000 .000 .049 Table 22. Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction b SE b Sig. Step 1 Constant Age 20.814 .168 1.74 7 .039 .308 .000 .000 Step 2 Constant Age KMSS 30.008 .143 1.778 2.44 3 .037 .351 .262 .344 .000 .000 .000 Step 3 Constant Age KMSS Homogamous Acceptance 30.880 .122 1.678 .480 2.55 1 .041 .361 .410 .223 .325 .091 .000 .004 .000 .244

PAGE 76

63 Table 23. Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Practicing Together Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Satisfaction b SE b Sig. Step 1 Constant Age 20.556 .164 1.800 .040 .307 .000 .000 Step 2 Constant Age KMSS 29.981 .138 1.818 2.475 .038 .353 .259 .364 .000 .000 .000 Step 3 Constant Age KMSS Practicing Together 38.834 .154 1.649 1.587 4.038 .037 .351 .579 .288 .331 .193 .000 .000 .000 .007 Aim 4 The criterion variable, Perceived Stress, significantly correlated with age, r = .296, p < .05, and did not correlate with any of the other sociodemographic variables. Therefore, age was included in the first step of the hierarchical regression. When th e SHARE mean was entered in the third step, the total variance in perceived stress explained by the model as a whole was 18.6 % and the model remained significant ( F ( 6 13 3 ) = 6.284 p = .000). The R 2 change was .03 3 indicating that religious homogamy (the SHARE mean) explained an additional 3. 3 % of perceived stress, beyond age and relationship commitment and was significant at p = .019 When the SHARE mean without Homogamous Acceptance was entered in the third step, the total variance in perceived st ress explained by the model as a whole was 20.1 % and the model remained significant ( F ( 6 14 2 ) = 16.524 7.218 p = .000). The R 2 change was 049 indicating that religious homogamy (the SHARE mean without Homogamous Acceptance ) explained an additional 4. 9 % of perceived stress, beyond age and

PAGE 77

64 relationship commitment and was significant at p = .003 When the Homogamous Beliefs subscale mean was entered in the third step, R 2 = 187 ( F ( 6, 170 ) = 7.761 p = .000) R 2 change = 025 indicating that Homogamous Beliefs explained an additional 2.5 % of perceived stress, beyond age and relationship commitment and R 2 change was significant at p = .022 When the Homogamous Acceptance subscale mean was entered in the third step, R 2 = 162 ( F ( 6, 170 ) = 6.6 64 p = .000), indicating that the model remained significant. The R 2 change = .00 0 p = .981, indicating that Homogamous Acceptance did not explain perceived stress, beyond age and relationship commitment Lastly, when the Practicing Together subscale mean was entered in the third step, R 2 = 215 ( F ( 6, 154 ) = 8.299 p = .000) R 2 change = 053 indicating that Practicing Together explained an additional 5.3 % of perceived stress, beyond age and relationshi p commitment and the R 2 change was significant at p = .001. See Tables 24 28 for the Model Parameters of each analysis. Table 24. Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment b SE b Sig. Step 1 Constant Age 20.040 .154 1.963 .044 .286 .000 .001 Step 2 Constant Age Relationship Agenda Couple Identity Primary of Relationship Satisfaction with Sacrifice 28.418 .099 1. 404 .709 .025 1.103 3.157 .044 .703 .965 .747 .598 .185 259 .099 .005 .210 .000 .0 27 .048 .464 .974 .067 Step 3 Constant Age Relationship Agenda Couple Identity 33.330 .095 1.149 .741 3.735 .04 4 .699 .949 .177 .212 .104 .000 .032 .103 .437

PAGE 78

65 Primary of Relationship Satisfaction with Sacrifice SHARE .386 1.089 1.825 .750 .588 .772 .076 .207 .217 .607 .066 .019 Table 25. Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of the SHARE Total Without Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment b SE b Sig. Step 1 Constant Age 20. 174 .154 1. 892 .042 .28 8 .000 .00 0 Step 2 Constant Age Relationship Agenda Couple Identity Primary of Relationship Satisfaction with Sacrifice 29.014 100 1. 251 215 077 .951 2.995 .04 3 664 854 .7 18 .5 78 .1 88 .2 32 .0 31 .0 15 183 .000 .02 0 062 801 .9 14 102 Step 3 Constant Age Relationship Agenda Couple Identity Primary of Relationship Satisfaction with Sacrifice SHARE without HA 35.143 123 1. 002 011 138 .718 1. 517 3. 549 .04 2 651 833 698 .5 67 502 229 186 002 028 138 .2 33 .000 .0 04 .1 26 990 844 208 .0 03 Table 26. Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Beliefs Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment b SE b Sig. Step 1 Constant Age 20. 814 168 1. 747 .0 39 308 .000 .00 0

PAGE 79

66 Step 2 Constant Age Relationship Agenda Couple Identity Primary of Relationship Satisfaction with Sacrifice 28. 744 .112 1.285 .421 .001 .881 2.652 .040 .611 .761 .655 .540 .205 .241 .064 .000 .171 .000 .006 .037 .581 .998 .104 Step 3 Constant Age Relationship Agenda Couple Identity Primary of Relationship Satisfaction with Sacrifice Homogamous Beliefs 31.818 .127 1.070 .161 .140 .713 .920 2.938 .040 .611 .760 .649 .538 .398 .232 .200 .024 .028 .139 .168 .000 .002 .082 .832 .830 .187 .022 Table 27. Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Homogamous Acceptance Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment b SE b Sig. Step 1 Constant Age 20.814 .168 1.747 .039 .308 .000 .000 Step 2 Constant Age Relationship Agenda Couple Identity Primary of Relationship Satisfaction with Sacrifice 28.744 .112 1.285 .421 .001 .881 2.652 .040 .611 .761 .655 .540 .205 .241 .064 .000 .171 .000 .006 .037 .581 .998 .104 Step 3 Constant Age Relationship Agenda Couple Identity Primary of Relationship Satisfaction with Sacrifice Homogamous Acceptance 28.745 .111 1.283 .425 .007 .884 .014 2.660 .043 .619 .783 .702 .554 .566 .204 .240 .064 .001 .172 .003 .000 .010 .040 .588 .992 .112 .981

PAGE 80

67 Table 28. Model Parameters of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Practicing Together Predicting Perceived Stress Beyond Age and Relationship Commitment b SE b Sig. Step 1 Constant Age 20.566 .164 1.800 .040 .307 .000 .000 Step 2 Constant Age Relationship Agenda Couple Identity Primary of Relationship Satisfaction with Sacrifice 28.895 .106 1.180 .119 .026 .825 2.790 .041 .633 .818 .692 .551 .199 .244 .018 .005 .164 .000 .011 .064 .885 .970 .137 Step 3 Constant Age Relationship Agenda Couple Identity Primary of Relationship Satisfaction with Sacrifice Practicing Together 40.409 .126 1.208 .011 .149 .750 1.913 4.439 .041 .614 .794 .673 .535 .585 .237 .229 .002 .030 .149 .232 .000 .002 .051 .989 .824 .163 .001

PAGE 81

68 CHAPTER VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Religious homogamy has been previously shown to relate to various positive relationship outcomes, including: marital adjustment, marital stability, satisfaction with the relationship, frequency of conflict, and risk for divorce (negative relationship for conflict and divorce) However, researchers have used multiple definitions and measures of homogamy, studies have relied on a narrow range of indicators, such as attendance and affiliation, and/or researcher s have utilized a variety of somewhat unrelated or at least unsystematic religious indicators to measure homogamy. Therefore, there is no standard measure of homogamy and there is no single measure that incorporates multiple dimensions of religion to meas ure religious homogamy. Thus, this study investigated a proposed scale designed to better represent the multiple facets of religious homogamy the Spiritual Homogamy and Religi ous Experiences (SHARE) scale. To address the limitations in previous studie s, t he SHARE was developed (Aim 1) based on a review of literature and constructs included in previous measures of religious homogamy and with a specific focus on the construct validity of the items. Specifically, items were developed after examining mea sures of religion, religious orientation, and religious homogamy, and after considering the various ways in which religion and spirituality could affect a person's thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. During the development, items were conceptualized into d ifferent categories, including a 3 factor model and a 6 factor model. The 3 factor model consisted of (1) homogamous beliefs, (2) homogamous practices and (3) homogamous acceptance. The 6 factor model included (1) religious perspective, (2) importance of religion, (3) behavioral integration, (4) joint religious activities, (5) conflict, and (6) mutual religious respect.

PAGE 82

69 It was hypothesized that either the 3 factor model or the 6 factor model would exhibit a reasonable fit. The results of Aim 2, the psych ometric analysis of the SHARE, supported a 3 factor model for the SHARE. Further, the data in Phase 1 and Phase 2 indicate that the 3 factor model of the SHARE exhibited a reasonable model fit, construct validity, convergent validity and discriminant vali dity, with good internal consistency. The first factor maps onto the hypothesized Homogamous Beliefs category and describes the degree of similarity between one's thoughts about religion and spirituality and one's partner's thoughts about religion and spi rituality The second factor, now labeled Practicing Together, maps onto the hypothesized Homogamous Practices category and describes the degree to which one's religious practices match one's partner's practices. It also describes the degree to which one 's desire to jointly participate with one's partner matches his/her partner's desire. The third factor maps onto the hypothesized Homogamous Acceptance category and describes how a couple relates to one another (e.g. presence of respect and/or conflict) i n regards to religious and spiritual beliefs and practices. Given t hese findings, it does indeed appear that religious homogamy is a multifaceted construct and the SHARE demonstrates this multifaceted characteristic. Further, the SHARE supports the argum ent that religious homogamy should be measured in ways beyond the narrow range of indicators, such as attendance and affiliation, that have often been used in the past. Although the SHARE demonstrated an overall reasonable fit, the RMSEA of the best fitt ing model did not indicate a good fit. It is possible that the RMSEA was high due to the fact that Homogamous Acceptance did not correlate significantly or highly with the other factors, Homogamous Beliefs ( r = .09) and Practicing Together ( r = .19) Of note, Homogamous Beliefs and Practicing Together did correlate significantly ( r = .52). D uring the construction of

PAGE 83

7 0 the SHARE, the concept of Homogamous Acceptance was included in the measurement of Religious Homogamy because acceptance and respect were theorized to be important components of the degree of similarity between partners, in regards to religion and spirituality. However, throughout the analy ses, the Homogamous Acceptance subscale acted differently than the other subscales and the SHARE total. Specifically, criterion validity was not met for the Homogamous Acceptance subscale. Rather than positively correlating with other measures of religio us homogamy, it non significantly, negatively correlated with these measures. Additionally, the Homogamous Acceptance subscale did not show discriminant validity, as the other subscales and SHARE scale did, because it was significantly, positively correl ated with gender. The subscale was also not predictive of perceived stress, beyond age and relationship satisfaction and commitment. It is possible that though Homogamous Acceptance seems to have a conceptual relationship with Religious Homogamy, it shou ld not be considered a core subscale of the SHARE. Upon review of the subscales, the items on the Homogamous Acceptance subscale more directly reference the effects of homogamy on the relationship, rather than strictly focusing on the degree of similarity ( i.e. the homogamy). For example, one item assesses the degree to which one person feels pressured to change his/her beliefs, which measures how a person may interact with his/her partner when that partner has heterogamous beliefs. Another item on the H omogamous Acceptance subscale measures the degree to which a couple engages in conflic t due to religious differences, which measures the effects of homogamy/heterogamy on marital functioning. Given this, it seems as if Homogamous Acceptance is a separate concept It remains important, and therefore should be considered along with the SHARE (as measured by Homogamous Beliefs and Practicing Together), but should be not be included as part of the

PAGE 84

71 SHARE scale. In the future, researchers should consider using the total sum of the items from the Homogamous Beliefs and the Practicing Together scale as the measure of religious homogamy (the SHARE), given that it appears that similarity in beliefs and similarity in practices are the i mportant constructs underlying religious homogamy. Interestingly, this supports the idea espoused by Ellison, Burdette, and Wilcox (2010) that, theological, attitudinal, and lifestyle differences may to be more meaningful descriptors of religious homogamy t han similarity in affiliatio n. Further, researchers should consider analyses including Homogamous Acceptance as a moderator between the SHARE (religious homogamy) and health factors and/or relationship factors. For example, data may show that heterogamous religion (differences in b eliefs and practices between a couple) may only be related to specific health and/or relationship factors, when the partners do not accept each other's beliefs and/or practices. Moreover, it will be important for future researchers to look at a variety of health factors in relationship to religious homogamy, and not just stress. Notably, the SHARE is a measure of religious homogamy and not spiritual homogamy. Religion and spirituality are complex terms that are multidimensional and share common characteris tics; however, they are distinct (Hill et a., 2000). Due to this, authors and researches have developed various definitions for each term, and in everyday life people tend to use these terms in a variety of ways. Despite the varying definitions, many def ine religion using terms such as theology, rituals, and practices, and use it to refer to the concept of engaging with a group or community of people. Further, definitions also describe religion as a supernatural power and/or set of beliefs to which a per son is committed and by which someone may be motivated (Hill et al., 2000). Conversely, spirituality has been defined using terms as an "encounter with the transcendent" or a "search" for meaning or truth. As stated, the SHARE is a

PAGE 85

72 measure of religious h omogamy, despite the fact that some of the items include the hybrid term religious/spiritual. This hybrid was included due to the fact that some people use these terms interchangeably, while others use the term spiritual to describe what the researcher wo uld define as religious. Although this is not a measure of spiritual homogamy, it is possible that spiritual homogamy may be an important construct to measure in future research. In addition to the development (Aim 1) and the psychometric analysis (Aim 2) of the SHARE, this study also investigated SHARE's predictive ability of perceived stress beyond that of Relationship Satisfaction (Aim 3) an d Relationship Commitment (Aim 4 ). Previous research has shown that positive intimate relationships are protectiv e against the effects of stress on physical and mental health, and this study examined whether religious homogamy added any further buffering. Results of Aims 3 and 4 found that religious homomgamy did indeed explain a significant portion of perceived str ess beyond what relationship satisfaction and relationship commitment could explain. Although homogamous religion and relationship factors have been shown to be related, results of this study indicate that homogamous religion is different than relationshi p satisfaction and relationship commitment. Additionally, homogamous religion was shown to add explanatory value beyond relationship factors that have already shown to predict perceived stress. Given this, future researchers should consider measuring rel igious homogamy when assessing relationship factors and/or perceived stress. Furthermore, increased marital satisfaction has been shown to predict decreased morbidity and mortality from serious illnesses, and women who are martially satisfied are at a low er risk of developing the metabolic syndrome (Kaplan & Kronick, 2006; Kiecolt Glaser & Newton, 2001; Troxel, Matthews, Gallo, Lewis, & Kuller, 2005). Because religious homogamy accounted for approximately a 5% reduction of

PAGE 86

73 perceived stress beyond marital satisfaction, it is possible that religious homogamy could contribute to a decreased risk of health problems which are specifically exacerbated by stress. In regards to Aim 3 and 4, Homogamous Acceptance was thought to be an important component of how Re ligious Homogamy might relate to perceived stress. That is, it was thought that if a partner did not accept the other partner's beliefs and ways of living out faith, that couple might experience more perceived stress. However, results showed that Homogam ous Beliefs and Practicing together were the only subscales which significantly contributed to the model predicting perceived stress, and the Homogamous Acceptance scale did not add or take away significant predictive value of the SHARE scale on perceived stress. This indicates that similarity in beliefs and similarities in practices are factors which are predictive of less perceived stress. It also indicates that Homogamous Acceptance, as measured here, is not a significant component in the prediction of perceived stress. This provides additional evidence that the Homogamous Acceptance subscale is measuring something different from the other SHARE subscales. As mentioned before, it is possible that Homogamous Acceptance may act as a moderator for the ass ociation between the SHARE (Homogamous Beleifs and Practicing Together) and perceived stress. Another interesting finding was that there was a lack in variability in the degree of similarity of the couples' reported religious beliefs and practices. For th e items on the Participating Together subscale, a majority of the participants indicated that they were completely homogamous. Further, there was little variability in the participant's own rating of religiosity and the participant's rating of his/her par tner's level of religiosity. Additionally, there was little variability in the participant's own rating of spirituality and the participant's rating of his/her partner's level of spirituality. It is possible that if there were more variability in the

PAGE 87

74 sam ple's degree of homogamy, then the model fit of the SHARE scale would be different Additionally, it is possible that participants reported that they were more homogamous than is true, or that the single self report of both partners (i.e. one person provided information for him/herself and his/her partner) pr ovided inaccurate information. Given this, future researchers should consider having both partners in a couple compl ete the SHARE, and then comparing the results of each partner to see if there is consistency between partners. However, it is important to consider that the single self report provides information about the participant's perceived religious homogamy, whic h might be just as important as the actual degree of homogamy because people interact with their partner based off of their own perceptions. This lack of variability speaks to the need of further research with a variety of samples. For example, it may be helpful to utilize the SHARE scale with couples who are experiencing marital trouble or who have separated. One explanation of the lack of variability in this study's sample is that all participants identified as being in a committed relationship, and it is possible that they have at least in part, maintained their relationship because they are homogamous. That is, peop le who are heterogamous may be less likely to remain in a relationship and/ or may be experiencing difficulties in their relationship and therefore did not participate in a study about relationships. Further, future researchers should consider using the SHARE with couples who are in differing phases of a relationship, as the importance of religious homogamy may ebb and flow and the relation ship changes over time. For example, religious homogamy may be more important for couples that have children than for newly weds without children. Additionally, the importance of religious homogamy may change once a couple's children grow up and/or the c ouple retires.

PAGE 88

75 In summary, the development of the SHARE ad dressed important limitations of previous studies (i.e. lack of a single measure of religious homogamy, and lack of depth of measurement of the multiple dimensions of religious homogamy). Results indicated that the SHARE has 2 core subscales, Homogamous Beliefs and Practicing Together. Although the Homogamous Acceptance subscale was hypothesized to be part of the SHARE, throughout analyses it acted differently than the other subscales, and therefore should not be considered a core subscale of the SHARE. However, Homogamous Acceptance remains imp ortant to measure, and it is possible that it may act as a moderator. Results also indicated that religious homogamy, as measured by the SHARE, predicted less perceived stress above that predicted by relationship factors which have been found to be a buff er against the negative effects of perceived stress. This demonstrates that religious homogamy is not subsumed by positive relationship factors, and adds explanatory value when predicting perceived stress. Failure to find variability in the participants' degree of homogamy with their partners speaks to the need of further research with a variety of samples. In the end, the SHARE is a viable measure of religious homogamy and religious homogamy is an important construct to measure when studying perceived s tress and/or relationship factors.

PAGE 89

76 C HAPTER VIII. LIMITATIONS This study involved a su rvey; therefore, it has the limitations of a ny self report study. To minimize the potential effects of these limitations, several precautions were put in place. The SHARE include d both positively and negatively worded questions so that random responding would be more evident. Additionally, in the second phase, validity questions were added throughout the survey to assess invalid responding. Another potential limitation of this study relates to the parameters of the subject pool (e.g., members of StudyResponse, access to the internet, willingness to participate overly r epresentative of those who are white, have higher levels of education, and receive higher levels of income ), which create possible limitation s on generalizability. Lastly, participants provided self report information for their partners' religious behavio rs. This is likely a less reliable and valid measurement of their partners' actual behaviors than if the partners provided the informat ion, though it does provide an indication of the perception of the partner's religious behaviors. There is also a possib ility that participants did not honestl y answer sensitive questions. However, t o mitigate this effect, participants were reminded that participation wa s anonymous. To help minimize the risk that other people may see the participants' responses on their c omputer screen, participants were asked to complete the survey individually and in privacy. The participants were also made aware of the nature of the questions in the consent form Additionally, participants were given instructions on clearing their bro wser history as an additional protective measure. Lastly, there are limitations due to the fact that this was a cross sectional study and utilized an observational design. Because it was a cross sectional study, responses were only

PAGE 90

77 measured at one time point. This could be a limitation because it is not possible to determine the temporal sequence and a causal relationship cannot be shown. Further, because this was an observational design (Kazdin, 2003), participants we re not assigned into experimental groups; t herefore, participants' response s could have been influenced by unsystematic error.

PAGE 91

78 REFERENCES Ai, A. L., Ladd, K. L., Peterson, C., Cook, C. A., Shearer, M., & Koenig, H. g. (2010). Long term adjustment after surviving open heart surgery: The effect of using prayer for coping replicated in a prospective design. The Gerentologist, 50 798 809. Allen, E. S., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (2010). Hitting home: Relat ionships between recent deployment, posttraumatic stress symptoms, and marital functioning for Army couples. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(3), 280. Allgood, S. M., Harris, S., Skogrand, L., & Lee, T. R. (2009). Marital commitment and religiosity in a religiously homogenous population. Marriage & Family Review, 45 52 67. Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 5 432. Atkins, D. C., & Kessel, D. E. (2008). Religiousness and infidelity: Attendance, but not faith and prayer, predict marital fidelity. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70 407 418. Baker, E. H., Sanches, L. A., Nock, S. L., & Wright, J. D. (2009). Covenant marriage and the sanctification of ge ndered marital roles. Journal of Family Issues, 30 147 178. doi: 10.1177/0192513X08324109 Bartkowski, J. P., Xu, X., & Levin, M. L. (2008). Religion and child development: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Social Science Research, 3 7 18 36. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.02.001 Blackwell, D. L. & Lichter, D. T. (2004). Homogamy among dating, cohabiting and married couples. The Sociological Quarterly, 45 719 737. Booth, A., Johnson, D. & Edwards, J. N. (1983). Measuring marital instability. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45 387 394. Burdette, A. M., Ellison, C.G., Sherkat, D. E. & Gore, K. A. (2007). Are there religious variations in marital infidelity? Journal of Family Issues, 28 1553 1581. Burman, B. & Margolin, G. (1992). Analysis of the association between marital relationships and health problems: An interactional perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 112 39 63. Butler, M. H., Stout, J. A. & Gardner, B. C. (2002). Prayer as a conflict resolution ritual: Clinical implications of religious couples' report of relationship softening, healing perspective, and change responsibility. American Journal of Family Therapy, 30 19 37.

PAGE 92

79 Call, V. A., & Heaton, T. B. (1997). Religious influence on marital stabi lity. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36 382 392. Canivez, G. & Watkins, M. (2010). Investigation of the factor structure of the Weschsler Adult Intelligence Scale Fourth Edition (WAIS IV): Exploratory and higher order factor analyses Ps ychological Assessment, 22 827 836. Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1 245 276. Cattich, J., & Knudson Martin, C. (2009). Spirituality and relationship: A holistic analysis of how cou ples cope with diabetes. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35 111 124. Chida, Y., Steptoe, A., & Powell, L. H. (2009). Religiosity/spirituality and mortality. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 78 81 90. Chinitz, J., & Brown, R.A., (2001). Religious homogamy, marital conflict, and stability in same faith and interfaith Jewish marriages. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40 723 733. doi: 10.1111/0021 8294.00087 Clements, M. L., Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H J. (2004). Before they said "I do": Discriminating among marital outcomes over 13 years. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66 613 626. Cohn, D., Passel, J., Wang, W., & Livingston, G. (2011). Barely half of U.S. adults are married A record low. Retrie ved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/12/14/barely half of u s adults are married a record low/ Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24 386 396. doi:10.2307/2136404 Cohen, S. & Williamson, G. (1988) Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States Spacapan, S. & Oskamp, S. (Eds.) The Socia l Psychology of Health. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98 310 357. Curtis, K. T., & Ellison, C. G. (2002). Religious heterogamy and marital conflict: Findings from the national survey of families and households. Journal of Family Issues, 23 551 576. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02023004005

PAGE 93

80 DeMaris, A., Mahoney, A., & Pargament, K. I. (2010). Sanctification of marriage and general re ligiousness as buffers of the effects of marital inequity. Journal of Family Issues, 31 1255 1278. Dollahite, D. C., Hawkins, A. J., & Parr, M. R. (2012). "Something more": The meanings of marriage for religious couples in America. Marriage & Family Review, 48 339 362 Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research, 31 103 157. Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personal ity Assessment, 49 71 75. Ellison, C. G., Barrett, J. B., & Moulton, B. E. (2008). Gender, marital status, and alcohol behavior: The neglected role of religion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47 660 677. doi: 10.1111/j.1468 5906.2008.00 434.x Ellison, C. G., Burdette, A. M., & Wilcox, W. B. (2010). The couple that prays together: Race and ethnicity, religion, and relationship among working age adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 963 975. Ellison, C. G., Henderson, A. K., Glenn N. D., Harkrider, R. E. (2011). Sanctification, stress, and marital quality. Family Relations, 60 404 420. Ellison, C. G., & Levin, J. S. (1988). The religion health connection: Evidence, theory, and future directions. Health Education and Behavior 25 700 720. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39 175 191. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.) Los Angeles: Sage. Glaser, R. & Kiecolt Glaser (2005). Stress induced immune dysfunction: Implications for health. Nature Reviews: Immunology, 5 (3), 243 251. Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1992). Justificatio ns for extramarital relationships: The association between attitudes, behaviors, and gender. The Journal of Sex Research, 29 361 387. Glenn, N. D. & Supancic, M. (1984). The social and demographic correlates of divorce and separation in the United Stat es: An update and reconsideration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 46 563 575. Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis (2 nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

PAGE 94

81 Associates. Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103 265 275. Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary and sufficient conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19 149 161. Harris, P. A., Taylor, R., Thielke, R., Payne, J., Gonzalez, N., & Conde F. G. (2009). Research electronic data capture (REDCap) A metadata driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Information, 42 377 381. Heaton, T. B. (2002). Factors contributing to increasing marital stability in the United States. Journal of Family Issues, 23 392 409. doi: 10.1177/0192513X02023003004 Henson, R.K., and Robers, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research : Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66 393 416. doi: 10.1177/001364405282485 Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., McCullough, J. M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson, D. B., & Zinnbauer, B. J. (2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality: Points of commonality, points of departure. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 30 51 77. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 3 0 179 185. Hu, I., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes for covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 1 55. Hummer, R. A., Rogers, R. G., Nam, C. B., & Ellison, C G. (1999). Religious involvement and U.S. adult mortality. Demography, 36 273 285. IBM Corp. Released 2012. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. Janofsky, J. S., McCarthy, R. A., & Folstein, M. F. (1992). The Hopkins Competency Assessment Test: A brief method for evaluating patients' capacity to give informed consent. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 43 132 136. Kaplan, R. M., & Kronick, R. G. (2006). Marital status and longevity in the United States population Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60 760 765. Kazdin, A. E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

PAGE 95

82 Kiecolt Glaser, J. K., Loving, T. J., Stowell, J. R., Malarkey, W. b., Lemeshow, S., Dick inson, S. G., & Glaser, R. (2005). Hostile marital interactions, proinflammatory cytokine production, and wound healing. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62 1377 1384. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.12.1377. Kiecolt Glaser, J. K., & Newton, T. L. (2001). Marriag e and health: His and hers. Psychological Bulletin, 127 472 503. Kline, G. H., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Olmos Gallo, P. An. Peters, M. Whitton, S. W., & Prado, L. M. (2004). Timing is everything: Pre engagement cohabitation and increased risk for poor marital outcomes. Journal of Family Psychology, 18 311 318. Krause, N. (2011). Religion and health: Making sense of a disheveled literature. Journal of Religion and Health, 50 20 35. Levin, J. S. (1996). How religion influences morbidity a nd health: Reflections on natural history, salutogenesis and host re si s tance. Social Science and Medicine, 43 849 864. Mahoney, A. (2010). Religion in families 1999 to 2009: A relational spirituality framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 805 8 27. Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Jewell, T., Swank, A. B., 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. Mahoney, A., Pargament, K. I., Tarakeshwar, N., & Swank, A. B. (2001). Religion in the home in the 1980s and 1992: a meta analytic review and conceptual analysis of links between religion, marriage, and parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 15 559 596. Mahoney, A., & Tarakeshwar, N. (2005). Religion's role in marriage and parenting in daily life during family crises. In R. F. Paloutzian & C. L. Park (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology of Religion and Spirituality (pp. 177 195). New York: Guilford. Mannering, A. M., Harold, G. T., Leve, L. D., Shelton, K. H., Shaw, D. S., Conger, R. D., . Reiss, D. (2011). Longitudinal associations between marital instability and child sleep problems across infancy and toddlerhood adoptive families. Child Develo pment, 82 1252 1266. doi: 10.1111/j.1467 8624.2011.01594.x Martos, T., KŽzdy, A., & Horv‡rth Szab—, K. (2011). Religious motivations for everyday goals: Their religious context and potential consequences. Motivation and Emotion, 35 75 88. doi: 10.1007 /s11031 010 9198 1 Masters, K. S., & Hooker, S. A. (2013). Religiousness/spirituality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: Cultural integration for health research and intervention. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 81 (2), 206.

PAGE 96

83 McCullough, M. E., Hoyt, W. T., Larson, D. B., Koenig, H. G., & Thoresen, C. (2000). Religious involvement and mortality: A meta analytic review. Health Psychology, 19 211 222. MuthÂŽn, L. K., & MuthÂŽn, B. O. (2011). Mplus User's Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: MuthÂŽn & MuthÂŽn. Myers, S. M. (2006). Religious homogamy and marital quality: Historical and generational patterns, 1980 1997. Journal of Marriage and Family 68 292 304. Oman, D., & Reed, D. (1998). Religion and mortality among the community dwelling elderly. American Journal of Public Health, 88 1469 1475. Oman, D. & Thoresen, C. E. (2002). Does religion cause health?': Differing interpretations and diverse meanings. Journal of Health Psychology, 7 365 380. Park, N., Peterso n, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23 603 619. doi: 10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748 Petts, R. J. (2011). Parental religiosity, religious homogamy, and young children's well being. Sociology of Religion, 72 389 414. doi: 10.1093/socrel/srr021 Petts, R. J. & Knoester, C. K. (2007). Parents' religious heterogamy and children's well being. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46 373 389. doi: 10.1111/j.1468 5906.200 7.00364.x Pew Research Center. (2012, October). "Nones" on the rise: One in five adults have no religious affiliation Washington, DC: Author. Rauer, A. J., Karney, B. R., Garvan, C. W., & Hou, W. (2008). Relationship risks in context: A cumulative ris k approach to understanding relationship satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70 (5), 1122 1135. Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J. (2012). A longitudinal investigation of commitment dynamics in cohabiting relationship. Journal of Fam ily Issues, 33 369 390. Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., (2012). The impact of the transition to cohabitation on relationship functioning in cross sectional longitudinal findings. Journal of Family Psychology, 26 348 358. Robles, T. F. & Kiecolt Glaser, J. K. (2003). The physiology of marriage: Pathways to health. Physiology & Behavior, 79 409 416. Schramm, D. G., Marshall, J. P., Harris, V. W., & Lee, T. R. (2011). Religiosity,

PAGE 97

84 homogamy, and marital adjustment: An exa mination of newlyweds in first marriages and remarriages. Journal of Family Issues, 33 246 268. doi: 10.1177/0192513X11420370 Schumm, W. R., Paff Bergen, L. a., Hatch, R. C., Obiorah, F. C. Copeland, J. M., Meens, L. D., Bugaighis, M. A. (1986). Concurr ent and discriminant validity of the Kansas Marital Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 381 387. Seaward, B. (1999). Managing Stress: Principles and strategies for health and wellbeing Boston, Mass: Jones and Bartlett. Schneid erman, N., Ironson, G., & Siegel, S. D. (2005). Stress and health: Psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 1 607 628. Stanley, S. M., Allen, E. S., Markman, H. J., Saiz, C. C., Bloomstrom, G., Thomas R., ... & Bailey, A. E. (2005). Dissemination and evaluation of marriage education in the Army. Family Process, 44 (2), 187 201. Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1992). Assessing commitment in personal relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family 54 595 608. Stanley, S. M., & Markman, H. J. (1997). The Communication Danger Signs Scale Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver, Colorado. Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., Prado, L. M., Olmos Gallo, P. A., Tonelli, L., St. Peters, M., Leber, B. D.,Whitton, S. W. (2001), Community based premarital prevention: Clergy and lay leaders on the front lines. Family Relations, 50: 67 76. doi: 10.1111/j.1741 3729.2001.00067.x Stanley, S. M., Rhoades, G. K., Loew, B. A., Allen, E. S., Carter, S., Osbor ne, L. J., ... Markman, H. J. (2014). A randomized controlled trial of relationship education in the US army: 2 year outcomes. Family Relations, 63 (4), 482 495. Strawbridge, W. J., Cohen, R. D., Shema, S. J., & Kaplan, G. A. (1997). Frequent attendance at religious services and mortality over 28 years American Journal of Public Health, 87 957 961. Troxel, W. M., Matthews, K. a., Gallo, L. c., & Kuller, L. H. (2005). Marital quality and occurrence of the metabolic syndrome in women. Archives of Inter nal Medicine, 165 1022 1027. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.9.1022 Uchino, B. N. (2006). Social support and health: A review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29 377 387 Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial

PAGE 98

85 correlations. Psychometrika, 31 321 327. Vennuum, A. & Fincham, F. D. (2011). Assessing decision making in young adult romantic relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23 739 751. Williams, L. M., & Lawler, M. G. (2003). Marital satisfaction and religious heterogamy: A comparison of interchurch and same church individuals. Journal of Family Issues, 24 1070 1092. doi: 10.1177/0192513X03256497 Wolfinger, N. H. & Wilcox, W. B. (2008). Happily ever after? Religion, marital status, gender and relationship quality in urban families. Social Forces, 86 1311 1337. Worthington Jr, E. L., Wade, N. G., Hight, T. L., Ripley, J. S., McCullough, M. E., Berry, J. W., ... & O'Conno r, L. (2003). The Religious Commitment Inventory 10: Development, refinement, and validation of a brief scale for research and counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology 50 84.

PAGE 99

86 APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHICS AND RELIGIOUS CHARACTERISTICS 1. Age (in years) fill in the blank 2. Sex o Male o Female 3. How do you describe yourself? o White not Hispanic o Black not Hispanic o Hispanic or Latino o Asian or Pacific Islander o American Indian or Alaskan Native o Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander o Other ( please specify) 4. What is your highest level of education completed? o Some high school o High school graduate o Some college o Two year college degree o Four year college degree o Graduate Study 5. How many times have you been married, not including your current marriage? 6. What is your yearly household income in US dollars? o Under $15,000 o $15,000 $24,999 o $25,000 $34,999 o $35,000 $49,999 o $50,000 $74,000 o $75,000 $99,999 o $100,000 $149,999 o $150,000 and over 7. In what state do you reside? 8. How would you desc ribe the location of where you live? o Inner City o Urban o Suburban o Rural

PAGE 100

87 9. What is your current religious preference/affiliation? o If protestant, which specific denomination is that? 10. What is your partner's current religious preference/affiliation? o If protestant, which specific denomination is that? 11. To what extent do you consider yourself a religious person? o Very religious o Moderately religious o Slightly religious o Not religious at all 12. To what extent do you consider yourself a spiritual person? o Very spiritual o Moderately spiritual o Slightly spiritual o Not spiritual at all 13. How often do you attend religious services? 14. How often does your partner attend religious services? 15. How often do you and your partner attend religious services together? 16. How often do you participate in religious activities outside of a place of worship (e.g. praying, reading scripture, etc.)? 17. How often does your partner participate in religious activities outside of a place of worship (e.g. praying, r eading scripture, etc.)? 18. How often do you and your partner participate in religious activities outside of a place of worship together (e.g. praying, reading scripture, etc.)? 19. It is important that my partner and I feel the same way about religio n o Strongly agree strongly disagree

PAGE 101

88 APPENDIX B SPIRITUAL HOMOGAMY AND RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCES (SHARE) SCALE Scale (1 6): Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Somewhat Agree, Agree, and Strongly Agree 1. My partner and I are on the same page when it comes to religious/spiritual matters 2. Religious faith plays an equally important role in my life and my partner's life 3. My partner and I are in sync with our religious/spiritual views 4. My partner and I are in sync with our religious/spiritual practices 5. My partner and I place equal value on religion/spirituality 6. My partner and I are NOT equally religious/spiritual 7. My partner and I hold the same religious/spiritual core beliefs 8. My pa rtner's actions match his/her religious/spiritual beliefs to the same degree that my actions match my religious/spiritual beliefs 9. My partner and I agree about the role that religion/spirituality should play in our lives 10. My partner shares my views on wha t is right and wrong 11. O ther people would say that my partner and I equally prioritize religion/spirituality 12. My partner and I find it difficult to reconcile our religious/spiritual differences 13. My partner and I respect each other's religious/spiritual be liefs 14. I feel pressured by my partner to change my religious/spiritual beliefs 15. My partner feels that I pressure him/her to change his/her religious/spiritual beliefs 16. My partner and I often argue about religion 17. Religious differences are a source of conflict in my relationship with my partner 18. My partner and I similarly apply our religious/spiritual beliefs to how we live our lives 19. My partner and I avoid discussing our religious/spiritual beliefs because we disagree

PAGE 102

89 20. I don't feel like I can practic e my religion/spirituality in the way that I want because of the way that my partner reacts 21. My partner doesn't feel like he/she can practice his/her religion/spirituality in the way that he/she wants because of the way that I react 22. My partner's religious activities take away from our home life activities 23. My partner thinks that my religious activities takes away from our home life activities 24. My partner and I attend religious services together For questions 25 56, please respond regardless of if you do and do not attend services with your partner. For example, if you do attend services with your partner, do you want to? Or, if you do not, do you wish that you did? 25. I want to attend religious services with my partner 26. My partner wants to attend religi ous services with me 27. My partner and I participate together in private religious practices (e.g. praying together, reading scripture together, meditating together, etc.) For questions 28 29, please respond regardless of if you do and do not participate in private religious practices your partner. For example, if you do participate in private religious practices with your partner, do you want to? Or, if you do not, do you wish that you did? 28. I want to participate in private religious practices (e.g. pra ying together, reading scripture together, meditating together, etc.) with my partner 29. My partner wants to participate in private religious practices (e.g. praying together, reading scripture together, meditating together, etc.) with me

PAGE 103

90 APPENDIX C SHARE QUESTIONS WITH SUBSCALE LAB L ES 1. My partner and I are on the same page when it comes to religious/spiritual matters a. Religious Perspective 2. Religious faith plays an equally important role in my life and my partner's life a. Importance of Religion 3. My partner and I are in sync with our religious/spiritual views a. Religious Perspective 4. My partner and I are in sync with our religious/spiritual practices a. Behavioral Integration 5. My partner and I place equal value on religion/spirituality a. Importance of Religi on 6. My partner and I are NOT equally religious/spiritual a. Reverse Importance of Religion 7. My partner and I hold the same religious/spiritual core beliefs a. Religious Perspective 8. My partner's actions match his/her religious/spiritual beliefs to the same de gree that my actions match my religious/spiritual beliefs a. Behavioral Integration 9. My partner and I agree about the role that religion/spirituality should play in our lives a. Behavioral Integration 10. My partner shares my views on what is right and wrong a. Religi ous Perspective 11. Other people would say that my partner and I equally prioritize religion/spirituality a. Importance of Religion 12. My partner and I find it difficult to reconcile our religious/spiritual differences a. Reverse Conflict 13. My partner and I respect each other's religious/spiritual beliefs a. Mutual Religious Respect 14. I feel pressured by my partner to change my religious/spiritual beliefs a. Reverse Mutual Religious Respect

PAGE 104

91 15. My partner feels that I pressure him/her to change his/her religious/spiritual bel iefs a. Reverse Mutual Religious Respect 16. My partner and I often argue about religion a. Reverse Conflict 17. Religious differences are a source of conflict in my relationship with my partner a. Reverse Conflict 18. My partner and I similarly apply our beliefs to how we live our lives a. Behavioral Integration 19. My partner and I avoid discussing our religious/spiritual beliefs because we disagree a. Reverse Conflict 20. I don't feel like I can practice my religion/spirituality in the way that I want because of the way that my partner reacts a. Reverse Mutual Religious Respect 21. My partner doesn't feel like he/she can practice his/her religion/spirituality in the way that he/she wants because of the way that I react a. Reverse Mutual Religious Respect 22. My partner's religious activities take away from our home life activities a. Reverse Conflict 23. My partner thinks that my religious activities takes away from our home life activities a. Reverse Conflict 24. My partner and I attend religious services together a. Joint Religious Activities 25. I want to attend religious services with my partner a. Joint Religious Activities 26. My partner wants to attend religious services with me a. Joint Religious Activities 27. My partner and I participate together in private religious practices (e.g. praying, reading sc ripture, etc.) a. Joint Religious Activities 28. I want to participate in private religious practices (e.g. praying, reading scripture, ect.) with my partner a. Joint Religious Activities

PAGE 105

92 29. My partner wants to participate in private religious practices (e.g. praying, reading scripture, etc.) with me a. Joint Religious Activities

PAGE 106

93 APPENDIX D SHARE SCALE WITH COGNITIVE, BEHAVORIAL AND EMOTIVE LABELS *C= Cognitive, B=Behavioral, E= Emotive 1. My partner and I are on the same page when it comes to religious/spiritual matters (C) 2. Religious faith plays an equally important role in my life and my partner's life (C) 3. My partner and I are in sync with our religious/spiritual views (C) 4. My partner and I are in sync with our religious/spiritual practices (B) 5. My partner and I place equal value on religion/spirituality (C) 6. My partner and I are NOT equally religious/spiritual (C) 7. My partner and I hold the same religious/spiritual core beliefs (C) 8. My partner's actions match his/he r religious/spiritual beliefs to the same degree that my actions match my religious/spiritual beliefs (B) 9. My partner and I agree about the role that religion/spirituality should play in our lives (C) 10. My partner shares my views on what is right and wrong (C ) 11. Other people would say that that my partner and I equally prioritize religion/spirituality (C and B) 12. My partner and I find it difficult to reconcile our religious/spiritual differences (C and B) 13. My partner and I respect each other's religious/spiritual beliefs (C and B) 14. I feel pressured by my partner to change my religious/spiritual beliefs (C and B) 15. My partner feels that I pressure him/her to change his/her religious/spiritual beliefs (C and B) 16. My partner and I often argue about religion (B) 17. Religious d ifferences are a source of conflict in my relationship with my partner (B) 18. My partner and I similarly apply our beliefs to how we live our lives (B) 19. My partner and I avoid discussing our religious/spiritual beliefs because we disagree (B) 20. I don't feel like I can practice my religion/spirituality in the way that I want because of the way that my partner reacts (C and B) 21. My partner doesn't feel like he/she can practice his/her religion/spirituality in the way that he/she wants because of the way that I react (C and B) 22. My partner's religious activities take away from our home life activities (C and B) 23. My partner thinks that my religious activities takes away from our home life activities (C and B) 24. My partner and I attend religious services together (B) 25. I desire to attend religious services with my partner (E) 26. My partner desires to attend religious services with me (E) 27. My partner and I participate together in private religious practices (e.g. praying, reading scripture, etc.) (B) 28. I desire to participate in privat e religious practices (e.g. praying, reading scripture, ect.) with my partner (E) 29. My partner desires to participate in private religious practices (e.g. praying, reading scripture, etc.) with me (E)

PAGE 107

94 APPENDIX E CONCEPT MAP OF SHARE Homogamy Homogamous Beliefs Religious Perspective #1 Same Page #3 Views In Sync #7 Core Beliefs #10 Agree Rightt/Wrong Importance of Religion #2 Equal Role #5 Equal Value #6 (Reverse) NOT Equally R/S #11 Equally Prioritize Homogamous Practices Behavioral Integration #4 Practices In Sync #8 Actions Match Beliefs #9 Agree About Role #18 Similarly Apply Joint Religious Activities #24 Share Religious Service #25 I Want Service #26 Partner Want Service #27 Share Private Practice #28 I Want Private #29 Partner Wants Private Homogamous Acceptance Conflict #12 (Reverse) Difficult to Reconcile #16 (Reverse) Argue #17 (Reverse) Conflict #19 (Reverse) Avoid #22 (Reverse) Partner's Activities Take Away #23 (Reverse) My Activities Take Away Mutual Religioius Respect #13 Respect Beliefs #14 (Reverse) Pressure From #15 (Reverse) Pressue To #20(Reverse)I Can't Practice #21(Reverse) Partner Can't Practice

PAGE 108

95 APPENDIX F INFORMED CONSENT COMPREHENSION QUESTIONS 1. What are you being asked to do? o Complete an online survey privately and honestly o Complete a telephone survey o Complete an online survey with your partner o Complete an e mail survey 2. Finish this sentence: The purpose of this study is to o To better understand an individual's relationship with their parents o To better understand the relationship between religion/spirituality and health o To find out people's preferences in a romantic partner o To learn about different individ ual's pets 3. True or false: After beginning this study, you can decide not to continue at any time, without penalty. o True o False 4. What should you do if you have questions about the study? o Call or email Megan Grigsby o Call the local police o Call the head of the university

PAGE 109

96 APPENDIX G CONCEPT MAP OF SHARE: BEST FITTING MODEL OF PHASE 1 Homogamy Homogamous Beliefs #1 Same Page #2 Equal Role #3 Views In Sync #4 Practices In Sync #5 Equal Value #7 Core Beliefs # 8 Actions Match Beliefs # 9 Agree About Role #11 Equally Prioritize #18 Similarly Apply Homogamous Practices #24 Share Religious Service #25 I Want Service # 26 Partner Wants Service #27 Share Private Practice #28 I Want Private #29 Partner Wants Private Homogamous Acceptance #14 (Reverse) Pressure From #15 (Reverse) Pressue To #16 (Reverse) Argue #17 (Reverse) Conflict #19 (Reverse) Avoid #20(Reverse)I Can't Practice #21(Reverse) Partner Can't Practice #22-(Reverse) Partner's Activities Take Away #23 (Reverse) My Activities Take Away

PAGE 110

97 APPENDIX H KANSAS MARITAL SATISFACTION SCALE Scale (1 7): Extremely dissatisfied, Very dissatisfied, Somewhat dissatisfied, Mixed, Somewhat satisfied, Very satisfied, Extremely satisfied 1. How satisfied are you with your relationship ? 2. How satisfied are you with your significant other as a partner ? 3. How satisfied are you with your relationship with you r partner ?

PAGE 111

98 APPENDIX I COMMITMENT INVENTORY SUBSCALES Scale (1 7): Strongly disagree, Disagree, Slightly disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Slightly agree, Agree, Strongly Agree Relationship A genda 1. I may decide that I want to end this relationship at some point in the future ( ). 2. I want this relationship to stay strong no matter what rough times we may encounter (+). 3. I want to grow old with my partner (+). 4. My relationship with my partner is clearly part of my future lif e plans (+). 5. I may not want to be with my partner a few years from now ( ). 6. I do not have life long plans for this relationship ( ). Couple Identity 7. I want to keep the plans for my life somewhat separate from my partner's plans for life ( ). 8. I am willing to have or develop a strong sense of an identity as a couple with my partner (+). 9. I tend to think about how things affect "us" as a couple more than how things affect "me" as an individual (+). 10. I like to think of my partner and me more in terms of "us" an d "we" than "me" and "him/her" (+). 11. I am more comfortable thinking in terms of "my" things than "our" things ( ). 12. I do not want to have a strong identity as a couple with my partner ( ).

PAGE 112

99 Primacy of R elationship 1. My relationship with my partner comes before my relationships with my friends (+). 2. My career (or job, studies, homemaking, child rearing, etc.) is more important to me than my relationship with my partner ( ). 3. When push comes to shove, my relationship with my partner often must take a backseat to oth er interests of mine ( ). 4. When the pressure is really on and I must choose, my partner's happiness is not as important to me as are other things in my life ( ). 5. My relationship with my partner is more important to me than almost anything else in my life (+). 6. When push comes to shove, my relationship with my partner comes first (+). Satisfaction with S acrifice 1. It can be personally fulfilling to give up something for my partner (+). 2. I do not get much fulfillment out of sacrificing for my partner ( ). 3. I get satisfaction out of doing things for my partner, even if it means I miss out on something I want for myself (+). 4. I am not the kind of person that finds satisfaction in putting aside my interests for the sake of my relationship with my partner ( ). 5. It makes me feel good to sacrifice for my partner (+). 6. Giving something up for my partner is frequently not worth the trouble ( ).

PAGE 113

100 APPENDIX J PERCEIVED STRESS SCALE The questions in this scale ask you about your feelings and thoughts during the last month. In each case, you will be asked to indicate by circling how often you felt or thought a certain way. 0 = Never 1 = Almost Never 2 = Sometimes 3 = Fairly Often 4 = Very Often 1. In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly? 2. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life? 3. In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and "stressed"? 4. In the last month, how often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems? 5. In the last month, how often have you felt that things were going your way? 6. In the last month, how often have you found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do? 7. In the last month, how often have you been able to control irritations in your life? 8. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of thin gs? 9. In the last month, how often have you been angered because of things that were outside of your control? 10. In the last month, how often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?

PAGE 114

101 Appendix K SATISFACTION WITH LIFE SCALE Below are five statements that you may agree or disagree with. Using the 1 7 scale below, indicate your agreement with each item by placing the appropriate number on the line preceding that item. Please be open and honest in your responding. Scale (1 7): Strongly disagree, Disagree, Slightly disagree, Neither agree nor disagree, Slightly agree, Agree, Strongly Agree 1. In most ways my life is close to my ideal. 2. The conditions of my life are excellent. 3. I am satisfied with my life. 4. So far I have gotten the important things I want in life. 5. If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing.

PAGE 115

102 APPENDIX L GLASS AND WRIGHT QUESTIONS 1. During your current relationship what is the greatest extent that you have been sexually involved with someone other than your partner ? 1. No sexual or physical involvement 2. Kissing 3. Hugging and sexual caressing 4. Sexually intimate without intercourse 5. Sexual intercourse. 2. What is the greatest extent that you have been emotionally involved with someone other than your partner while you have been in your current relationship ? 1. No emotional involvement 2. Slight emotional involvement 3. Moderate emotional involvement 4. Strong emotional involvement 5. Extremely deep emotional involvement 3. Some extramarital involvements are mainly emotional with little or no sexual involvement, and others are just the opposite. How would you describe your extramarital relationship(s)? 1. Never involved sexually or emotionally 2. Entirely sexual 3. Mainly sexual 4. More sexual than emotional 5. More emotional than sexual 6. Mainly emotional 7. Entirely emotional

PAGE 116

103 APPENDIX M MARITAL INSTABILITY INDEX Sometimes couples experience serious problems in their marriage and have thoughts of ending their marriage. Even people who get al ong quite well with their partner sometimes wonder wh ether their relationship is working out. Scale ( 0 1 ): No or Yes 1. In the last six months, have you thought your current relationship might be in trouble? 2. In the last six months, has the thought of getting a divorce or separation crossed your mind? 3. In the last six months, have you or your partner seriously suggested the idea of divorce?

PAGE 117

104 APPENDIX N DANGER SIGNS SCALE Scale (1 3): Never or Almost never Once in a While Frequently 1. Little arguments escalate into ugly fights with accusations, criticisms, name calling, or bringing up past hurts. 2. My partner criticizes or belittles my opinions, feelings, or desires. 3. My partner seems to view my words or actions more negatively than I mean them to be. 4. When we argue, one of us withdraws... that is, does not want to talk about it anymore or leaves the s cene. 5. When we have a problem to solve, it is like we are on opposite teams.

PAGE 118

105 APPENDIX O FINAL LIST OF ITEMS INCLUDED IN SHARE 1. My partner and I are on the same page when it comes to religious/spiritual matters a. Homogamous Beliefs 2. Religious faith plays an equally important role in my life and my partner's life a. Homogamous Beliefs 3. My partner and I are in sync with our religious/spiritual views a. Homogamous Beliefs 4. My partner and I are in sync with our religious/spiritual pra ctices a. Homogamous Beliefs 5. My partner and I place equal value on religion/spirituality a. Homogamous Beliefs 6. My partner and I are NOT equally religious/spiritual a. Reverse Homogamous Beliefs 7. My partner and I hold the same religious/spiritual core beliefs a. Homogamous Beliefs 8. My partner's actions match his/her religious/spiritual beliefs to the same degree that my actions match my religious/spiritual beliefs a. Homogamous Beliefs 9. My partner and I agree about the role that religion/spirituality should play in o ur lives a. Homogamous Beliefs 10. Other people would say that my partner and I equally prioritize religion/spirituality a. Homogamous Beliefs 11. My partner and I find it difficult to reconcile our religious/spiritual differences a. Reserve Homogamous Acceptance 12. I fee l pressured by my partner to change my religious/spiritual beliefs a. Reserve Homogamous Acceptance 13. My partner feels that I pressure him/her to change his/her religious/spiritual beliefs a. Reserve Homogamous Acceptance 14. My partner and I often argue about religion a. Reserve Homogamous Acceptance

PAGE 119

106 15. Religious differences are a source of conflict in my relationship with my partner a. Reserve Homogamous Acceptance 16. My partner and I similarly apply our beliefs to how we live our lives a. Homogamous Beliefs 17. My partner and I avoid discussing our religious/spiritual beliefs because we disagree a. Reserve Homogamous Acceptance 18. I don't feel like I can practice my religion/spirituality in the way that I want because of the way that my partner reacts a. Reserve Homogamous Accept ance 19. My partner doesn't feel like he/she can practice his/her religion/spirituality in the way that he/she wants because of the way that I react a. Reserve Homogamous Acceptance 20. My partner's religious activities take away from our home life activities a. Reserve Homogamous Acceptance 21. My partner thinks that my religious activities takes away from our home life activities a. Reserve Homogamous Acceptance 22. How often do you attend religious services? a. Practicing Together 23. How often does your partner attend religious services? a. Practicing Together 24. I want to attend religious services with my partner a. Practicing Together 25. My partner wants to attend religious services with me a. Practicing Together 26. How often do you participate in religious activities outside of a p lace of worship (e.g. praying, reading scripture, etc.)? a. Practicing Together 27. How often does your partner participate in religious activities outside of a place of worship (e.g. praying, reading scripture, etc.)? a. Practicing Together 28. I want to participate in private religious practices (e.g. praying, reading scripture, ect.) with my partner

PAGE 120

107 a. Practicing Together 29. My partner wants to participate in private religious practices (e.g. praying, reading scripture, etc.) with me a. Practicing Toge ther

PAGE 121

108 APPENDIX P CONCEPT MAP OF SHARE: PHASE 2 Homogamy Homogamous Beliefs #1 Same Page #2 Equal Role #3 Views In Sync #4 Practices In Sync #5 Equal Value #6 (Reverse) NOT Equally R/S #7 Core Beliefs # 8 Actions Match Beliefs # 9 Agree About Role #11 (New #10) Equally Prioritize #18 (New #16) Similarly Apply Practicing Together Homo Attend: ( New #22 Freq Attend) (New #23 Freq Partner Attend) Desire Attend: (New #24 I Want to Attend) (New #25 Partner Wants to Attend) Homo PRP : (New #26 Freq of PRP) (New #27 Freq of Partner's PRP) Desire PRP : (New #28 I Want PRP) (New #29 Partner Wants PRP) Homogamous Acceptance #12 (New #11; Reverse) Difficult to Reconcile #14 (New #12; Reverse) Pressure From #15 (New #13; Reverse) Pressue To #16 (New #14; Reverse) Argue #17 (New #15; Reverse) Conflict #19 (New #17; Reverse) Avoid #20 (New #18; Reverse) I Can't Practice #21 (New #19; Reverse) Partner Can't Practice #22 (New #20; Reverse) Partner's Activities Take Away #23 (New #21; Reverse) My Activities Take Away